I was taking to my eldest brother the other day and he told me about this betting system that he has been using for the last few years. He claims that it has given him an 8-1 record leading into this past Sunday 10/26.
Basically, the system calls that any NFL team that has scored 30 points or less in their previous 3 games combined, will cover the spread in the next game. This upcoming week the games that follow this theory are :
Atlanta Flacons (-3) vs. Oakland Raiders (29 pts.)
The second part of this theory is that any team that has scored 90 points or more in their previous 3 games combined, will NOT cover the spread in their next game. This upcoming week, the games that follow this part of the theory are :
Houston Texans (92pts.) vs. Minnesota Vikings (-4.5)
Arizona Cardinals (94 pts.) vs. St. Louis Rams (+3)
Detroit Lions (+13) vs. Chicago Bears (102 pts.)
Just wondering if anyone has heard of this theory?
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Hello All,
I was taking to my eldest brother the other day and he told me about this betting system that he has been using for the last few years. He claims that it has given him an 8-1 record leading into this past Sunday 10/26.
Basically, the system calls that any NFL team that has scored 30 points or less in their previous 3 games combined, will cover the spread in the next game. This upcoming week the games that follow this theory are :
Atlanta Flacons (-3) vs. Oakland Raiders (29 pts.)
The second part of this theory is that any team that has scored 90 points or more in their previous 3 games combined, will NOT cover the spread in their next game. This upcoming week, the games that follow this part of the theory are :
Houston Texans (92pts.) vs. Minnesota Vikings (-4.5)
Arizona Cardinals (94 pts.) vs. St. Louis Rams (+3)
Detroit Lions (+13) vs. Chicago Bears (102 pts.)
Just wondering if anyone has heard of this theory?
YOUR 30 OR LESS SYSTEM IN THE NFL IS 27 -20-1 OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS. THAT IS NOT BAD. THAT IS ABOUT A 1/2 UNIT PROFIT PER YEAR. WITH AN AVERAGE OF 5 PLAYS A YEAR. I DID NOT DO THE OVER PART COMPLETELY. I DID 50 GAMES FOR THE OVER AND IT WAS 29-21. THRE ARE MORE OVERS THAN UNDERS. THERE IS PROBABLY ABOUT 100 OVERS SINCE I DID HALF THE TEAMS. THAT WOULD MAKE IT 14 UNITS AHEAD INCLUDING THE JUICE. OVER 10 YEARS. THAT'S ABOUT 1 1/2 UNITS + PER YEAR WITH 10 PLAYS A YEAR. BOTH SYSTEMS COMBINED ARE ABOUT 58% AND A 2 UNIT PROFIT PER YEAR. THAT IS NOT BAD. MOST SYSTEMS I SEE DO NOT WORK, THIS ONE DOES.
0
YOUR 30 OR LESS SYSTEM IN THE NFL IS 27 -20-1 OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS. THAT IS NOT BAD. THAT IS ABOUT A 1/2 UNIT PROFIT PER YEAR. WITH AN AVERAGE OF 5 PLAYS A YEAR. I DID NOT DO THE OVER PART COMPLETELY. I DID 50 GAMES FOR THE OVER AND IT WAS 29-21. THRE ARE MORE OVERS THAN UNDERS. THERE IS PROBABLY ABOUT 100 OVERS SINCE I DID HALF THE TEAMS. THAT WOULD MAKE IT 14 UNITS AHEAD INCLUDING THE JUICE. OVER 10 YEARS. THAT'S ABOUT 1 1/2 UNITS + PER YEAR WITH 10 PLAYS A YEAR. BOTH SYSTEMS COMBINED ARE ABOUT 58% AND A 2 UNIT PROFIT PER YEAR. THAT IS NOT BAD. MOST SYSTEMS I SEE DO NOT WORK, THIS ONE DOES.
So in week #9 so far, the system is 3-1 with one more game on the board.
Cincinnati Bengals (+9) - WON
Detroit Lions (+13) - WON
Minnesota (-4.5) - WON
St. Louis Rams (+3) - LOSS
With only the Oakland Raiders game still on the board, the system has a shot at going 4-1 this week. Be back later after the game, to see the end result.
By the way, the Rams already messed up my teaser...bastards!
0
So in week #9 so far, the system is 3-1 with one more game on the board.
Cincinnati Bengals (+9) - WON
Detroit Lions (+13) - WON
Minnesota (-4.5) - WON
St. Louis Rams (+3) - LOSS
With only the Oakland Raiders game still on the board, the system has a shot at going 4-1 this week. Be back later after the game, to see the end result.
By the way, the Rams already messed up my teaser...bastards!
There are too many problems with the 30/90 plays. The main one is that it doesn't win often enough.Another is that it is too limited in reach, focus, and scope.
The Rams were a bad bet from the beginning heading into the game because of the following:
Cards scoring average 29 points a game this season. Rams scoring average 16 points a game this season.
On that basis alone the game should have been tossed from your system. Expecting the Cards to play way below their season average, and the Rams to play far above was asking too much. In addition, the Cards have scored less than 20 once, while the Rams over 20 only once. The Cards were the correct play.The final score 34-17 indicates this.
A more accurate representation would be factoring in and including 20/60 plays, and 10/30 as well. Far better would be breaking down all these numbers even further to 25/75, and 15/45. The Raiders at 10/30 averaging only 15 points a season should not have been played at all. Now, after scoring 0 points the Raiders are even under this 10/30 number.
Furthermore, the whole process can be reversed with some emphasis on the other side of the ball, or defense points allowed. This combined with offense numbers produces much better plays, or knowing when to fade a team, and when to pound the game.
Besides all of the above, and helping overcome losses, all these results should be placed in different categories, such as division rivalries, conference games, etc. The idea is producing more winners ATS with the purpose of finding big winners SU.
Winning peanuts is all very fine, but there is plenty more to be won on the money line. And this is accomplished by searching for subtle changes between a season average, and the last three games played.
0
There are too many problems with the 30/90 plays. The main one is that it doesn't win often enough.Another is that it is too limited in reach, focus, and scope.
The Rams were a bad bet from the beginning heading into the game because of the following:
Cards scoring average 29 points a game this season. Rams scoring average 16 points a game this season.
On that basis alone the game should have been tossed from your system. Expecting the Cards to play way below their season average, and the Rams to play far above was asking too much. In addition, the Cards have scored less than 20 once, while the Rams over 20 only once. The Cards were the correct play.The final score 34-17 indicates this.
A more accurate representation would be factoring in and including 20/60 plays, and 10/30 as well. Far better would be breaking down all these numbers even further to 25/75, and 15/45. The Raiders at 10/30 averaging only 15 points a season should not have been played at all. Now, after scoring 0 points the Raiders are even under this 10/30 number.
Furthermore, the whole process can be reversed with some emphasis on the other side of the ball, or defense points allowed. This combined with offense numbers produces much better plays, or knowing when to fade a team, and when to pound the game.
Besides all of the above, and helping overcome losses, all these results should be placed in different categories, such as division rivalries, conference games, etc. The idea is producing more winners ATS with the purpose of finding big winners SU.
Winning peanuts is all very fine, but there is plenty more to be won on the money line. And this is accomplished by searching for subtle changes between a season average, and the last three games played.
Thanks everyone for all the input. After the theory going 3-2 last week, like Tomspeople said...not bad! Not great, but also not bad.
As stated above, I came across this system via my brother telling me about it. I haven't been able to find it anywhere on the internet, so where he got it from....God knows.
Well in week #10, I looked at the matchups, and I can only see 4 games that fall under the 30/90 theory criteria. The odds are by BetEd @ 1800 PST.
TennesseTitans (-3) vs. Chicago Bears (95 pts.)
Baltimore Ravens (93 pts.) vs. Houston Texans (+1)
Carolina Panthers (-10) vs. Oakland Raiders (26 pts.)
NY Giants (+3) vs. Philadelphia Eagles (93 pts.)
Out of the 4 games that fall under the 30/90 theory, the one that pops out at me the most is the NY Giants vs. Philly Eagles game.
Some of the lines will shift a 1/2 point or so come game time, but as of now the theory states that the following would be a play :
Tennesse Titans (-3)
Houston Texans (+1)
NY Giants (+3)
Oakland Raiders (-10) - which if following Aces advice, this should be a NO PLAY
I'll keep following the theory through the end of the season and into the playoffs. Feel free everyone to comment on anything you want.
0
Thanks everyone for all the input. After the theory going 3-2 last week, like Tomspeople said...not bad! Not great, but also not bad.
As stated above, I came across this system via my brother telling me about it. I haven't been able to find it anywhere on the internet, so where he got it from....God knows.
Well in week #10, I looked at the matchups, and I can only see 4 games that fall under the 30/90 theory criteria. The odds are by BetEd @ 1800 PST.
TennesseTitans (-3) vs. Chicago Bears (95 pts.)
Baltimore Ravens (93 pts.) vs. Houston Texans (+1)
Carolina Panthers (-10) vs. Oakland Raiders (26 pts.)
NY Giants (+3) vs. Philadelphia Eagles (93 pts.)
Out of the 4 games that fall under the 30/90 theory, the one that pops out at me the most is the NY Giants vs. Philly Eagles game.
Some of the lines will shift a 1/2 point or so come game time, but as of now the theory states that the following would be a play :
Tennesse Titans (-3)
Houston Texans (+1)
NY Giants (+3)
Oakland Raiders (-10) - which if following Aces advice, this should be a NO PLAY
I'll keep following the theory through the end of the season and into the playoffs. Feel free everyone to comment on anything you want.
Thanks everyone for all the input. After the theory going 3-2 last week, like Tomspeople said...not bad! Not great, but also not bad.
As stated above, I came across this system via my brother telling me about it. I haven't been able to find it anywhere on the internet, so where he got it from....God knows.
Well in week #10, I looked at the matchups, and I can only see 4 games that fall under the 30/90 theory criteria. The odds are by BetEd @ 1800 PST.
TennesseTitans (-3) vs. Chicago Bears (95 pts.)
Baltimore Ravens (93 pts.) vs. Houston Texans (+1)
Carolina Panthers (-10) vs. Oakland Raiders (26 pts.)
NY Giants (+3) vs. Philadelphia Eagles (93 pts.)
Out of the 4 games that fall under the 30/90 theory, the one that pops out at me the most is the NY Giants vs. Philly Eagles game.
Some of the lines will shift a 1/2 point or so come game time, but as of now the theory states that the following would be a play :
Tennesse Titans (-3)
Houston Texans (+1)
NY Giants (+3)
Oakland Raiders (-10) - which if following Aces advice, this should be a NO PLAY
I'll keep following the theory through the end of the season and into the playoffs. Feel free everyone to comment on anything you want.
Id love to kow what the record of this play is for the last 10 years, Im actually thinking this has some merit. Also with parity in the NFL nowadays I dont think anyone can stay "hot" or "cold" for long
0
Quote Originally Posted by CityFog:
Thanks everyone for all the input. After the theory going 3-2 last week, like Tomspeople said...not bad! Not great, but also not bad.
As stated above, I came across this system via my brother telling me about it. I haven't been able to find it anywhere on the internet, so where he got it from....God knows.
Well in week #10, I looked at the matchups, and I can only see 4 games that fall under the 30/90 theory criteria. The odds are by BetEd @ 1800 PST.
TennesseTitans (-3) vs. Chicago Bears (95 pts.)
Baltimore Ravens (93 pts.) vs. Houston Texans (+1)
Carolina Panthers (-10) vs. Oakland Raiders (26 pts.)
NY Giants (+3) vs. Philadelphia Eagles (93 pts.)
Out of the 4 games that fall under the 30/90 theory, the one that pops out at me the most is the NY Giants vs. Philly Eagles game.
Some of the lines will shift a 1/2 point or so come game time, but as of now the theory states that the following would be a play :
Tennesse Titans (-3)
Houston Texans (+1)
NY Giants (+3)
Oakland Raiders (-10) - which if following Aces advice, this should be a NO PLAY
I'll keep following the theory through the end of the season and into the playoffs. Feel free everyone to comment on anything you want.
Id love to kow what the record of this play is for the last 10 years, Im actually thinking this has some merit. Also with parity in the NFL nowadays I dont think anyone can stay "hot" or "cold" for long
Diamonds if you're saying that 14-8 is bad, then there's something wrong with you.
Nothing wrong with me. I really hate losing bets, and not entirely satisfied with this win percentage. Factor in the vig on the 14-8, and we are much closer to 13-9. Plus, all the time wasted, considering and actually placing these bets. Add all these together equals a diminished win total.
Sooner or later, the law of averages catches up with us. This applies to all of the above. If, all of us were to live long enough, we would all win the lottery. Yet, it is not going to happen because of the time constraints on our lives. Time is valuable, and should be part of the equation. So, how many units is time really worth?
Besides winning, being a successful handicapper is about avoiding losing bets. One should strive to be in a position to win. Sometimes, you win by not losing, and the best bet is the one you don't make. One earlier suggestion of such was including the season average of a team to the theory.
With you being our resident math wiz, I would very much like to see your percentage, and predictability as outlined in the NHL thread applied to the 30/90 Theory. The idea is win.
As for this week, the Raiders are still a good bet to lose depending on the starting quarterback. When the starter is out because of an injury, a team often rallies around the replacement the following week. Couple that with a one time starter given another chance at times produces a step up, and take control of the game type performance. Raiders worth a second look with Andrew Walter. Bears in similar situation with Rex Grossman.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Tomspeople:
Diamonds if you're saying that 14-8 is bad, then there's something wrong with you.
Nothing wrong with me. I really hate losing bets, and not entirely satisfied with this win percentage. Factor in the vig on the 14-8, and we are much closer to 13-9. Plus, all the time wasted, considering and actually placing these bets. Add all these together equals a diminished win total.
Sooner or later, the law of averages catches up with us. This applies to all of the above. If, all of us were to live long enough, we would all win the lottery. Yet, it is not going to happen because of the time constraints on our lives. Time is valuable, and should be part of the equation. So, how many units is time really worth?
Besides winning, being a successful handicapper is about avoiding losing bets. One should strive to be in a position to win. Sometimes, you win by not losing, and the best bet is the one you don't make. One earlier suggestion of such was including the season average of a team to the theory.
With you being our resident math wiz, I would very much like to see your percentage, and predictability as outlined in the NHL thread applied to the 30/90 Theory. The idea is win.
As for this week, the Raiders are still a good bet to lose depending on the starting quarterback. When the starter is out because of an injury, a team often rallies around the replacement the following week. Couple that with a one time starter given another chance at times produces a step up, and take control of the game type performance. Raiders worth a second look with Andrew Walter. Bears in similar situation with Rex Grossman.
Nothing wrong with me. I really hate losing bets, and not entirely satisfied with this win percentage. Factor in the vig on the 14-8, and we are much closer to 13-9. Plus, all the time wasted, considering and actually placing these bets. Add all these together equals a diminished win total.
If you arent "enirely satisfied about the win pct" when its 14-8 63.6% or even your 13-9 59.1% then you need to find something else to do with your time cuz youre wasting it if you think youre gonna find much better than that. If that doesnt "satisfy" you then you will never be "satisfied" betting sports, youre expecting wayyyyy too much. If 60%+ doesnt satisfy you, move on to something else, seriously. Its just ridiculous to say youre not "entirely satisfied" with 63.6%. Makes me wonder if youre joking, clueless, or just fucking stupid
0
Quote Originally Posted by AcresofDiamonds:
Nothing wrong with me. I really hate losing bets, and not entirely satisfied with this win percentage. Factor in the vig on the 14-8, and we are much closer to 13-9. Plus, all the time wasted, considering and actually placing these bets. Add all these together equals a diminished win total.
If you arent "enirely satisfied about the win pct" when its 14-8 63.6% or even your 13-9 59.1% then you need to find something else to do with your time cuz youre wasting it if you think youre gonna find much better than that. If that doesnt "satisfy" you then you will never be "satisfied" betting sports, youre expecting wayyyyy too much. If 60%+ doesnt satisfy you, move on to something else, seriously. Its just ridiculous to say youre not "entirely satisfied" with 63.6%. Makes me wonder if youre joking, clueless, or just fucking stupid
Well, the NY Giants covered the 30/90 theory this weekend.
If you followed the theory to the Tee, and played the Raiders, then the theory went 2-2 this week. Making it a combined 5-4 the last 2 weeks.
But, if by following Aces advice, you faded the Raiders, then today you wolud have gone 2-1 and the combined record for the last 2 weeks would be 5-3.
Either way, you'd still be up. I'll be back later in the week to keep posting in this thread. Thanks 2 All once again for the insightful information and feedback.
Deuces!
0
Well, the NY Giants covered the 30/90 theory this weekend.
If you followed the theory to the Tee, and played the Raiders, then the theory went 2-2 this week. Making it a combined 5-4 the last 2 weeks.
But, if by following Aces advice, you faded the Raiders, then today you wolud have gone 2-1 and the combined record for the last 2 weeks would be 5-3.
Either way, you'd still be up. I'll be back later in the week to keep posting in this thread. Thanks 2 All once again for the insightful information and feedback.
Thanks night_owl. I actually had a perfect weekend going 4-0 with my "Time to Blow the Check..." installments.
As for the 30/90 theory this week....only one game falls under the 30 side and 3 games fall onto the 90 side of the system. However, one of those games on the 90 side is odd as we will see.
So, this week, according to the 30/90 theory that my brother told me about, the games that fall under the sytem are the following : (odds are by Beted as of 2030 PST)
New York Jets (101 pts.) at New England Patriots (-3) THURSDAY NIGHT!
Minnesota Vikings (97 pts.) at Tampa Bay Buccaneers (-4)
*Baltimore Ravens (107 pts.) at New York Giants (92 pts.) (-7)
Oakland Raiders (16 pts.) at Miami Dolphins (-11)
So right off the bat, as Ace has stated above, the Raiders are more than likely still Faiders this week, plus Al Davis took the playing calling duties away from his OC - what does that tell you?
And, the Ravens Giants game....I don't know what to think of it. Like I stated, I heard of this theory via my brother and this scenario never came up in the conversation. So the choice would be yours to make.
I am currently just following these plays. My actual plays will be posted on Friday night or on Saturday afternoon on myspace HERE. And if I were to bet these plays, I'd most likely play them in a 3 team teaser to get as many points as possible.
As always feedback is more than welcomed.
0
Thanks night_owl. I actually had a perfect weekend going 4-0 with my "Time to Blow the Check..." installments.
As for the 30/90 theory this week....only one game falls under the 30 side and 3 games fall onto the 90 side of the system. However, one of those games on the 90 side is odd as we will see.
So, this week, according to the 30/90 theory that my brother told me about, the games that fall under the sytem are the following : (odds are by Beted as of 2030 PST)
New York Jets (101 pts.) at New England Patriots (-3) THURSDAY NIGHT!
Minnesota Vikings (97 pts.) at Tampa Bay Buccaneers (-4)
*Baltimore Ravens (107 pts.) at New York Giants (92 pts.) (-7)
Oakland Raiders (16 pts.) at Miami Dolphins (-11)
So right off the bat, as Ace has stated above, the Raiders are more than likely still Faiders this week, plus Al Davis took the playing calling duties away from his OC - what does that tell you?
And, the Ravens Giants game....I don't know what to think of it. Like I stated, I heard of this theory via my brother and this scenario never came up in the conversation. So the choice would be yours to make.
I am currently just following these plays. My actual plays will be posted on Friday night or on Saturday afternoon on myspace HERE. And if I were to bet these plays, I'd most likely play them in a 3 team teaser to get as many points as possible.
According to hunter49 in an earlier post,"playing against a team that won su by 28 or more 22-9 ATS last year." This year teams in this situation are 1-8 ATS. Both the Jets, and Ravens are in this spot.
While I tend to agree with Tomspeople about avoiding a conflict in trends, a small lean to the Giants. Pounding the Pats tonight.
0
CityFog
Here is more for the arsenal:
According to hunter49 in an earlier post,"playing against a team that won su by 28 or more 22-9 ATS last year." This year teams in this situation are 1-8 ATS. Both the Jets, and Ravens are in this spot.
While I tend to agree with Tomspeople about avoiding a conflict in trends, a small lean to the Giants. Pounding the Pats tonight.
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
