Indigo:
Would you consider this query valid?
p:AL and pp:AL and HD and op:HW and season >2017
which yields (8-3-1) 72.7% with MIAMI a candidate..Is sample size too small?
Unsettled Miami qb is a wager breaker here?
Indigo:
Would you consider this query valid?
p:AL and pp:AL and HD and op:HW and season >2017
which yields (8-3-1) 72.7% with MIAMI a candidate..Is sample size too small?
Unsettled Miami qb is a wager breaker here?
Indigo:
Would you consider this query valid?
p:AL and pp:AL and HD and op:HW and season >2017
which yields (8-3-1) 72.7% with MIAMI a candidate..Is sample size too small?
Unsettled Miami qb is a wager breaker here?
Starting to get it..Does the sample size have a minimum size for you to carry on.
p:ADW and HD and op:HFW and season >2017
gives a (16-10) 61% ats
Is the ats success not large enough?
Starting to get it..Does the sample size have a minimum size for you to carry on.
p:ADW and HD and op:HFW and season >2017
gives a (16-10) 61% ats
Is the ats success not large enough?
Yes, that is better....I would need another query that agrees with that for me to play a team with a 12 game sample, however there's always exceptions to every rule.
Your second query is a pretty powerful angle.....you can make the sample size much bigger by going back further in time, but 26 game sample size is enough for me to make a play.....I've mentioned this angle in this thread and going back since 1989 it has a long track record of success.....if you add another parameter that our play-on team has a winning record this moves to 43-15 ATS since 1989.........
tA(W)>.5 and p:ADW and HD and op:HFW
In the end, after we have pretty good queries that indicate teams in strong situations, then we have to see how it fits with feeling about the game.
I normally would play the Giants, but I don't like to go against Lamar Jackson on the road, so I will pass, but that is not to say that you should.
As I've said, everyone has a differing perception of reality, so, one can put the exact same indicators out to 1000 people and they will all pick different teams to bet on....and it is what makes a market on a game.
Yes, that is better....I would need another query that agrees with that for me to play a team with a 12 game sample, however there's always exceptions to every rule.
Your second query is a pretty powerful angle.....you can make the sample size much bigger by going back further in time, but 26 game sample size is enough for me to make a play.....I've mentioned this angle in this thread and going back since 1989 it has a long track record of success.....if you add another parameter that our play-on team has a winning record this moves to 43-15 ATS since 1989.........
tA(W)>.5 and p:ADW and HD and op:HFW
In the end, after we have pretty good queries that indicate teams in strong situations, then we have to see how it fits with feeling about the game.
I normally would play the Giants, but I don't like to go against Lamar Jackson on the road, so I will pass, but that is not to say that you should.
As I've said, everyone has a differing perception of reality, so, one can put the exact same indicators out to 1000 people and they will all pick different teams to bet on....and it is what makes a market on a game.
Does this one help in backing NYG?
p:ADW and HD and op:HFW and season >2017 (26-13) on NYG
Does this one help in backing NYG?
p:ADW and HD and op:HFW and season >2017 (26-13) on NYG
Sorry disregard
Sorry disregard
Yes, that is valid though teams with playoff loss revenge has historically done well...don't know how to query that though.
Your Giants query is 16-2 ATS in October games and 33-7 ATS if you exclude December games.....they've won straight up 27 out of 40 times with an average line of +4.1.
tA(W)>.5 and p:ADW and HD and op:HFW and 8<month<12
Yes, that is valid though teams with playoff loss revenge has historically done well...don't know how to query that though.
Your Giants query is 16-2 ATS in October games and 33-7 ATS if you exclude December games.....they've won straight up 27 out of 40 times with an average line of +4.1.
tA(W)>.5 and p:ADW and HD and op:HFW and 8<month<12
Teams that lost previous matchup by 35+
56-36 ATS (60.87%)
Hmm steelers would fit this. Brady not covering 3 straight is scary tho imo, imagine it hasn't happened very often. I think the personal issues are affecting him a ton he's not nearly as focused, could they get a lead and just coast again this week?!
Teams that lost previous matchup by 35+
56-36 ATS (60.87%)
Hmm steelers would fit this. Brady not covering 3 straight is scary tho imo, imagine it hasn't happened very often. I think the personal issues are affecting him a ton he's not nearly as focused, could they get a lead and just coast again this week?!
@DogbiteWilliams
my bad I think it was referring to the "match up" not last game. I don't think any of this week's games fit the bill for that trend! Thanks for pointing that out!
@DogbiteWilliams
my bad I think it was referring to the "match up" not last game. I don't think any of this week's games fit the bill for that trend! Thanks for pointing that out!
@DogbiteWilliams
"This data was collected by marking any teams who won or lost by a point differential over 28 points and tracking those teams’ following matchups performance. If a team went into a bye week, spread data from their following matchup was used."
Ok I was able to find this so it sounds like it is just whoever they play following week. Not specifically the team they play in wk6. The 28 pt losing teams record ats was 155-134 following wk 53.63%
@DogbiteWilliams
"This data was collected by marking any teams who won or lost by a point differential over 28 points and tracking those teams’ following matchups performance. If a team went into a bye week, spread data from their following matchup was used."
Ok I was able to find this so it sounds like it is just whoever they play following week. Not specifically the team they play in wk6. The 28 pt losing teams record ats was 155-134 following wk 53.63%
thanx still just getting my feet wet
thanx still just getting my feet wet
1) Redskins/Commies pik..........winner
2) Jaguars +1...............loser, Jaguars snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
3) Jets +7'...............winner
4) Patriots +3..........winner
5) Jags/Colts UNDER 42'..........loser
6) Cowboys/Eagles UNDER 42
7) Chargers/Broncos UNDER 45'
8) Bengals -2', -120..........winner, Bengals snatch victory from the jaws of defeat......so you wanna be an NFL bettor, eh?.....lol
1) Redskins/Commies pik..........winner
2) Jaguars +1...............loser, Jaguars snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
3) Jets +7'...............winner
4) Patriots +3..........winner
5) Jags/Colts UNDER 42'..........loser
6) Cowboys/Eagles UNDER 42
7) Chargers/Broncos UNDER 45'
8) Bengals -2', -120..........winner, Bengals snatch victory from the jaws of defeat......so you wanna be an NFL bettor, eh?.....lol
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.