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 ?
Yes, I it is the one area where recency bias wins me over.
0
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
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 ?
Yes, I it is the one area where recency bias wins me over.
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: 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 ? Yes, I it is the one area where recency bias wins me over.
Just to clarify..I would just pass on the wager
0
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo:
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: 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 ? Yes, I it is the one area where recency bias wins me over.
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo: Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: 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 ? Yes, I it is the one area where recency bias wins me over. Just to clarify..I would just pass on the wager
OK, that makes sense .............
0
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo:
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo: Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: 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 ? Yes, I it is the one area where recency bias wins me over. Just to clarify..I would just pass on the wager
I game I find interesting is Dolphins/Texans. Dolphins can't beat winning teams on the road but Texans still remain the lowest ranked team in both yards per pts and pts per plays margins of all division leaders.
According to expected wins Texans should be 7-6 and according to my PR II Texans should be 7-6.
7-6 is a winning team but this game will tell us alot about both these teams. I don't like to read too much into 1 game but I think this game will be very telling on both these 2 teams and what the future may hold come playoff time.
1
I game I find interesting is Dolphins/Texans. Dolphins can't beat winning teams on the road but Texans still remain the lowest ranked team in both yards per pts and pts per plays margins of all division leaders.
According to expected wins Texans should be 7-6 and according to my PR II Texans should be 7-6.
7-6 is a winning team but this game will tell us alot about both these teams. I don't like to read too much into 1 game but I think this game will be very telling on both these 2 teams and what the future may hold come playoff time.
Good stuff as usual Claw. Nice hit on that SF pick last week.
any thoughts on tonight’s game. Seems most of the forum is on the Rams, I really wonder if they will be able to give the same energy as they did on Sunday against the bills on a short week. Seems like a big let down spot. But it is a division game. The NFL really screwed them with this scheduling. Thursday night games should be banned this late in the season
GL
0
Good stuff as usual Claw. Nice hit on that SF pick last week.
any thoughts on tonight’s game. Seems most of the forum is on the Rams, I really wonder if they will be able to give the same energy as they did on Sunday against the bills on a short week. Seems like a big let down spot. But it is a division game. The NFL really screwed them with this scheduling. Thursday night games should be banned this late in the season
Good stuff as usual Claw. Nice hit on that SF pick last week. any thoughts on tonight’s game. Seems most of the forum is on the Rams, I really wonder if they will be able to give the same energy as they did on Sunday against the bills on a short week. Seems like a big let down spot. But it is a division game. The NFL really screwed them with this scheduling. Thursday night games should be banned this late in the season GL
I didn't see your comment but I had no thoughts anyway. Alot of people on you tube did like the Rams as well...............
0
Quote Originally Posted by WilliamMunny:
Good stuff as usual Claw. Nice hit on that SF pick last week. any thoughts on tonight’s game. Seems most of the forum is on the Rams, I really wonder if they will be able to give the same energy as they did on Sunday against the bills on a short week. Seems like a big let down spot. But it is a division game. The NFL really screwed them with this scheduling. Thursday night games should be banned this late in the season GL
I didn't see your comment but I had no thoughts anyway. Alot of people on you tube did like the Rams as well...............
They are off 4 ATS losses and have given up the most pts all season 42 and the 2cd most 38 prior to the 4 game ATS losing streak and they scored the least amount and 3rd least amount.
Teams don't sustain giving up the most while at the same time scoring the least.
And Falcons are also a play on team on my New BF II regression method which doesn't make alot of picks per year.
And they are a play on team on my other new regression method and have the highest regression play on mismatch yet By 34.7.
Alot of regression indicators pointing to the Falcons this week.
I could add another unit onto this play.
The interesting thing is on scores and odds it is 95% of tickets on Falcons.
Crazy talk people, wow.
but only like 66% of the money.
So 5% of tickets on Raiders but 34% of the money. A sign sharps are backing Raiders and the line did drop from 4.5 to 4 so another sign sharp money on Raiders.
That high of a difference between tickets and money does seem to favor the money with sharps most times from my limited experience following this.
But I'll fade the sharps here and Ride the Falcons with far too many regression indicators on them.
1
Falcons -4 over Raiders --- 1.1 units
Falcons a BF play on team.
They are off 4 ATS losses and have given up the most pts all season 42 and the 2cd most 38 prior to the 4 game ATS losing streak and they scored the least amount and 3rd least amount.
Teams don't sustain giving up the most while at the same time scoring the least.
And Falcons are also a play on team on my New BF II regression method which doesn't make alot of picks per year.
And they are a play on team on my other new regression method and have the highest regression play on mismatch yet By 34.7.
Alot of regression indicators pointing to the Falcons this week.
I could add another unit onto this play.
The interesting thing is on scores and odds it is 95% of tickets on Falcons.
Crazy talk people, wow.
but only like 66% of the money.
So 5% of tickets on Raiders but 34% of the money. A sign sharps are backing Raiders and the line did drop from 4.5 to 4 so another sign sharp money on Raiders.
That high of a difference between tickets and money does seem to favor the money with sharps most times from my limited experience following this.
But I'll fade the sharps here and Ride the Falcons with far too many regression indicators on them.
Packers -2.5 (-115) over Seahawks --- 1.15 units Seahawks a BF Fade. And Packers are the better team as well.. My new regression method has Seahawks by 4.3. Interesting teams favored under 5 pts are 1-9 ATS. I doubt it could be sustainable to be a 90% fade though.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? Favored under 5 points according to your method or favored under 5 points in general? Thanks.
0
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Packers -2.5 (-115) over Seahawks --- 1.15 units Seahawks a BF Fade. And Packers are the better team as well.. My new regression method has Seahawks by 4.3. Interesting teams favored under 5 pts are 1-9 ATS. I doubt it could be sustainable to be a 90% fade though.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? Favored under 5 points according to your method or favored under 5 points in general? Thanks.
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: Packers -2.5 (-115) over Seahawks --- 1.15 units Seahawks a BF Fade. And Packers are the better team as well.. My new regression method has Seahawks by 4.3. Interesting teams favored under 5 pts are 1-9 ATS. I doubt it could be sustainable to be a 90% fade though. Can you clarify what you mean by this? Favored under 5 points according to your method or favored under 5 points in general? Thanks.
5 pts in my new regression method.
0
Quote Originally Posted by begginerboy:
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: Packers -2.5 (-115) over Seahawks --- 1.15 units Seahawks a BF Fade. And Packers are the better team as well.. My new regression method has Seahawks by 4.3. Interesting teams favored under 5 pts are 1-9 ATS. I doubt it could be sustainable to be a 90% fade though. Can you clarify what you mean by this? Favored under 5 points according to your method or favored under 5 points in general? Thanks.
season=2024 and tA(YPPT)>oA(YPPT) and AF and line<-1 (15-4) in support of ATLANTA. Lets see if we beat the so called sharps on this one...............................................gl claw
Sweet ...........
0
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo:
season=2024 and tA(YPPT)>oA(YPPT) and AF and line<-1 (15-4) in support of ATLANTA. Lets see if we beat the so called sharps on this one...............................................gl claw
Guy on you tube saying Steelers one of if not the biggest public dog of this season. And then he made a good case to back the Eagles on top of fading the public.
Steve Fezzik likes Eagles -4.5 as well which I think he got last week on the look-ahead line.
Eagles are the play I believe.
As much as I want the Steelers to win as my week 1 top 3 largest performer and off a 10 win season, no way I'd back them this week even though I have played them successfully many times this season.
Steve Fezzik also likes Seahawks. He says his PR has game a PK. He would back Seahawks at +3 but not +2.5.
I disagree with the Great Steve Fezzik on this one.
0
82% of bets on Steelers with 85% of money.
Guy on you tube saying Steelers one of if not the biggest public dog of this season. And then he made a good case to back the Eagles on top of fading the public.
Steve Fezzik likes Eagles -4.5 as well which I think he got last week on the look-ahead line.
Eagles are the play I believe.
As much as I want the Steelers to win as my week 1 top 3 largest performer and off a 10 win season, no way I'd back them this week even though I have played them successfully many times this season.
Steve Fezzik also likes Seahawks. He says his PR has game a PK. He would back Seahawks at +3 but not +2.5.
I disagree with the Great Steve Fezzik on this one.
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.
Hot Forum Topics
