Like it man. Today They are going to be wearing a green band on their jersey in tribute to Sasha mchale and a moment of silence before the game. Look for them to come out and play hard and motivated for coach mchale.
0
Like it man. Today They are going to be wearing a green band on their jersey in tribute to Sasha mchale and a moment of silence before the game. Look for them to come out and play hard and motivated for coach mchale.
He is basing it on the emotion of the team after learning of the tragic death of Kevin McHale's daughter. Probably a good play but I would not get carried with a wager like this. Just as good a chance they come out flat and then pour it on after the first quarter.
0
He is basing it on the emotion of the team after learning of the tragic death of Kevin McHale's daughter. Probably a good play but I would not get carried with a wager like this. Just as good a chance they come out flat and then pour it on after the first quarter.
So what does the team that covered 1Q have in common with Toronto?
Team that Houston covered in 1Q, allow the opposing team an average FG% of 45.5%
Team that Houston DID NOT covered in 1Q, allow the opposing team an average FG% of 44.2%
Team that Houston covered in 1Q, has an average FG% of 44.8%
Team that Houston did not covered in 1Q has an average FG% of 45.4%
Toronto has allow opposing team to shoot FG% of 45.3%.
Toronto has an average shooting FG% of 41.9%.
Conclusion: Toronto belongs in both subsets of allowing opposing team to shoot a high percentage of 45.5%, while Toronto shooting a low FG% of 41.9%. DOes this make any sense? Although the ATS doesn't favor HOU covering in 1Q, using FG% and "allowing opposting" team FG% said Houston should covered 1Q.
Geez, that sounded complicated. Maybe somebody can explained it better. GL tonight!
0
HOU at home 1Q, 2-4
HOU as Favorite record in 1Q, 2-3
Overall SU record in 1Q, 6-6.
So what does the team that covered 1Q have in common with Toronto?
Team that Houston covered in 1Q, allow the opposing team an average FG% of 45.5%
Team that Houston DID NOT covered in 1Q, allow the opposing team an average FG% of 44.2%
Team that Houston covered in 1Q, has an average FG% of 44.8%
Team that Houston did not covered in 1Q has an average FG% of 45.4%
Toronto has allow opposing team to shoot FG% of 45.3%.
Toronto has an average shooting FG% of 41.9%.
Conclusion: Toronto belongs in both subsets of allowing opposing team to shoot a high percentage of 45.5%, while Toronto shooting a low FG% of 41.9%. DOes this make any sense? Although the ATS doesn't favor HOU covering in 1Q, using FG% and "allowing opposting" team FG% said Houston should covered 1Q.
Geez, that sounded complicated. Maybe somebody can explained it better. GL tonight!
So what does the team that covered 1Q have in common with Toronto?
Team that Houston covered in 1Q, allow the opposing team an average FG% of 45.5%
Team that Houston DID NOT covered in 1Q, allow the opposing team an average FG% of 44.2%
Team that Houston covered in 1Q, has an average FG% of 44.8%
Team that Houston did not covered in 1Q has an average FG% of 45.4%
Toronto has allow opposing team to shoot FG% of 45.3%.
Toronto has an average shooting FG% of 41.9%.
Conclusion: Toronto belongs in both subsets of allowing opposing team to shoot a high percentage of 45.5%, while Toronto shooting a low FG% of 41.9%. DOes this make any sense? Although the ATS doesn't favor HOU covering in 1Q, using FG% and "allowing opposting" team FG% said Houston should covered 1Q.
Geez, that sounded complicated. Maybe somebody can explained it better. GL tonight!
Challenge accepted.
The math wizards have spoken, Houston has an edge on covering 1Q.
0
Quote Originally Posted by BigLick08:
HOU at home 1Q, 2-4
HOU as Favorite record in 1Q, 2-3
Overall SU record in 1Q, 6-6.
So what does the team that covered 1Q have in common with Toronto?
Team that Houston covered in 1Q, allow the opposing team an average FG% of 45.5%
Team that Houston DID NOT covered in 1Q, allow the opposing team an average FG% of 44.2%
Team that Houston covered in 1Q, has an average FG% of 44.8%
Team that Houston did not covered in 1Q has an average FG% of 45.4%
Toronto has allow opposing team to shoot FG% of 45.3%.
Toronto has an average shooting FG% of 41.9%.
Conclusion: Toronto belongs in both subsets of allowing opposing team to shoot a high percentage of 45.5%, while Toronto shooting a low FG% of 41.9%. DOes this make any sense? Although the ATS doesn't favor HOU covering in 1Q, using FG% and "allowing opposting" team FG% said Houston should covered 1Q.
Geez, that sounded complicated. Maybe somebody can explained it better. GL tonight!
Challenge accepted.
The math wizards have spoken, Houston has an edge on covering 1Q.
TOR is shooting less that Team A, and allow FG% close to Team A. In other words, any team that has a lower shooting FG% than Team A, and also allowed a FG% close to 45.5 Houston should win 1Q. That's the theory.
So Prestige, what's your reason that Houston will covered 1Q?
0
That wasn't a very clear explanation, how's this.
Team A = Team that covered 1Q
Team B = Team that did not covered 1Q
Team ATeam BTOR HOU
Avg FG% 44.845.441.9 43.1
Allow FG% 45.544.245.3 44.2
TOR is shooting less that Team A, and allow FG% close to Team A. In other words, any team that has a lower shooting FG% than Team A, and also allowed a FG% close to 45.5 Houston should win 1Q. That's the theory.
So Prestige, what's your reason that Houston will covered 1Q?
Only concern is Kyle lowry making his return to Houston since being traded in offseason. He will be looking to make a statement game and will come out firing, hopefully he misses a lot.
Go Rockets -2 1st quarter
0
Only concern is Kyle lowry making his return to Houston since being traded in offseason. He will be looking to make a statement game and will come out firing, hopefully he misses a lot.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.