Posted:
#1
285-232 YTD (+39.05U)
Cavs v Raps o210.5
Lean Detroit may get there before tip
to win 1u unless noted
3
Sunday 🏀 🚂 🚂 🚂
Posted:
#4
Quote Originally Posted by MrFreedo:
Query of the Day: Round 1 home favorites off an OT loss by less than 3 points are 9-1 to the OVER next game
Query of the Day: Round 1 home favorites off an OT loss by less than 3 points are 9-1 to the OVER next game
It’s insane the circumstantial 0 correlation random crap people use as a reason to bet. Associating a r1 OT loss with a total going over is actual nonsense
4
Posted:
#7
Quote Originally Posted by BarrelledIn:
Quote Originally Posted by MrFreedo: Query of the Day: Round 1 home favorites off an OT loss by less than 3 points are 9-1 to the OVER next game It’s insane the circumstantial 0 correlation random crap people use as a reason to bet. Associating a r1 OT loss with a total going over is actual nonsense
Quote Originally Posted by MrFreedo: Query of the Day: Round 1 home favorites off an OT loss by less than 3 points are 9-1 to the OVER next game It’s insane the circumstantial 0 correlation random crap people use as a reason to bet. Associating a r1 OT loss with a total going over is actual nonsense
@BarrelledIn
I'll try and explain as simple as possible. 
Queries are a small part of my process not the main reason.
All rounds are 14-3 to the OVER (hit 12 straight times). Yes, I'm going to try and make sense of a query hitting 10+ straight lmao. Majority of the success has been in the first round.
Teams off OT in the playoffs where starters play more extended minutes have tired legs. Tired legs may help with less defense. The query shows the home teams score in this situation more often than not. Makes sense coming back home extra motivated off a close tough loss where you shoot better at the crib and role players provide more offense.
I don't trust Cavs defense and we've already seen higher scoring games at Rocket Arena. The Cavs team total has went over all three times at home in this series.
Yes I have other queries for and against this play but this was an easy one to make sense of with an easy correlation to understand.
to win 1u unless noted
5
Posted:
#9
Quote Originally Posted by greymamba:
@BarrelledIn Maybe relevant maybe not, but OP is 100% finding an edge using what you perceive as irrelevant. 40 units on 1-2 unit sizing is something different
@BarrelledIn Maybe relevant maybe not, but OP is 100% finding an edge using what you perceive as irrelevant. 40 units on 1-2 unit sizing is something different
@greymamba
100+ units up since last playoffs all sports and one losing week since ASB in NBA. Occasionally I get a troll or two throughout the year. M process won't change just keep the loot train rolling.
Us vs the books
to win 1u unless noted
5
#5 @greymamba
Posted:
#13
Quote Originally Posted by MrFreedo:
Quote Originally Posted by BarrelledIn: Quote Originally Posted by MrFreedo: Query of the Day: Round 1 home favorites off an OT loss by less than 3 points are 9-1 to the OVER next game It’s insane the circumstantial 0 correlation random crap people use as a reason to bet. Associating a r1 OT loss with a total going over is actual nonsense @BarrelledIn I'll try and explain as simple as possible. Queries are a small part of my process not the main reason. All rounds are 14-3 to the OVER (hit 12 straight times). Yes, I'm going to try and make sense of a query hitting 10+ straight lmao. Majority of the success has been in the first round. Teams off OT in the playoffs where starters play more extended minutes have tired legs. Tired legs may help with less defense. The query shows the home teams score in this situation more often than not. Makes sense coming back home extra motivated off a close tough loss where you shoot better at the crib and role players provide more offense. I don't trust Cavs defense and we've already seen higher scoring games at Rocket Arena. The Cavs team total has went over all three times at home in this series. Yes I have other queries for and against this play but this was an easy one to make sense of with an easy correlation to understand.
Quote Originally Posted by BarrelledIn: Quote Originally Posted by MrFreedo: Query of the Day: Round 1 home favorites off an OT loss by less than 3 points are 9-1 to the OVER next game It’s insane the circumstantial 0 correlation random crap people use as a reason to bet. Associating a r1 OT loss with a total going over is actual nonsense @BarrelledIn I'll try and explain as simple as possible. Queries are a small part of my process not the main reason. All rounds are 14-3 to the OVER (hit 12 straight times). Yes, I'm going to try and make sense of a query hitting 10+ straight lmao. Majority of the success has been in the first round. Teams off OT in the playoffs where starters play more extended minutes have tired legs. Tired legs may help with less defense. The query shows the home teams score in this situation more often than not. Makes sense coming back home extra motivated off a close tough loss where you shoot better at the crib and role players provide more offense. I don't trust Cavs defense and we've already seen higher scoring games at Rocket Arena. The Cavs team total has went over all three times at home in this series. Yes I have other queries for and against this play but this was an easy one to make sense of with an easy correlation to understand.
Ohh so a team playing a few extra minutes in OT leads to tired legs on defense and an over and they “are motivated to shoot better” off a loss. You’re not even factoring that this is a gm7 that historically drops totals. Did the other games in your sample have gm7s? Can you tell me exactly what difference it makes on a TOTAL if a player plays 4 extra minutes 48 hours prior? Wouldn’t these very tired legs lead to poor shooting according to your theory? Omg man just don’t even bother to explain when you come up with that LMAO
Anyone betting totals on anything other than pure numbers is a clown. A 10 game arbitrary sample size of random unknown games each with unknown totals and circumstances throughout history is statistically insignificant. You could say something semi intelligent like the market has overcorrected for a gm7 drop in the total and is too out of line with the expected value based on the past outcomes and totals this series. If you win, that’s probably why you win or it’s just random, nothing to do with the tarded slop above
2
Posted:
#17
Quote Originally Posted by BarrelledIn:
Quote Originally Posted by MrFreedo: Quote Originally Posted by BarrelledIn: Quote Originally Posted by MrFreedo: Query of the Day: Round 1 home favorites off an OT loss by less than 3 points are 9-1 to the OVER next game It’s insane the circumstantial 0 correlation random crap people use as a reason to bet. Associating a r1 OT loss with a total going over is actual nonsense @BarrelledIn I'll try and explain as simple as possible. Queries are a small part of my process not the main reason. All rounds are 14-3 to the OVER (hit 12 straight times). Yes, I'm going to try and make sense of a query hitting 10+ straight lmao. Majority of the success has been in the first round. Teams off OT in the playoffs where starters play more extended minutes have tired legs. Tired legs may help with less defense. The query shows the home teams score in this situation more often than not. Makes sense coming back home extra motivated off a close tough loss where you shoot better at the crib and role players provide more offense. I don't trust Cavs defense and we've already seen higher scoring games at Rocket Arena. The Cavs team total has went over all three times at home in this series. Yes I have other queries for and against this play but this was an easy one to make sense of with an easy correlation to understand. Ohh so a team playing a few extra minutes in OT leads to tired legs on defense and an over and they “are motivated to shoot better” off a loss. You’re not even factoring that this is a gm7 that historically drops totals. Did the other games in your sample have gm7s? Can you tell me exactly what difference it makes on a TOTAL if a player plays 4 extra minutes 48 hours prior? Wouldn’t these very tired legs lead to poor shooting according to your theory? Omg man just don’t even bother to explain when you come up with that LMAO Anyone betting totals on anything other than pure numbers is a clown. A 10 game arbitrary sample size of random unknown games each with unknown totals and circumstances throughout history is statistically insignificant. You could say something semi intelligent like the market has overcorrected for a gm7 drop in the total and is too out of line with the expected value based on the past outcomes and totals this series. If you win, that’s probably why you win or it’s just random, nothing to do with the tarded slop above
Quote Originally Posted by MrFreedo: Quote Originally Posted by BarrelledIn: Quote Originally Posted by MrFreedo: Query of the Day: Round 1 home favorites off an OT loss by less than 3 points are 9-1 to the OVER next game It’s insane the circumstantial 0 correlation random crap people use as a reason to bet. Associating a r1 OT loss with a total going over is actual nonsense @BarrelledIn I'll try and explain as simple as possible. Queries are a small part of my process not the main reason. All rounds are 14-3 to the OVER (hit 12 straight times). Yes, I'm going to try and make sense of a query hitting 10+ straight lmao. Majority of the success has been in the first round. Teams off OT in the playoffs where starters play more extended minutes have tired legs. Tired legs may help with less defense. The query shows the home teams score in this situation more often than not. Makes sense coming back home extra motivated off a close tough loss where you shoot better at the crib and role players provide more offense. I don't trust Cavs defense and we've already seen higher scoring games at Rocket Arena. The Cavs team total has went over all three times at home in this series. Yes I have other queries for and against this play but this was an easy one to make sense of with an easy correlation to understand. Ohh so a team playing a few extra minutes in OT leads to tired legs on defense and an over and they “are motivated to shoot better” off a loss. You’re not even factoring that this is a gm7 that historically drops totals. Did the other games in your sample have gm7s? Can you tell me exactly what difference it makes on a TOTAL if a player plays 4 extra minutes 48 hours prior? Wouldn’t these very tired legs lead to poor shooting according to your theory? Omg man just don’t even bother to explain when you come up with that LMAO Anyone betting totals on anything other than pure numbers is a clown. A 10 game arbitrary sample size of random unknown games each with unknown totals and circumstances throughout history is statistically insignificant. You could say something semi intelligent like the market has overcorrected for a gm7 drop in the total and is too out of line with the expected value based on the past outcomes and totals this series. If you win, that’s probably why you win or it’s just random, nothing to do with the tarded slop above
I enjoy all feedback guys but if you’re gonna talk smack at least give me some useful info. I soak up knowledge.
No shit I’m going to bet totals where my numbers are better than the market. Ofc gm7s have lower totals. Tell me something I don’t know.
You don’t think Harden playing 44 minutes might focus more energy on offense and less defense.
Totals (team totals specifically) have been my bread and butter for me over large sample sizes for years. I’ll keep doing what’s profitable. Haters come and go but the process continues.
Oh my bad the original query was 41-14 to the OVER before filtered
playoffs = 1 and HF and p:overtime = 1 and p:margin>=-2
to win 1u unless noted
1
Posted:
#20
@MrFreedo
Your patience with this guy is noteworthy!
On another note, perhaps you could weigh in on a theoretical question that relates to yesterday's game. Thirty some years ago, a guy I knew from the Stardust told me that in a 7th game, if the home team covered the opening number in game 1, and the books opened game 7 lower than thay had opened game 1, then the home team was more likely than not to fail to cover. I never tracked this, as I matter of fact I basically forget about it till now, but considering the source, I assume the trend was valid. Of course you would have to standardize what you would consider the opener; you would want, I believe, a book that was sharp and put out their openers early.
I believe that the game 1 opener was 12.5, and there was no Embiid. I believe the game 7 opener was 9.5, and there was an Embiid. I'm going to disregard that Tatum was a scratch because that came later, and throws a whole other variable into the equation which I don't care to deal with at this point. From a theoretically technical standpoint, would you say it's more correct to say that ok, Boston covered game 1 and they opened game 7 lower, so that favors Philly against the spread, or would you say it's more correct to say, ok, Embiid is perceived as being worth 3 points, so the game 1 and game 7 openers are essentially equal and the trend doesn't apply?
0
Posted:
#24
Quote Originally Posted by jepjep02:
Ingram listed aa doubtful.
Ingram listed aa doubtful.
@jepjep02
Just saw the total drop on the news. He’s a good scorer but also a good defender.
Not a fan of reverse line movement when more money is on the over but riding it out.
I think if Cavs win it will be higher scoring we will see. I’m rooting for Cavs.
to win 1u unless noted
0
Posted:
#25
Quote Originally Posted by Stew Baker:
@MrFreedo Your patience with this guy is noteworthy! On another note, perhaps you could weigh in on a theoretical question that relates to yesterday's game. Thirty some years ago, a guy I knew from the Stardust told me that in a 7th game, if the home team covered the opening number in game 1, and the books opened game 7 lower than thay had opened game 1, then the home team was more likely than not to fail to cover. I never tracked this, as I matter of fact I basically forget about it till now, but considering the source, I assume the trend was valid. Of course you would have to standardize what you would consider the opener; you would want, I believe, a book that was sharp and put out their openers early. I believe that the game 1 opener was 12.5, and there was no Embiid. I believe the game 7 opener was 9.5, and there was an Embiid. I'm going to disregard that Tatum was a scratch because that came later, and throws a whole other variable into the equation which I don't care to deal with at this point. From a theoretically technical standpoint, would you say it's more correct to say that ok, Boston covered game 1 and they opened game 7 lower, so that favors Philly against the spread, or would you say it's more correct to say, ok, Embiid is perceived as being worth 3 points, so the game 1 and game 7 openers are essentially equal and the trend doesn't apply?
@MrFreedo Your patience with this guy is noteworthy! On another note, perhaps you could weigh in on a theoretical question that relates to yesterday's game. Thirty some years ago, a guy I knew from the Stardust told me that in a 7th game, if the home team covered the opening number in game 1, and the books opened game 7 lower than thay had opened game 1, then the home team was more likely than not to fail to cover. I never tracked this, as I matter of fact I basically forget about it till now, but considering the source, I assume the trend was valid. Of course you would have to standardize what you would consider the opener; you would want, I believe, a book that was sharp and put out their openers early. I believe that the game 1 opener was 12.5, and there was no Embiid. I believe the game 7 opener was 9.5, and there was an Embiid. I'm going to disregard that Tatum was a scratch because that came later, and throws a whole other variable into the equation which I don't care to deal with at this point. From a theoretically technical standpoint, would you say it's more correct to say that ok, Boston covered game 1 and they opened game 7 lower, so that favors Philly against the spread, or would you say it's more correct to say, ok, Embiid is perceived as being worth 3 points, so the game 1 and game 7 openers are essentially equal and the trend doesn't apply?
@Stew Baker
good to see you
If both healthy rosters the whole series and the line opened lower gm7 I would tend to agree. Lots of different factors to think about though higher seeding, the market, matchup specific, etc. Maybe there’s a reason they changed their stance or adjusted. I mean I didn’t expect Boston to get pushed to 7 games even with Embiid healthy as a #2 seed.
to win 1u unless noted
0
Hot Forum Topics
