DogbiteWilliams

Well done.  Congratulations.

tA(sacks) = the team's average sacks for the current season

oA(sacks) = the opponent's average sacks for the current season

tA(o:sacks) = the team's average opponent sacks for the current season, i.e. the team's avg sacks of its own QBs

After that Super Bowl performance, the Chiefs should have been IMpounded.

Are you sure about that?

p:RY - pp:RY < -2.5 and pp:RY - ppp:RY < -2.5

ATS:  1151-1153-70 (0.1,50.0%)

HD's do cover at 54.4%, but the avg ATS margin is only 1.2, so I'd skip it.

This sacks query is not bad:

p:sacks - pp:sacks < -2.5 and pp:sacks - ppp:sacks < -2.5

ATS:  32-15-1 (3.6,68.1%)

*******

Road teams are better:

p:sacks - pp:sacks < -2.5 and pp:sacks - ppp:sacks < -2.5 and A

ATS: 16-5-1 (5.3,76.2%) 

If Covers enabled that, tons of bad picks would disappear.  We'd have a tough time deciding which posters are actually worth tailing, or at least reading.

He can use helium so they can both get high.

Again, that is a Conjecture Query for the current game.  Teams that manage 4+ sacks usually cover.  How are you selecting those teams?  There are no p, avg or ytd parameters in that query.

season = 2024 and p:sacks > 3

ATS:  62-64-5 (-0.2,49.2%) GTD

season = 2024 and tA(sacks) > 3

ATS:  47-50-2 (-0.0,48.5%) GTD

season=2024 and tA(sacks) - oA(sacks) > 1.5

ATS:  15-14 (0.5,51.7%) GTD

JC, I hope you can find a way to predict the sacks in any game (or week's games) you are handicapping.  Good luck.

That is a Conjecture Query based on the current game.  You have no values for the sacks.  If we query for the entire league based on p:

season=2024 and p:sacks-op:sacks>0 and week>1

ATS:  98-116-4 (-1.1,45.8%) GTD

If you make a reasonable conjecture that team A will have more sacks than team B and you are correct, team A will likely cover.  What sacks values are you using to pick a team in the current game: p, avg, ytd?

Ditto.  Being anti-science squandered a lot of his goodwill.

He's still a Hall of Famer for sure.

Analysts on ESPN discounted the chances of AR ending up in CLV.  Stefanski's attempt to tailor CLV's OFF to fit Watson's skill set was an abject failure.  He will not bow to Rodgers' demands.

That is Surtainly interesting.

Please proof read before you post in haste.

Net RY prev game       p:RY - po:RY       p:RY = OFF RY and po:RY = DEF RY (po = prev opp)

I seldom query for sacks, but it should follow the same principles.  In GTD, sacks are a DEF stat, so sacks - o:sacks > 2.5 is 77.1% in the current game (The DEF managed at least 3 more sacks that the OFF allowed).  p:sacks - po:sacks is similar, so remember that the DEF is listed first and the OFF second.

I am not sure about RTD.

I hope this helps.

Regular season:

ats streak > 2.5 and o:ats streak < -2.5 and not PO = 1

SU:  116-78 (3.2,59.8%)  Favorites tend to win SU but not necessarily cover.  ML prices are costly and equalize that tempting winning percentage.

ATS:  91-101-2 (-0.2,47.4%)  average line = -3.44

OU:  84-106-4 (0.3,44.2%)  average total = 42.44  The Under percentage is nice but the tiny OU margin of +0.3 points makes me leery.

Playoffs:

ats streak > 2.5 and o:ats streak < -2.5 and PO = 1

SU and ATS - 6-5, OU 2-7-2  The small sample size = unreliability.  I pass on everything.

John Rocker is a vile bigot and Pat Mahomes Sr. was arrested for driving while intoxicated.

They are both menaces to society.

Many congratulations.

Another delusional conspiracy theorist bites the dust.

This is the NFL forum.  No Hockey Love here.

From DK's link in Comment #15:

"The Eagles, who closed as 1.5-point underdogs, beat the Chiefs 40-22 on Sunday. Betting on the game's outcome was relatively balanced between the Eagles and Chiefs, but sportsbooks cleaned up on player props, most notably Philadelphia running back Saquon Barkley not scoring a touchdown."

KC coughed up an embarrassing 40 points, but their DEF was just good enough to help the Nevada sportsbooks.