The reason I wanted to point out Buff was because it is the perfect example of my addition...
they were on a -4 run, yet they were favoured on a really short line and getting most of the action... so it needs no correction from the oddsmakers standpoint...therefore either Buffalo should be a no play for the system or the other side is worth a look (as you can ride that losing streak)
So my additional criteria in this situation either cancels the original system play, or creates a system play for the other side actually....
kinda the same situation as Baylor the other day, and along the same lines as the Denver Broncos NFL example...
The question is, should this situation produce a system 'no play' or a system play against teams like Buff?
0
cool.
The reason I wanted to point out Buff was because it is the perfect example of my addition...
they were on a -4 run, yet they were favoured on a really short line and getting most of the action... so it needs no correction from the oddsmakers standpoint...therefore either Buffalo should be a no play for the system or the other side is worth a look (as you can ride that losing streak)
So my additional criteria in this situation either cancels the original system play, or creates a system play for the other side actually....
kinda the same situation as Baylor the other day, and along the same lines as the Denver Broncos NFL example...
The question is, should this situation produce a system 'no play' or a system play against teams like Buff?
Did you see my earlier post about the conference scrubs and not betting them or making them smaller plays?? You seem to be narrowing down the games beautifully with your betting trend system you are using.. I just think there are certain teams that could be left off or smaller wagers.. IE detroit from last night.. I know the bookmakers are supposed to adjust to teams that are not covering, but the lower level teams are very unpredictible.. Without that team in there last night we would of been 5-1, although I did play N.Arz and lost with them.. Just a thought.. Keep up the good work..
you are 100% right...the problem is it's much harder to get a good read on the games with limited action meaning if you play them it's more or less based on the first half of the system (basically just bob's system)...Which is fine, it would just be nice if we could get a better read on those games
0
Quote Originally Posted by wannawinalot:
HEY DISCO,
Did you see my earlier post about the conference scrubs and not betting them or making them smaller plays?? You seem to be narrowing down the games beautifully with your betting trend system you are using.. I just think there are certain teams that could be left off or smaller wagers.. IE detroit from last night.. I know the bookmakers are supposed to adjust to teams that are not covering, but the lower level teams are very unpredictible.. Without that team in there last night we would of been 5-1, although I did play N.Arz and lost with them.. Just a thought.. Keep up the good work..
you are 100% right...the problem is it's much harder to get a good read on the games with limited action meaning if you play them it's more or less based on the first half of the system (basically just bob's system)...Which is fine, it would just be nice if we could get a better read on those games
It is always safer just to make it a no play than a play against.. You would be sick betting against a system play?? Just my opinion.. Hey DISCO, what was your criteria to make N.Arz a no play last night?? I played it and suffered?? Was it something you saw in the betting %'s??
0
It is always safer just to make it a no play than a play against.. You would be sick betting against a system play?? Just my opinion.. Hey DISCO, what was your criteria to make N.Arz a no play last night?? I played it and suffered?? Was it something you saw in the betting %'s??
This system works best when a team has lost 3 or won 3 ATS correct?? I am working on something similar for the NBA.. It is taking forever to compile the info..
0
Bob,
This system works best when a team has lost 3 or won 3 ATS correct?? I am working on something similar for the NBA.. It is taking forever to compile the info..
sorry for all the questions, but trying to understand better.. what do you mean vegas equaled games out so they don't become system plays?? what other criteria does the system use other than the streaks of ATS wins/losses?
0
bob,
sorry for all the questions, but trying to understand better.. what do you mean vegas equaled games out so they don't become system plays?? what other criteria does the system use other than the streaks of ATS wins/losses?
It is always safer just to make it a no play than a play against.. You would be sick betting against a system play?? Just my opinion.. Hey DISCO, what was your criteria to make N.Arz a no play last night?? I played it and suffered?? Was it something you saw in the betting %'s??
you make a couple points. The first,
see it's hard to justify a no play, because logically if you think one team won't cover, then the other side will. and the problem is, is that this is my addition to the system...when bob would have played buff in the past, the fundamentals and theory of my addition say that Buffalo for example is actually not the play, so the other side is worth a serious look.
Secondly, regarding N. Arizona...if you look at the original list (mine at the bottom of page 1) you can see that they fit in theory but didn't have enough bets to make it a true system play...my requirements are simple...if the action is limited and I can't tell right away, it doesn't make the cut....probably what should have happened with the Detroit game...
I listed the final 6 plays (which did not include N. Arizona)...as you can see by the original list, several teams fit the system in theory, but didn't get enough bets to make it all the way
0
Quote Originally Posted by wannawinalot:
It is always safer just to make it a no play than a play against.. You would be sick betting against a system play?? Just my opinion.. Hey DISCO, what was your criteria to make N.Arz a no play last night?? I played it and suffered?? Was it something you saw in the betting %'s??
you make a couple points. The first,
see it's hard to justify a no play, because logically if you think one team won't cover, then the other side will. and the problem is, is that this is my addition to the system...when bob would have played buff in the past, the fundamentals and theory of my addition say that Buffalo for example is actually not the play, so the other side is worth a serious look.
Secondly, regarding N. Arizona...if you look at the original list (mine at the bottom of page 1) you can see that they fit in theory but didn't have enough bets to make it a true system play...my requirements are simple...if the action is limited and I can't tell right away, it doesn't make the cut....probably what should have happened with the Detroit game...
I listed the final 6 plays (which did not include N. Arizona)...as you can see by the original list, several teams fit the system in theory, but didn't get enough bets to make it all the way
wanna no prob ask away,,,what i'm saying is vegas wants all teams to factor out at 1-1 and they have done that with well over 45 games tomorrow so for the ATS its a non factor in taking a side
0
wanna no prob ask away,,,what i'm saying is vegas wants all teams to factor out at 1-1 and they have done that with well over 45 games tomorrow so for the ATS its a non factor in taking a side
sure...on the smaller market games, we'll have some that only get like 500-800 bets...usually less than 1,000....that's not really enough to get a true indication of where the betting market is putting their money...(especially considering that nomatter how many online bets are sent to these sites it still only represents a fraction of both the online betting market and actaul betting market) So no matter what we can't get a complete picture but the more bets the more we can see (generally) what the betting market seems to be doing...
if it was up to me I would make the requirement 10,000 bets but that just isn't realistic...so I've made the cutoff around 2,500 bets...
(less could be excepted for small market games...3,000 probably should be the minimum for larger markets games...)
Any thoughts on what the wager numbers should be, let me know...
0
sure...on the smaller market games, we'll have some that only get like 500-800 bets...usually less than 1,000....that's not really enough to get a true indication of where the betting market is putting their money...(especially considering that nomatter how many online bets are sent to these sites it still only represents a fraction of both the online betting market and actaul betting market) So no matter what we can't get a complete picture but the more bets the more we can see (generally) what the betting market seems to be doing...
if it was up to me I would make the requirement 10,000 bets but that just isn't realistic...so I've made the cutoff around 2,500 bets...
(less could be excepted for small market games...3,000 probably should be the minimum for larger markets games...)
Any thoughts on what the wager numbers should be, let me know...
what are your feelings on college vs. pro?? have you tried the nba.. disco, if I come up with some teams could u use your system on looking at betting trends.. should always be enough bets in the nba to apply your theory to??
0
DISCO OR BOB,
what are your feelings on college vs. pro?? have you tried the nba.. disco, if I come up with some teams could u use your system on looking at betting trends.. should always be enough bets in the nba to apply your theory to??
Bob's theory simply states that if a team is on a run, vegas will try to even that out...
my addition states that we should make sure people are betting each teams certain run... if they are, we go against it, if their not, there is no reason for Vegas to even that out, and it becomes a no play
0
in a quick recap...
Bob's theory simply states that if a team is on a run, vegas will try to even that out...
my addition states that we should make sure people are betting each teams certain run... if they are, we go against it, if their not, there is no reason for Vegas to even that out, and it becomes a no play
so in theory this system could work in any sport as far as I can tell
In fact, it would probably work better in leagues with less teams, as the lines would be sharper (less probability for weak lines, which hurt us in this system)...
and it's easier for the betting public to find these trends and bet them...
In many ways, it might work better in the NBA
0
so in theory this system could work in any sport as far as I can tell
In fact, it would probably work better in leagues with less teams, as the lines would be sharper (less probability for weak lines, which hurt us in this system)...
and it's easier for the betting public to find these trends and bet them...
Bob's theory simply states that if a team is on a run, vegas will try to even that out...
my addition states that we should make sure people are betting each teams certain run... if they are, we go against it, if their not, there is no reason for Vegas to even that out, and it becomes a no play
So bob the Buffalo question is if the public IS BETTING the team with the bad runs (-4's and -5's etc)...
should the other side be a strong system play or not? or a regular system play, or a no play?
0
Quote Originally Posted by DiscoD69:
in a quick recap...
Bob's theory simply states that if a team is on a run, vegas will try to even that out...
my addition states that we should make sure people are betting each teams certain run... if they are, we go against it, if their not, there is no reason for Vegas to even that out, and it becomes a no play
So bob the Buffalo question is if the public IS BETTING the team with the bad runs (-4's and -5's etc)...
should the other side be a strong system play or not? or a regular system play, or a no play?
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
