D and playoffs=1 and t:conference!=o:conference and p:points>32
This is 1-4 ats for the dog Eagles. BUT! The one victory for the dog was when their opponent made an appearance in 3+ playoff games the previous season
tpS(playoffs)>2
D and playoffs=1 and t:conference!=o:conference and p:points>32 and opS(playoffs)>2. 1-0 Eagles.
Look we can all find different query results for the team we lick to back. What I find most trustworthy long term is
pp:F and p:F and F
Bettors that were successful the last 2 weeks betting on one of the best teams in the league get debunked in the Super Bowl. See the undefeated Patriots and 14 teams included in the 0-14 results. I will make the Chiefs beat me.
One concern in my opinion is the Eagles high output of points last week. When dogs score 33+ points in the conference final the previous week they are 1-4 ats in the superbowl.
Bettors trust high scoring teams and that can create a false narrative as well.
Bottom line I like the Eagles but can find reasons for the Chiefs.
Nothing is ever in the bank until it is in the bank
1
Cases for the Chiefs :
D and playoffs=1 and t:conference!=o:conference and p:points>32
This is 1-4 ats for the dog Eagles. BUT! The one victory for the dog was when their opponent made an appearance in 3+ playoff games the previous season
tpS(playoffs)>2
D and playoffs=1 and t:conference!=o:conference and p:points>32 and opS(playoffs)>2. 1-0 Eagles.
Look we can all find different query results for the team we lick to back. What I find most trustworthy long term is
pp:F and p:F and F
Bettors that were successful the last 2 weeks betting on one of the best teams in the league get debunked in the Super Bowl. See the undefeated Patriots and 14 teams included in the 0-14 results. I will make the Chiefs beat me.
One concern in my opinion is the Eagles high output of points last week. When dogs score 33+ points in the conference final the previous week they are 1-4 ats in the superbowl.
Bettors trust high scoring teams and that can create a false narrative as well.
Bottom line I like the Eagles but can find reasons for the Chiefs.
SU and ATS: 1-1 --- PHL isn't necessarily dead just because of that scoregasm vs. WAS.
week > 21.5 and p:points > 40.5 and p:RY > 200 --- No query results; Barkley's post-season is quite an outlier.
Spottie2935 said, "Bettors trust high scoring teams and that can create a false narrative as well." He is dead right, I was shocked when ESPN Bet Live today stated that the early tickets were mostly on PHL. I certainly expected the worship of Mahomes to give KC the edge, but that 55 points has created some recency bias.
0
week > 21.5 and p:points > 40.5 and p:RY > 140
SU and ATS: 1-1 --- PHL isn't necessarily dead just because of that scoregasm vs. WAS.
week > 21.5 and p:points > 40.5 and p:RY > 200 --- No query results; Barkley's post-season is quite an outlier.
Spottie2935 said, "Bettors trust high scoring teams and that can create a false narrative as well." He is dead right, I was shocked when ESPN Bet Live today stated that the early tickets were mostly on PHL. I certainly expected the worship of Mahomes to give KC the edge, but that 55 points has created some recency bias.
week > 21.5 and p:points > 40.5 and p:RY > 140 SU and ATS: 1-1 --- PHL isn't necessarily dead just because of that scoregasm vs. WAS. week > 21.5 and p:points > 40.5 and p:RY > 200 --- No query results; Barkley's post-season is quite an outlier. Spottie2935 said, "Bettors trust high scoring teams and that can create a false narrative as well." He is dead right, I was shocked when ESPN Bet Live today stated that the early tickets were mostly on PHL. I certainly expected the worship of Mahomes to give KC the edge, but that 55 points has created some recency bias for PHL despite all of the Reid-Spagnuolo-Mahomes post-season success.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
week > 21.5 and p:points > 40.5 and p:RY > 140 SU and ATS: 1-1 --- PHL isn't necessarily dead just because of that scoregasm vs. WAS. week > 21.5 and p:points > 40.5 and p:RY > 200 --- No query results; Barkley's post-season is quite an outlier. Spottie2935 said, "Bettors trust high scoring teams and that can create a false narrative as well." He is dead right, I was shocked when ESPN Bet Live today stated that the early tickets were mostly on PHL. I certainly expected the worship of Mahomes to give KC the edge, but that 55 points has created some recency bias for PHL despite all of the Reid-Spagnuolo-Mahomes post-season success.
PHL has fewer wins, so that's a plus in NFL playoffs:
PO = 1 and wins < o:wins
SU: 92-127-1 (-2.9,42.0%)
ATS: 125-91-4 (1.8,57.9%)
I would never act on such a small ATS edge in and of itself, but that is a great query because it has such a huge sample size.
FYI: Those are GTD's figures; I did not pay to join KS because spending that money makes NO sense for small bettors like me. However, GTD has a flaw; SDQL adepts should know that using "wins > o:wins" (or <) will generate an accurate query but not current matchups. That is easy to deal with during NFL playoffs but a nightmare for anyone handicapping NCAABB on a Saturday.
0
@jowchoo
Thanks. Good luck to you too.
PHL has fewer wins, so that's a plus in NFL playoffs:
PO = 1 and wins < o:wins
SU: 92-127-1 (-2.9,42.0%)
ATS: 125-91-4 (1.8,57.9%)
I would never act on such a small ATS edge in and of itself, but that is a great query because it has such a huge sample size.
FYI: Those are GTD's figures; I did not pay to join KS because spending that money makes NO sense for small bettors like me. However, GTD has a flaw; SDQL adepts should know that using "wins > o:wins" (or <) will generate an accurate query but not current matchups. That is easy to deal with during NFL playoffs but a nightmare for anyone handicapping NCAABB on a Saturday.
Maybe that "wins > o:wins query" is deceptive. In the regular sesason KC was 15-2 and PHL was 14-3. KC had a first-round bye, so naturally PHL has one more PO win.
Maybe it is more accurate and productive to query for losses.
0
@spottie2935
Maybe that "wins > o:wins query" is deceptive. In the regular sesason KC was 15-2 and PHL was 14-3. KC had a first-round bye, so naturally PHL has one more PO win.
Maybe it is more accurate and productive to query for losses.
This query certainly makes PHL look live. I only have a rudimentary understanding of football, and I believe my next conclusion is me being guilty of "Zombie GroupThink (ZGT)," the tendency of many sports bettors to act on their first impressions. In this case, ZGT is "Reid > Sirianni and Spagnuolo > Fazio and Mahomes > Hurts." That shaky conclusion makes me have a "mental bet" on KC, and I think it is wise in general to avoid ZGT.
0
PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5
SU: 13-6 (3.5,68.4%)
ATS: 17-2 (6.6,89.5%)
This query certainly makes PHL look live. I only have a rudimentary understanding of football, and I believe my next conclusion is me being guilty of "Zombie GroupThink (ZGT)," the tendency of many sports bettors to act on their first impressions. In this case, ZGT is "Reid > Sirianni and Spagnuolo > Fazio and Mahomes > Hurts." That shaky conclusion makes me have a "mental bet" on KC, and I think it is wise in general to avoid ZGT.
PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 SU: 13-6 (3.5,68.4%) ATS: 17-2 (6.6,89.5%) This query certainly makes PHL look live. I only have a rudimentary understanding of football, and I believe my next conclusion is me being guilty of "Zombie GroupThink (ZGT)," the tendency of many sports bettors to act on their first impressions. In this case, ZGT is "Reid > Sirianni and Spagnuolo > Fazio and Mahomes > Hurts." That shaky conclusion makes me have a "mental bet" on KC, and I think it is wise in general to avoid ZGT.
Great post DBW.
That ats record is to die for. For me, I stay on my toes trying to avoid outliers to these historical trends. Coaching is imo a valuable consideration (for outliers)rough this SB
in whether or not I pull the trigger. I absolutely agree with your coaching/qb equation and will tiptoe through this SB with minimal exposure and if PHI
does win by (0-4) and total lands (42-56) I will be a happy camper........................................................gl
1
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 SU: 13-6 (3.5,68.4%) ATS: 17-2 (6.6,89.5%) This query certainly makes PHL look live. I only have a rudimentary understanding of football, and I believe my next conclusion is me being guilty of "Zombie GroupThink (ZGT)," the tendency of many sports bettors to act on their first impressions. In this case, ZGT is "Reid > Sirianni and Spagnuolo > Fazio and Mahomes > Hurts." That shaky conclusion makes me have a "mental bet" on KC, and I think it is wise in general to avoid ZGT.
Great post DBW.
That ats record is to die for. For me, I stay on my toes trying to avoid outliers to these historical trends. Coaching is imo a valuable consideration (for outliers)rough this SB
in whether or not I pull the trigger. I absolutely agree with your coaching/qb equation and will tiptoe through this SB with minimal exposure and if PHI
does win by (0-4) and total lands (42-56) I will be a happy camper........................................................gl
PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 SU: 13-6 (3.5,68.4%) ATS: 17-2 (6.6,89.5%) This query certainly makes PHL look live. I only have a rudimentary understanding of football, and I believe my next conclusion is me being guilty of "Zombie GroupThink (ZGT)," the tendency of many sports bettors to act on their first impressions. In this case, ZGT is "Reid > Sirianni and Spagnuolo > Fazio and Mahomes > Hurts." That shaky conclusion makes me have a "mental bet" on KC, and I think it is wise in general to avoid ZGT.
Great post DBW.
That ats record is to die for. For me, I stay on my toes trying to avoid outliers to these historical trends. Coaching is imo a valuable consideration (for outliers)rough this SB
in whether or not I pull the trigger. I absolutely agree with your coaching/qb equation and will tiptoe through this SB with minimal exposure and if PHI
does win by (0-4) and total lands (42-56) I will be a happy camper........................................................gl
0
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 SU: 13-6 (3.5,68.4%) ATS: 17-2 (6.6,89.5%) This query certainly makes PHL look live. I only have a rudimentary understanding of football, and I believe my next conclusion is me being guilty of "Zombie GroupThink (ZGT)," the tendency of many sports bettors to act on their first impressions. In this case, ZGT is "Reid > Sirianni and Spagnuolo > Fazio and Mahomes > Hurts." That shaky conclusion makes me have a "mental bet" on KC, and I think it is wise in general to avoid ZGT.
Great post DBW.
That ats record is to die for. For me, I stay on my toes trying to avoid outliers to these historical trends. Coaching is imo a valuable consideration (for outliers)rough this SB
in whether or not I pull the trigger. I absolutely agree with your coaching/qb equation and will tiptoe through this SB with minimal exposure and if PHI
does win by (0-4) and total lands (42-56) I will be a happy camper........................................................gl
I think PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 is close to duplicating my query. The better team and or favorite fails a lot. On the other hand look at what the query doesn’t like:
PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 and p:points>38
Nothing is ever in the bank until it is in the bank
1
@DogbiteWilliams
I think PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 is close to duplicating my query. The better team and or favorite fails a lot. On the other hand look at what the query doesn’t like:
PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 and p:points>38
@DogbiteWilliams I think PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 is close to duplicating my query. The better team and or favorite fails a lot. On the other hand look at what the query doesn’t like: PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 and p:points>38
Yikes! One extra parameter can destroy a query.
0
Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935:
@DogbiteWilliams I think PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 is close to duplicating my query. The better team and or favorite fails a lot. On the other hand look at what the query doesn’t like: PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and week > 21.5 and p:points>38
I will coin the term "Munchkin query" for a small sample-sized query which is more likely a simple outlier or statistical fluke whereas a large sample-sized query should offer more future reliability and predictability, although my horrible results this season certainly undercut that reasoning.
This is a Munchkin query that I am posting because of the HUGE OU margin. I do not deem it worthy of action in and of itself:
PO = 1 and p:RY - po:RY > 100 and total > 45.2 and week > 21.5
OU: 0-4-0 (-14.9,0.0%)
Try flipping the "week > 21.5" to "week < 21.5" to see how worthless it is for regular PO games.
0
I will coin the term "Munchkin query" for a small sample-sized query which is more likely a simple outlier or statistical fluke whereas a large sample-sized query should offer more future reliability and predictability, although my horrible results this season certainly undercut that reasoning.
This is a Munchkin query that I am posting because of the HUGE OU margin. I do not deem it worthy of action in and of itself:
PO = 1 and p:RY - po:RY > 100 and total > 45.2 and week > 21.5
OU: 0-4-0 (-14.9,0.0%)
Try flipping the "week > 21.5" to "week < 21.5" to see how worthless it is for regular PO games.
[Quote: One extra parameter can destroy a query.[/Quote]
its the same as mine and the Superdowl is basically 3 major things.
Fade 1.) Against a back to back favorite in their previous play off games, and a favorite in the superbowl, Query: pp:F and pp:F and F and t:conference!=o:conference
Take 2. A higher seed (for instance, 6,5,4 seed vs. a 1 or 2 seed in the other conference, I cant find a query for this one.
Fade 3.) A team coming in the the superbowl off a huge scoring game, this it at its best with a team under 4 season losses. query: playoffs=1 and p:points>38 and p:playoffs=1 and t:losses<4
Nothing is ever in the bank until it is in the bank
0
[Quote: One extra parameter can destroy a query.[/Quote]
its the same as mine and the Superdowl is basically 3 major things.
Fade 1.) Against a back to back favorite in their previous play off games, and a favorite in the superbowl, Query: pp:F and pp:F and F and t:conference!=o:conference
Take 2. A higher seed (for instance, 6,5,4 seed vs. a 1 or 2 seed in the other conference, I cant find a query for this one.
Fade 3.) A team coming in the the superbowl off a huge scoring game, this it at its best with a team under 4 season losses. query: playoffs=1 and p:points>38 and p:playoffs=1 and t:losses<4
its the same as mine and the Superdowl is basically 3 major things. Fade 1.) Against a back to back favorite in their previous play off games, and a favorite in the superbowl, Query: pp:F and pp:F and F and t:conference!=o:conference Take 2. A higher seed (for instance, 6,5,4 seed vs. a 1 or 2 seed in the other conference, I cant find a query for this one. Fade 3.) A team coming in the the superbowl off a huge scoring game, this it at its best with a team under 4 season losses. query: playoffs=1 and p:points>38 and p:playoffs=1 and t:losses<4
Great thinking! This query works when one team had a bye and the other didn't:
PO = 1 and week > 21.5 and pp:rest > 10.5 and opp:rest < 10.5
SU: 2-8 (-5.2,20.0%)
ATS: 0-10 (-8.1,0.0%)
Go PHL!
0
Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935:
[Quote: One extra parameter can destroy a query.
its the same as mine and the Superdowl is basically 3 major things. Fade 1.) Against a back to back favorite in their previous play off games, and a favorite in the superbowl, Query: pp:F and pp:F and F and t:conference!=o:conference Take 2. A higher seed (for instance, 6,5,4 seed vs. a 1 or 2 seed in the other conference, I cant find a query for this one. Fade 3.) A team coming in the the superbowl off a huge scoring game, this it at its best with a team under 4 season losses. query: playoffs=1 and p:points>38 and p:playoffs=1 and t:losses<4
Great thinking! This query works when one team had a bye and the other didn't:
PO = 1 and week > 21.5 and pp:rest > 10.5 and opp:rest < 10.5
Your query in Comment #144 is only 18-15 ATS at GTD. Sometimes there is a game or two difference in the query results between GTD and KS, but this should be double-checked before risking heavy coin.
Good luck with Tulane and Nebraska.
0
@spottie2935
Your query in Comment #144 is only 18-15 ATS at GTD. Sometimes there is a game or two difference in the query results between GTD and KS, but this should be double-checked before risking heavy coin.
I find it difficult and inconsistent finding info on GTD. Tht site is frustrating to me. ON Killer you have 5 free queries in each sport. see if you can see if the query is 8-47 ATS like i see.
Nothing is ever in the bank until it is in the bank
0
I find it difficult and inconsistent finding info on GTD. Tht site is frustrating to me. ON Killer you have 5 free queries in each sport. see if you can see if the query is 8-47 ATS like i see.
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.