Another interesting stat (YPPT)
season=2024 and tA(YPPT)-tA(o:YPPT)>14 and week>3
(3-11) 79%
This only has 5 teams in 2024 add (and week and team) or just add and team, if you look at 2023 your 10-9 i think but your 68% OV, I think this would be a tough one to track.
This only has 5 teams in 2024 add (and week and team) or just add and team, if you look at 2023 your 10-9 i think but your 68% OV, I think this would be a tough one to track.
season=2024 and tA(RTD)-tA(o:RTD)
This could just be a one-season fluke, unlikely to be repeated.
season < 2024 and tA(RTD)-tA(o:RTD)>1.1 and line>-14 and H
ATS: 96-102-3 (0.2,48.5%)
A sample size of over 200 games is much more reliable than a sample size of less than 20. The 2024 season results were also heavily dependent on (or skewed by) two teams, PHL and WAS.
You are a better handicapper than I am, JC, but I would urge caution on this query.
season=2024 and tA(RTD)-tA(o:RTD)
This could just be a one-season fluke, unlikely to be repeated.
season < 2024 and tA(RTD)-tA(o:RTD)>1.1 and line>-14 and H
ATS: 96-102-3 (0.2,48.5%)
A sample size of over 200 games is much more reliable than a sample size of less than 20. The 2024 season results were also heavily dependent on (or skewed by) two teams, PHL and WAS.
You are a better handicapper than I am, JC, but I would urge caution on this query.
I agree with you DBW. My feelings are that as the game evolves due to widespread acceptance and legality for gambling, for a new
analytics based offensive schemes, general rules changes affecting the NFL product, my long view of large sample sizes has been reduced.
I would rather have a strong trend over say a 2 year span over a less than strong trend of a 5 year span. eg (30-10) over (70-40)
For example: An increasing rushing team:
Season=2024 and p:RY>op:RY and pp:RY>opp:RY and ppp:RY>oppp:RY and 48>total>38.5 is (30-15) ATS and (31-14) O/U
In today's game dominated by passing OCs, I like this trend a lot. My rear view mirror glance used to be from 2016, now it is 3 years maximum and
tending quickly to just last year. This does mean I stop looking for long term gems but put recent trends ahead of 4 or 5 seasons past.
I agree with you DBW. My feelings are that as the game evolves due to widespread acceptance and legality for gambling, for a new
analytics based offensive schemes, general rules changes affecting the NFL product, my long view of large sample sizes has been reduced.
I would rather have a strong trend over say a 2 year span over a less than strong trend of a 5 year span. eg (30-10) over (70-40)
For example: An increasing rushing team:
Season=2024 and p:RY>op:RY and pp:RY>opp:RY and ppp:RY>oppp:RY and 48>total>38.5 is (30-15) ATS and (31-14) O/U
In today's game dominated by passing OCs, I like this trend a lot. My rear view mirror glance used to be from 2016, now it is 3 years maximum and
tending quickly to just last year. This does mean I stop looking for long term gems but put recent trends ahead of 4 or 5 seasons past.
@jowchoo
I kept having trouble with your query in Comment #37 until I finally noticed that you had capitalized "Season."
I checked the query for 2023 and both the ATS and OU were basically even. Using "season < 2024" shows even more evidence for no trend with over 1200 QRs. I expect this particular query to be within a few games of 50/50 for both ATS and OU rather than a sharp regression of ATS failures and Unders.
OTOH, maybe PHL and WAS have fundamentally altered the NFL so that HC's will be calling more rushes. Of course rushing on first down is usually a mistake.
@jowchoo
I kept having trouble with your query in Comment #37 until I finally noticed that you had capitalized "Season."
I checked the query for 2023 and both the ATS and OU were basically even. Using "season < 2024" shows even more evidence for no trend with over 1200 QRs. I expect this particular query to be within a few games of 50/50 for both ATS and OU rather than a sharp regression of ATS failures and Unders.
OTOH, maybe PHL and WAS have fundamentally altered the NFL so that HC's will be calling more rushes. Of course rushing on first down is usually a mistake.
season=2024 and p:HW and pp:HW and D and line<3.5 (9-1) 90%
After back to back home wins and now a DOG of less than 3.5.......................;-)
season=2024 and p:HW and pp:HW and D and line<3.5 (9-1) 90%
After back to back home wins and now a DOG of less than 3.5.......................;-)
This is an OVER tracker.
This is an OVER tracker.
Favorite after being involved in back to back overs has a nice strong cover record.
Favorite after being involved in back to back overs has a nice strong cover record.
season=2024 and p:U and pp:U and F and 51.5>total>37.5 and line<-2 (24-7) 77% to the OVER
This query is (29-2) in the 6pt teaser mode. Will make me money when the ANCHOR TEASERS
start.
season=2024 and p:U and pp:U and F and 51.5>total>37.5 and line<-2 (24-7) 77% to the OVER
This query is (29-2) in the 6pt teaser mode. Will make me money when the ANCHOR TEASERS
start.
The takeaway here is:
After a team has played back to back OVERS or UNDERS and is now favored, have a very strong bias in their third game.
UNDER,UNDER=UNDER
OVER,OVER=ATS WIN
if the proper filters are followed.
The takeaway here is:
After a team has played back to back OVERS or UNDERS and is now favored, have a very strong bias in their third game.
UNDER,UNDER=UNDER
OVER,OVER=ATS WIN
if the proper filters are followed.
Correction:
UNDER,UNDER=OVER (77%)
OVER.OVER= ATS WIN (70%)
Correction:
UNDER,UNDER=OVER (77%)
OVER.OVER= ATS WIN (70%)
I assume this is what you wanted:
season=2024 and p:W and pp:W and n:DIV and tA(sacks)>oA(sacks) and total > 37.5
I assume this is what you wanted:
season=2024 and p:W and pp:W and n:DIV and tA(sacks)>oA(sacks) and total > 37.5
HF and 10 > PPRSW > 1 and season>2005 and PRSW<12 and week<11 and n:D and o:PRSW < 12 and o:ou streak < 4 and line > -6 and rest< 13 and o:streak<3 and streak<2
HF and 10 > PPRSW > 1 and season>2005 and PRSW<12 and week<11 and n:D and o:PRSW < 12 and o:ou streak < 4 and line > -6 and rest< 13 and o:streak<3 and streak<2
@DogbiteWilliams
Youre a difficult one to please or are too selective to me. In this case to please you is something.
Been using a few of these I felt like posting this one. The rest I am not sure I want to divulge.
@DogbiteWilliams
Youre a difficult one to please or are too selective to me. In this case to please you is something.
Been using a few of these I felt like posting this one. The rest I am not sure I want to divulge.
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.