Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Good luck, person.
|
coachnip13 | 5 |
|
|
Rationale: Notre Dame has one of the worst rushing attacks in the country. That is important for two reasons: one, Miami has a great pass defense, and two, today's conditions in El Paso will negatively affect the passing game. Therefore, Notre Dame will have to try to run, and they don't do it well at all.
As for Miami, they have been great at adding up the yardage between the 20 yard lines, but they haven't been able to punch it in. And Notre Dame played some very good defense over their last three games. Jacory Harris has been an interception machine for Miami, so with today's weather, Miami will try to lean on its stable of running backs, keepin the score down and keeping the clock rolling. Take the under with confidence. |
coachnip13 | 5 |
|
|
I'm interested. Have you put in the data to come up with any plays for tonight?
|
Ballyduff | 5 |
|
|
I meant period, not quarter. Too much football around me right now.
|
kreatture | 1504 |
|
|
"Carolina/Toronto Over 5.5 (+105)
1% $123.13 to win $129.29" I love it when an over hits halfway through the second quarter. Thanks for the play, Kreatture. |
kreatture | 1504 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by jonnymega:
There's one idea I've had that I've been trying to find time to backtest... Since the majority of runs in most games are scored in the first two innings, would it be advantageous to take the over in 5 innings? And if so, what is the breakdown? Do the 7 and under totals hit more than 50% of the time or do the 9 and up totals hit more than 50%? Sounds good in theory but needs to be backtested. I'm going to try that today if I can. GL Where on earth did you get the idea that most runs are scored in the first two innings? This isn't even remotely close to being accurate. |
The-OG-GunClapa | 16 |
|
|
neilsy, Are you using any kind of system to decide your overs and unders, or is it just your own analysis based on the teams themselves? Thanks. |
neilsy25 | 131 |
|
|
I'm not entirely certain that I know how to create those queries, but when I looked for teams that went on an "over" streak to start the season, no one has ever gone past four straight overs. If our goal is to gain one unit per team as quickly as possible, it seems that only having to go to a fifth game is more desirable than going to a sixth or seventh game. Additionally, only nine teams even went to a fifth game, and the latest the system has ever gone is October 18th. Like I said, I'm no expert on those queries, so someone can feel free to correct my research. |
neilsy25 | 307 |
|
|
It's already Florida -3.5.
|
Doemaster | 9 |
|
|
5dimes has -3.5 as well.
|
1919 | 9 |
|
|
It started at Miami -7, now almost everyone has taken it down. I can't find anything close to a significant injury. Any ideas?
|
coachnip13 | 5 |
|
|
4-2, much like 5-1, 3-3, and 0-6, results in a loss of ten bucks. The folks taking your pleaser bets give high fives all around when you submit those.
|
MaineRoad | 39 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Jasontc:
What do you mean they didn't tell me that? you think i made it up? I think you made it up. I made a deposit for last year's New Years bowls and made the withdrawal within a week. As for the bank thing, the checks I've received from them have always been drawn on US banks. |
SCOTTRF301 | 9 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by nolemonasses:
Just did a test. I can make two separate parlays on the same game. Tonight's Colorado vs. Toledo.
I did a $1 parlay taking Colorado -3.5 and over 54.5.
I then did a $1 parlay taking Toledo +3.5 and under 54.5.
Both would pay out 2.6 to 1. Or my $1 would make $2.60.
Is this what you were talking about not being allowed to do?
I know this is not a qualifying game tonight, but I just wanted to do a real test. And it worked for me.
It will let you make those wagers because that game doesn't qualify. Try a qualifying game and it won't let you. |
whitakp | 252 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Ston3:
Well I'd love to to some back-test but unfortunatly I couldn't find any history data from "Massey Ratings" So currently 7 series played 6 won 1 @ game 2 +600$ Unless someone can provide me with historic data I'll just test it until the end of the season At the top of the screen on Massey's page there is a blue '2008' to click on. It will go back as far as you want. Then use Covers to look at the data for those teams in those years. |
Ston3 | 9 |
|
|
Best of luck, Ston.
I did a quick glance through and saw one loss this year: Florida's sweep at Toronto.
|
Ston3 | 9 |
|
|
In addition, Ston, if you're going to use a set of rankings to make your picks, use something with a mathematical basis like Massey's MLB ratings instead of some website's power poll that is assembled by a sportswriter who is in the press box buffet for the first three innings.
|
Ston3 | 9 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Ston3:
Just some random thoughts I had a few minutes ago so I figured I might ask here if someone already tried something similar to this: Use ESPN/CBS/Whatever Powerrankings and bet on a team thats ranked 10+ higher than it's opponent and plays at home. Game 1 : Bet as much as needed to win 100$ (example size) Game 2 : Bet as much as needet to win 100$ + Game 1 loss Game 3 : Bet as much as needed to win 100$ + Game 1 & 2 loss If they lose game 3 and get swept you lost your money otherwise you win 100$. Looking at today these are the possible plays: Dodgers (#1 vs. #13 Rockies) Marlins (#18 vs. #30 Nationals) If you want to play the "away" favorites too: Red Sox (#2 vs. #23 O's) Tigers (#5 vs. #26 A's) Twins (#14 vs. #25 Royals) So if anyone tested it or wants to backtrack it, please give me your feedback. The biggest battle here is the juice and if you can handle some really big bets and potential losses. Let's assume that the three games are going to be -120, -130, and -120. Game 1 - 120 to win 100....loss of 120 Game 2 - 286 to win 220.....loss now at 406, plus still need to win 100 Game 3 - 607 to win 506 Total potential loss of $1013 on one series. |
Ston3 | 9 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by popehike:
Coach I submitted a friend request to you. I'm interested in reviewing your data for the LAD/Col game versus mine. I'm in the area, but defintely not ringing the doorbell as SN notes. Thx Friend request accepted. Shoot me a message and we'll see what we have. |
sports_Network | 2244 |
|
|
replied to
MLB Dog System (83-74) (+$3,696 for a $100/game bettor) Tested Only For The Month Of June...
in Systems & Strategies Quote Originally Posted by powerade:
damn....that parlay for $100 would have paid 84694.16!!!
10 bucks would have been 8469.42
nice....
whats the system?
don't listen to these other guys....i track things all the time and sometimes things work and pan out and sometimes they don;t....
more importantly than just this season, you need to go and back track for prior seasons....
i can't even tell you the all the systems i've tracked....hours and hours going through old boxscores and past seasons results for the MLB, NBA and NFL for years.....
some of my tracking in the NFL i have dated back from the early/mid 90's through today......most don't pan out but i have a few that have....
What do you mean "don't listen to these other guys"? We all have the same goal. Instead of going through old box scores like you say that you do, why not post your idea so someone can say "hey, I tried that, but it went under 50% over a four year period." Or maybe someone could add little tidbits, like "that trend doesn't hold up with division rivals." If you want to try systems, fine, but why post your plays without the system along with it? Either you're posting it for other people to see or you're not....can't have it both ways. |
WiLdCaRd88 | 65 |
|
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.