My new regression method I not sure what the parameters should be as of now.
But teams with a mismatch of 17 to 21.9 are 5-2 ATS past 2 weeks.
Over 22 mismatch is 4-2 ATS, pretty strong start for teams over 17 at 9-4 ATS.
LIONS by 19 over Bills.
Lions more due to bounce back here but they do have alot of injuries and to some degree those injuries could be responsible for the reason they look like a team due to bounce back as they haven't played as well recently.
3
Quote Originally Posted by lmb4321:
@theclaw Any leans on Lions/Bills..?
My new regression method I not sure what the parameters should be as of now.
But teams with a mismatch of 17 to 21.9 are 5-2 ATS past 2 weeks.
Over 22 mismatch is 4-2 ATS, pretty strong start for teams over 17 at 9-4 ATS.
LIONS by 19 over Bills.
Lions more due to bounce back here but they do have alot of injuries and to some degree those injuries could be responsible for the reason they look like a team due to bounce back as they haven't played as well recently.
good luck developing your regression models. Imho, regression has a lot of promise and is the cornerstone of my approach. Contrarian and takes advantage of recency bias which single handedly destroys players bankrolls especialy those with no discipline.
1
@theclaw
good luck developing your regression models. Imho, regression has a lot of promise and is the cornerstone of my approach. Contrarian and takes advantage of recency bias which single handedly destroys players bankrolls especialy those with no discipline.
Colts no cover win vs Pats won by 1 point @ pats now rested but denver is far better colts QB richarson is an accident waitbng to happen opssssssssss bad trend on denver
2 of em 0-5 after MNF but they are rested however 1-12 before chargers nope 2-4 they drilld raiders before chargers 37-18
0
Colts no cover win vs Pats won by 1 point @ pats now rested but denver is far better colts QB richarson is an accident waitbng to happen opssssssssss bad trend on denver
2 of em 0-5 after MNF but they are rested however 1-12 before chargers nope 2-4 they drilld raiders before chargers 37-18
Did you start tracking the new method at the beginning of the year, or did it need some data before it started? Thanks in advance
Just starting tracking every game past 2 weeks. But I have broke-down many games and it seems like a good regression method.
I've been working on it past couple of years but didn't really have a good concept of how to use it.
It does take time before I can use it. Maybe 2cd half of year only . That part will take time to figure-out.
My new BF II I have broken-down over many years and it is off the hook incredible. Didn't lose a game last season but it doesn't come up alot.
Works very well early in the season. Like I said 3-0 ATS this season early on. I have check many seasons early on, like over 10 seasons and it is insanely good.
1
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
Did you start tracking the new method at the beginning of the year, or did it need some data before it started? Thanks in advance
Just starting tracking every game past 2 weeks. But I have broke-down many games and it seems like a good regression method.
I've been working on it past couple of years but didn't really have a good concept of how to use it.
It does take time before I can use it. Maybe 2cd half of year only . That part will take time to figure-out.
My new BF II I have broken-down over many years and it is off the hook incredible. Didn't lose a game last season but it doesn't come up alot.
Works very well early in the season. Like I said 3-0 ATS this season early on. I have check many seasons early on, like over 10 seasons and it is insanely good.
@theclaw good luck developing your regression models. Imho, regression has a lot of promise and is the cornerstone of my approach. Contrarian and takes advantage of recency bias which single handedly destroys players bankrolls especialy those with no discipline.
Exactly, regression is real, it happens. We just saw that with the Eagles who easily could have lost SU.
1
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo:
@theclaw good luck developing your regression models. Imho, regression has a lot of promise and is the cornerstone of my approach. Contrarian and takes advantage of recency bias which single handedly destroys players bankrolls especialy those with no discipline.
Exactly, regression is real, it happens. We just saw that with the Eagles who easily could have lost SU.
Colts no cover win vs Pats won by 1 point @ pats now rested but denver is far better colts QB richarson is an accident waitbng to happen opssssssssss bad trend on denver 2 of em 0-5 after MNF but they are rested however 1-12 before chargers nope 2-4 they drilld raiders before chargers 37-18
I agree with what you are saying but there is regression to the mean. No team is as good or bad as they look.
Finding the right time for a team to regress is the tricky part.
1
Quote Originally Posted by tjones1270:
Colts no cover win vs Pats won by 1 point @ pats now rested but denver is far better colts QB richarson is an accident waitbng to happen opssssssssss bad trend on denver 2 of em 0-5 after MNF but they are rested however 1-12 before chargers nope 2-4 they drilld raiders before chargers 37-18
I agree with what you are saying but there is regression to the mean. No team is as good or bad as they look.
Finding the right time for a team to regress is the tricky part.
I took IND for one unit. I found a query that is a whopping 150-71-3 ATS. Unfortunately it has lost the last four, so maybe the query itself is in regression.
1
I took IND for one unit. I found a query that is a whopping 150-71-3 ATS. Unfortunately it has lost the last four, so maybe the query itself is in regression.
I took IND for one unit. I found a query that is a whopping 150-71-3 ATS. Unfortunately it has lost the last four, so maybe the query itself is in regression.
Always a quandry when recent form is opposite to the trend. For me the recent form over rides the trend................gl
0
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
I took IND for one unit. I found a query that is a whopping 150-71-3 ATS. Unfortunately it has lost the last four, so maybe the query itself is in regression.
Always a quandry when recent form is opposite to the trend. For me the recent form over rides the trend................gl
I took IND for one unit. I found a query that is a whopping 150-71-3 ATS. Unfortunately it has lost the last four, so maybe the query itself is in regression.
Sweet trend. ............ Broncos playing on too high a level according to my new regression method.
Combined with this looks very good.
1
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
I took IND for one unit. I found a query that is a whopping 150-71-3 ATS. Unfortunately it has lost the last four, so maybe the query itself is in regression.
Sweet trend. ............ Broncos playing on too high a level according to my new regression method.
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: I took IND for one unit. I found a query that is a whopping 150-71-3 ATS. Unfortunately it has lost the last four, so maybe the query itself is in regression. Always a quandry when recent form is opposite to the trend. For me the recent form over rides the trend................gl
Is only 4 straight losses enough to over-ride a trend ?
0
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo:
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: I took IND for one unit. I found a query that is a whopping 150-71-3 ATS. Unfortunately it has lost the last four, so maybe the query itself is in regression. Always a quandry when recent form is opposite to the trend. For me the recent form over rides the trend................gl
Is only 4 straight losses enough to over-ride a trend ?
Guys on you tube talking about Steelers being +5 VS Eagles saying how could they be getting that many points.
They said line seems fishy.
I don't think they understand Steelers need to beat Ravens next week to win the division. They could lose the remaining 3 other games.
Even if they beat the Eagles and then lose to Ravens they still need to win at least 1 other game just to tie the Ravens assuming the Ravens win out which is very likely they will.
I think Ravens hold the tiebreaker since head to head would be 1-1. So division record is next tiebreaker. Steelers losing gives them 3 losses to Ravens 2.
0
Guys on you tube talking about Steelers being +5 VS Eagles saying how could they be getting that many points.
They said line seems fishy.
I don't think they understand Steelers need to beat Ravens next week to win the division. They could lose the remaining 3 other games.
Even if they beat the Eagles and then lose to Ravens they still need to win at least 1 other game just to tie the Ravens assuming the Ravens win out which is very likely they will.
I think Ravens hold the tiebreaker since head to head would be 1-1. So division record is next tiebreaker. Steelers losing gives them 3 losses to Ravens 2.
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.