Another angle I touched on briefly in this thread.....a team with the lesser amount of wins in their previous 8 games in comparison to their present opponent have gone 25-7 ATS in the conference championship game, which fits the Bills. If their present opponent played in at least 3 playoff games the season prior, this moves to 7-0 ATS (+11.6), 6-1 straight up (+8.0) and 1-6 o/u (-3.6).....average line +2.43, 45.6, average score....25.6-16.4
I believe you're right & I'm wrong. Buff/KC goes Under!!!
p:playoffs=1 and p:margin<7 and A and p:D and o;rest<10 and NDIV and 45>p:points>22 and total<60 and op:H and line<14.5
Under by -17, -10 & -20
Bills m/l & Under
0
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999:
Another angle I touched on briefly in this thread.....a team with the lesser amount of wins in their previous 8 games in comparison to their present opponent have gone 25-7 ATS in the conference championship game, which fits the Bills. If their present opponent played in at least 3 playoff games the season prior, this moves to 7-0 ATS (+11.6), 6-1 straight up (+8.0) and 1-6 o/u (-3.6).....average line +2.43, 45.6, average score....25.6-16.4
I believe you're right & I'm wrong. Buff/KC goes Under!!!
p:playoffs=1 and p:margin<7 and A and p:D and o;rest<10 and NDIV and 45>p:points>22 and total<60 and op:H and line<14.5
ALL those trends , stats and angles ...... don't mean jack when close in 4th qauter with 10 seconds left and a fumble or a pick 6 will determine the winner. LOL
Hahaha exactly. RiderX been getting taking to the cleaners all playoffs with those stats and trends
2
Quote Originally Posted by i_Win_u_Lose:
ALL those trends , stats and angles ...... don't mean jack when close in 4th qauter with 10 seconds left and a fumble or a pick 6 will determine the winner. LOL
Hahaha exactly. RiderX been getting taking to the cleaners all playoffs with those stats and trends
Yes that’s why I said it. Also you left out the main reason. Mahomes running backwards and losing all those yards to take the safety is what created the 100 yard differential.
The lion and the tiger may be more powerful, but the wolf doesn't perform in the circus.
0
@JFEEZEE
Yes that’s why I said it. Also you left out the main reason. Mahomes running backwards and losing all those yards to take the safety is what created the 100 yard differential.
Hey indi… would you or Jow do me a favor… in the next week…. if teasing 6-7 points… where would you take over/under on super bowl… what does math and history say. Line is 49.5… game on turf indoors. In no hurry. Thanks.
0
Hey indi… would you or Jow do me a favor… in the next week…. if teasing 6-7 points… where would you take over/under on super bowl… what does math and history say. Line is 49.5… game on turf indoors. In no hurry. Thanks.
superbowl p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45
Great query. Many fans and sports bettors will be shocked, despite the narrow point spread, if Jalen Hurts (the distinctly inferior QB) manages to knock off the virtually invincible and deified Patrick Mahomes.
Go PHL!
0
Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935:
superbowl p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45
Great query. Many fans and sports bettors will be shocked, despite the narrow point spread, if Jalen Hurts (the distinctly inferior QB) manages to knock off the virtually invincible and deified Patrick Mahomes.
We need a Super Bowl query on matchups involving teams who reached the Super Bowl by winning their conference title game by a field goal or less who are facing an opponent who won their conference title game by 17 points or more.
The result will not be welcome news for Eagles fans.
0
We need a Super Bowl query on matchups involving teams who reached the Super Bowl by winning their conference title game by a field goal or less who are facing an opponent who won their conference title game by 17 points or more.
The result will not be welcome news for Eagles fans.
Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935: superbowl p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45 Why is the Broncos-Seahawks Super Bowl (the 43-8 wipeout) listed as both a winning result and a losing result in this trend?
Both teams satisfy all of the parameters and the line was less than 5 for both of them.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MrBator:
Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935: superbowl p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45 Why is the Broncos-Seahawks Super Bowl (the 43-8 wipeout) listed as both a winning result and a losing result in this trend?
Both teams satisfy all of the parameters and the line was less than 5 for both of them.
Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935: superbowl p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45 Great query. Many fans and sports bettors will be shocked, despite the narrow point spread, if Jalen Hurts (the distinctly inferior QB) manages to knock off the virtually invincible and deified Patrick Mahomes. Go PHL!
Can you spell that query out in English? Thanks.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935: superbowl p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45 Great query. Many fans and sports bettors will be shocked, despite the narrow point spread, if Jalen Hurts (the distinctly inferior QB) manages to knock off the virtually invincible and deified Patrick Mahomes. Go PHL!
We need a Super Bowl query on matchups involving teams who reached the Super Bowl by winning their conference title game by a field goal or less who are facing an opponent who won their conference title game by 17 points or more. The result will not be welcome news for Eagles fans.
The narrow CONF winner was 2-0 in the Super Bowl matchup. 2-0 is a meaningless sample size, and I certainly would never act on a 2-0 query. I think spottie2935's 2-19 query fading KC is MUCH more reliable. Of course Steve Spagnuolo's 20-4 SU record in the playoffs is also worth considering.
Maybe KC will win by exactly one point satisfying both solid trends and making for exciting viewing.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MrBator:
We need a Super Bowl query on matchups involving teams who reached the Super Bowl by winning their conference title game by a field goal or less who are facing an opponent who won their conference title game by 17 points or more. The result will not be welcome news for Eagles fans.
The narrow CONF winner was 2-0 in the Super Bowl matchup. 2-0 is a meaningless sample size, and I certainly would never act on a 2-0 query. I think spottie2935's 2-19 query fading KC is MUCH more reliable. Of course Steve Spagnuolo's 20-4 SU record in the playoffs is also worth considering.
Maybe KC will win by exactly one point satisfying both solid trends and making for exciting viewing.
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935: superbowl p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45 Great query. Many fans and sports bettors will be shocked, despite the narrow point spread, if Jalen Hurts (the distinctly inferior QB) manages to knock off the virtually invincible and deified Patrick Mahomes. Go PHL! Can you spell that query out in English? Thanks.
playoffs = 1 --- It's a PO game
p:F --- Favored in the previous game
pp:F --- Favored in the game before that
o:conference!=t:conference --- Opposite conferences; this is a Super Bowl only query
ats streak < 7 --- The team has not covered 7+ consecutive games Against The Spread
line < 5 --- The team is a dog of 4.5 points or less, a Pick 'Em or favored
points < 45 --- The team scored 44 or less in winning the CONF championship
Spottie2935 is currently offline and deserves a lot of credit for coming up with that query. I hope my explanation is adequate.
0
Quote Originally Posted by begginerboy:
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935: superbowl p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45 Great query. Many fans and sports bettors will be shocked, despite the narrow point spread, if Jalen Hurts (the distinctly inferior QB) manages to knock off the virtually invincible and deified Patrick Mahomes. Go PHL! Can you spell that query out in English? Thanks.
playoffs = 1 --- It's a PO game
p:F --- Favored in the previous game
pp:F --- Favored in the game before that
o:conference!=t:conference --- Opposite conferences; this is a Super Bowl only query
ats streak < 7 --- The team has not covered 7+ consecutive games Against The Spread
line < 5 --- The team is a dog of 4.5 points or less, a Pick 'Em or favored
points < 45 --- The team scored 44 or less in winning the CONF championship
Spottie2935 is currently offline and deserves a lot of credit for coming up with that query. I hope my explanation is adequate.
Both teams satisfy all of the parameters and the line was less than 5 for both of them.
Yes, so we can throw out that Super Bowl and this trend becomes 1-18 ATS, with the Chiefs from just two seasons ago being the only team to overcome this negative situation. And they did it against....the Eagles!
1
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
Both teams satisfy all of the parameters and the line was less than 5 for both of them.
Yes, so we can throw out that Super Bowl and this trend becomes 1-18 ATS, with the Chiefs from just two seasons ago being the only team to overcome this negative situation. And they did it against....the Eagles!
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: Both teams satisfy all of the parameters and the line was less than 5 for both of them. Yes, so we can throw out that Super Bowl and this trend becomes 1-18 ATS, with the Chiefs from just two seasons ago being the only team to overcome this negative situation. And they did it against....the Eagles!
Good point. KC has continued to defy the odds.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MrBator:
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: Both teams satisfy all of the parameters and the line was less than 5 for both of them. Yes, so we can throw out that Super Bowl and this trend becomes 1-18 ATS, with the Chiefs from just two seasons ago being the only team to overcome this negative situation. And they did it against....the Eagles!
While it is certainly reasonable to conclude that Saquon Barkley's rushing prowess gives PHL a fighting chance, this query says to fade PHL: playoffs = 1 and p:playoffs = 1 and site = neutral and p:YPRA > 4.5 SU: 0-9 (-7.9,0.0%) ATS: 1-8 (-12.2,11.1%) Good luck everybody.
THX DBW
That looks golden to me
0
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
While it is certainly reasonable to conclude that Saquon Barkley's rushing prowess gives PHL a fighting chance, this query says to fade PHL: playoffs = 1 and p:playoffs = 1 and site = neutral and p:YPRA > 4.5 SU: 0-9 (-7.9,0.0%) ATS: 1-8 (-12.2,11.1%) Good luck everybody.
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: While it is certainly reasonable to conclude that Saquon Barkley's rushing prowess gives PHL a fighting chance, this query says to fade PHL: playoffs = 1 and p:playoffs = 1 and site = neutral and p:YPRA > 4.5 SU: 0-9 (-7.9,0.0%) ATS: 1-8 (-12.2,11.1%) Good luck everybody. THX DBW That looks golden to me
You're welcome. Based on the wretched NFL season I am having, PHL is practically a "lock" LOL.
0
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo:
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: While it is certainly reasonable to conclude that Saquon Barkley's rushing prowess gives PHL a fighting chance, this query says to fade PHL: playoffs = 1 and p:playoffs = 1 and site = neutral and p:YPRA > 4.5 SU: 0-9 (-7.9,0.0%) ATS: 1-8 (-12.2,11.1%) Good luck everybody. THX DBW That looks golden to me
You're welcome. Based on the wretched NFL season I am having, PHL is practically a "lock" LOL.
I believe I ran this similar queries multiple times, looking for the best results. I dint add "and F" that would eliminate small lines that include dog and favorite in the same game. On the other hand it eliminates some other small dogs that should be included in the record. Sometimes you have to double check the query results to eliminate what you have detected.
p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45 and F
favorites in this situation 0-14 ATS 3-11 SU
even if there is a duplicate game the results are so strong it doesnt matter thru my lens.
p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45
eliminating Seattle as a dog in that game makes the results 1-19 ATS, why eliminate the dog? because the majority of the losers are favorites in this case. The basis of the query is fading "p:F and pp:F" heading into the superbowl. This stands out to me as A strong situational mentality that a lot falsely trust. Trend proven and huge results against this mentality.
Nothing is ever in the bank until it is in the bank
1
@MrBator
I believe I ran this similar queries multiple times, looking for the best results. I dint add "and F" that would eliminate small lines that include dog and favorite in the same game. On the other hand it eliminates some other small dogs that should be included in the record. Sometimes you have to double check the query results to eliminate what you have detected.
p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45 and F
favorites in this situation 0-14 ATS 3-11 SU
even if there is a duplicate game the results are so strong it doesnt matter thru my lens.
p:playoffs = 1 and p:F and pp:F and o:conference!=t:conference and ats streak<7 and line<5 and p:points<45
eliminating Seattle as a dog in that game makes the results 1-19 ATS, why eliminate the dog? because the majority of the losers are favorites in this case. The basis of the query is fading "p:F and pp:F" heading into the superbowl. This stands out to me as A strong situational mentality that a lot falsely trust. Trend proven and huge results against this mentality.
One result and the favorite covered. If you like the Chiefs these queries will most likely have limited results if one gets too specific. This site only goes back to the early to mid 2000’s in some cases.
Nothing is ever in the bank until it is in the bank
0
@MrBator
One result and the favorite covered. If you like the Chiefs these queries will most likely have limited results if one gets too specific. This site only goes back to the early to mid 2000’s in some cases.
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.