since 1985 there have been 186 teams that have played 3 gms in a row at home. only 20 of them have lost all 3, that is 10.75%.
which means 89% (166 teams) have won atleast one of those home games. 19 of those teams have lost the first two and won the third.
the teams that have lost 3 straight home games have been
14 teams had between 0-4 wins that season
5 teams had between 5-7 wins that season
1 team has had 9 wins one season. (miami)
this season so far 3 teams have had 3 straight home games and they all have won atleast once in those three. (IND, TB, NYJ)
this week the bengals are on their 3rd straight home game.
i know giants lost this week but they are known for taking a dive almost as much as getting hot. i think bengals ML is worth a small play here, at the very least benglas +4.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
since 1985 there have been 186 teams that have played 3 gms in a row at home. only 20 of them have lost all 3, that is 10.75%.
which means 89% (166 teams) have won atleast one of those home games. 19 of those teams have lost the first two and won the third.
the teams that have lost 3 straight home games have been
14 teams had between 0-4 wins that season
5 teams had between 5-7 wins that season
1 team has had 9 wins one season. (miami)
this season so far 3 teams have had 3 straight home games and they all have won atleast once in those three. (IND, TB, NYJ)
this week the bengals are on their 3rd straight home game.
i know giants lost this week but they are known for taking a dive almost as much as getting hot. i think bengals ML is worth a small play here, at the very least benglas +4.
Actually lean you way on the play but isn't this trend 50/50?
According to the trend 39 teams have lost the first two games. Only 19 won the third and 20 lost all three. Doesn't this make the spot the Bengals are in (losing the first two) 19-20 ATS?
0
Actually lean you way on the play but isn't this trend 50/50?
According to the trend 39 teams have lost the first two games. Only 19 won the third and 20 lost all three. Doesn't this make the spot the Bengals are in (losing the first two) 19-20 ATS?
you are only looking at the teams that have lost the first two games. i am looking at the overall 3 game homestand. Also i dont believe the bengals are as bad as the majority of the teams that have lost all 3. only one team with a winning record has ever lost all 3 home games and i believe the bengals are at the very least a .500 team.
0
you are only looking at the teams that have lost the first two games. i am looking at the overall 3 game homestand. Also i dont believe the bengals are as bad as the majority of the teams that have lost all 3. only one team with a winning record has ever lost all 3 home games and i believe the bengals are at the very least a .500 team.
i'm with you on this one. bengals 0-4 SU and ATS in their last four which means they got to get their shit together. in those four games they had every chance to cover. home dog, even if bengals lose hope it stays within the numbers. giants on a slump? possibly. i have this near a favorite play this week.
0
i'm with you on this one. bengals 0-4 SU and ATS in their last four which means they got to get their shit together. in those four games they had every chance to cover. home dog, even if bengals lose hope it stays within the numbers. giants on a slump? possibly. i have this near a favorite play this week.
Actually lean you way on the play but isn't this trend 50/50?
According to the trend 39 teams have lost the first two games. Only 19 won the third and 20 lost all three. Doesn't this make the spot the Bengals are in (losing the first two) 19-20 ATS?
That's the way I see it! If you believe that a team has a 50-50 chance to lose a game wouldn't the true statistical odds of losing three in a row be about 8-1, just like hitting a three parlay, and your numbers show that the third game is a toss up.
Next, consider the fact that the NYG; a quality, well coached football team; will be coming off of a loss and looking to right the ship.
Next, take a look at the BENGALS record over the last two years against teams with a winning percentage. Did you check the numbers? Last year the BENGALS didn't beat a team with a winning season. Now look at this years numbers. The BENGALS haven't beaten a team with a winning record. These guys seem to excel at beating up on bottom dwellers.
Ask yourself where do the NYG play their best football? Answer: the road. CINCY seems to be a team that buckles in these spots. The NYG seem to be a team that is road-tested and used to winning in tight spots.
BENGALS ATS 0-7-1 vs teams with a winning record
Hey, you could win this BET on the BENGALS but if you look at it close enough it's not the best spot for them. Last week the BENGALS were coming off of a BYE and a home loss and they couldn't get it done against the BRONCOS who played on SNF.
GOOD LUCK
0
Quote Originally Posted by andarmac99:
Actually lean you way on the play but isn't this trend 50/50?
According to the trend 39 teams have lost the first two games. Only 19 won the third and 20 lost all three. Doesn't this make the spot the Bengals are in (losing the first two) 19-20 ATS?
That's the way I see it! If you believe that a team has a 50-50 chance to lose a game wouldn't the true statistical odds of losing three in a row be about 8-1, just like hitting a three parlay, and your numbers show that the third game is a toss up.
Next, consider the fact that the NYG; a quality, well coached football team; will be coming off of a loss and looking to right the ship.
Next, take a look at the BENGALS record over the last two years against teams with a winning percentage. Did you check the numbers? Last year the BENGALS didn't beat a team with a winning season. Now look at this years numbers. The BENGALS haven't beaten a team with a winning record. These guys seem to excel at beating up on bottom dwellers.
Ask yourself where do the NYG play their best football? Answer: the road. CINCY seems to be a team that buckles in these spots. The NYG seem to be a team that is road-tested and used to winning in tight spots.
BENGALS ATS 0-7-1 vs teams with a winning record
Hey, you could win this BET on the BENGALS but if you look at it close enough it's not the best spot for them. Last week the BENGALS were coming off of a BYE and a home loss and they couldn't get it done against the BRONCOS who played on SNF.
My numbers don't go as far back as yours, but teams on three game home stand that have lost the first two games ATS 23-16-1
Still, don't forget their playing the NYG, a quality road team with a championship pedigree, and don't forget about the BENGALS record against winning football teams.
I'm not saying the BENGALS won't cover but just throwing some more stuff into the pot.
0
A ray of light ...
My numbers don't go as far back as yours, but teams on three game home stand that have lost the first two games ATS 23-16-1
Still, don't forget their playing the NYG, a quality road team with a championship pedigree, and don't forget about the BENGALS record against winning football teams.
I'm not saying the BENGALS won't cover but just throwing some more stuff into the pot.
you gotta consider right now if the giants are on the downturn or upturn. they have been strarting 6-2 a lot of years then loosing a lot throughout the second half of the season
but is that what's happening now?
it might just be a case of a decent defense beating their strategy of late game heroics. which by the law of averages seems pretty reasonable considering the giants have been pulling these things off without fault for a long time
so does this break their trend and cost them to play a different type of game i'm not sure
although they have a trend of getting worse in the second half this may be a team who's turned the corner. if you think about how their d-line has been playing lately it's looking better. also their getting players back on offense and they are looking more healthy. not sure about cruz right now. if he did end up getting hurt last week but if they're stronger now than they were at the start i could see them making this a hard game
cincy played well last week in the loss. denver got good officiating and that hurts when you're at home. plus the one big special teams play
cincys offense played better than denvers in my opinion
0
you gotta consider right now if the giants are on the downturn or upturn. they have been strarting 6-2 a lot of years then loosing a lot throughout the second half of the season
but is that what's happening now?
it might just be a case of a decent defense beating their strategy of late game heroics. which by the law of averages seems pretty reasonable considering the giants have been pulling these things off without fault for a long time
so does this break their trend and cost them to play a different type of game i'm not sure
although they have a trend of getting worse in the second half this may be a team who's turned the corner. if you think about how their d-line has been playing lately it's looking better. also their getting players back on offense and they are looking more healthy. not sure about cruz right now. if he did end up getting hurt last week but if they're stronger now than they were at the start i could see them making this a hard game
cincy played well last week in the loss. denver got good officiating and that hurts when you're at home. plus the one big special teams play
cincys offense played better than denvers in my opinion
you gotta consider right now if the giants are on the downturn or upturn. they have been strarting 6-2 a lot of years then loosing a lot throughout the second half of the season
but is that what's happening now?
it might just be a case of a decent defense beating their strategy of late game heroics. which by the law of averages seems pretty reasonable considering the giants have been pulling these things off without fault for a long time
so does this break their trend and cost them to play a different type of game i'm not sure
although they have a trend of getting worse in the second half this may be a team who's turned the corner. if you think about how their d-line has been playing lately it's looking better. also their getting players back on offense and they are looking more healthy. not sure about cruz right now. if he did end up getting hurt last week but if they're stronger now than they were at the start i could see them making this a hard game
cincy played well last week in the loss. denver got good officiating and that hurts when you're at home. plus the one big special teams play
cincys offense played better than denvers in my opinion
You refer to NYG tendency to play poorly in the second half of the season. I know two or three seasons back that was a problem, maybe it was injury related, but you can't say that about last year. They turned it on in the second half of the season, when they got healthy, and won the super bowl. You might want to look at how the NYG's performed the season after they beat the Patriots to win the Super Bowl but I'm not sure how relevant that would be to this year's performance. As for CINCY, look at their seasonal win-loss record over the last ten years and you see a team that always regresses after a good year. Let's face it for whatever reason they can't put two good seasons together. Organization, advantage NYG. Coaching, advantage NYG. Experience in big games against tough opponents, advantage NYG.
I'm not saying CINCY won't cover in this spot. I'm just trying to add something to the conversation.
0
Quote Originally Posted by learningthegame:
you gotta consider right now if the giants are on the downturn or upturn. they have been strarting 6-2 a lot of years then loosing a lot throughout the second half of the season
but is that what's happening now?
it might just be a case of a decent defense beating their strategy of late game heroics. which by the law of averages seems pretty reasonable considering the giants have been pulling these things off without fault for a long time
so does this break their trend and cost them to play a different type of game i'm not sure
although they have a trend of getting worse in the second half this may be a team who's turned the corner. if you think about how their d-line has been playing lately it's looking better. also their getting players back on offense and they are looking more healthy. not sure about cruz right now. if he did end up getting hurt last week but if they're stronger now than they were at the start i could see them making this a hard game
cincy played well last week in the loss. denver got good officiating and that hurts when you're at home. plus the one big special teams play
cincys offense played better than denvers in my opinion
You refer to NYG tendency to play poorly in the second half of the season. I know two or three seasons back that was a problem, maybe it was injury related, but you can't say that about last year. They turned it on in the second half of the season, when they got healthy, and won the super bowl. You might want to look at how the NYG's performed the season after they beat the Patriots to win the Super Bowl but I'm not sure how relevant that would be to this year's performance. As for CINCY, look at their seasonal win-loss record over the last ten years and you see a team that always regresses after a good year. Let's face it for whatever reason they can't put two good seasons together. Organization, advantage NYG. Coaching, advantage NYG. Experience in big games against tough opponents, advantage NYG.
I'm not saying CINCY won't cover in this spot. I'm just trying to add something to the conversation.
Actually lean you way on the play but isn't this trend 50/50?
According to the trend 39 teams have lost the first two games. Only 19 won the third and 20 lost all three. Doesn't this make the spot the Bengals are in (losing the first two) 19-20 ATS?
Exactly, in this "situational" spot as the thread author stipulates, except that this is after the first two games which have already been lost, so it actually becomes a toss up whether the third game is a win or a loss, statistically speaking. A "non-factor" in fact. So betting on Cin based on this "90 % situational success rate" factor is in actuality, no better than a coin toss. That is not what I would call a betting edge.
Also, I would make the same points already put well enough by shiva in post #6, so I won't mention them again.
I feel NYG is a solid choice this weekend to bounce back from their tough loss against a tough Pit team. Cin hasn't even beaten one above average team this season, or last. I expect more of the same and I'm afraid taking the Bengals is very much like hoping against the odds that this time, it will be different. Not much chance, IMO.
BOL
0
Quote Originally Posted by andarmac99:
Actually lean you way on the play but isn't this trend 50/50?
According to the trend 39 teams have lost the first two games. Only 19 won the third and 20 lost all three. Doesn't this make the spot the Bengals are in (losing the first two) 19-20 ATS?
Exactly, in this "situational" spot as the thread author stipulates, except that this is after the first two games which have already been lost, so it actually becomes a toss up whether the third game is a win or a loss, statistically speaking. A "non-factor" in fact. So betting on Cin based on this "90 % situational success rate" factor is in actuality, no better than a coin toss. That is not what I would call a betting edge.
Also, I would make the same points already put well enough by shiva in post #6, so I won't mention them again.
I feel NYG is a solid choice this weekend to bounce back from their tough loss against a tough Pit team. Cin hasn't even beaten one above average team this season, or last. I expect more of the same and I'm afraid taking the Bengals is very much like hoping against the odds that this time, it will be different. Not much chance, IMO.
you are only looking at the teams that have lost the first two games. i am looking at the overall 3 game homestand. Also i dont believe the bengals are as bad as the majority of the teams that have lost all 3. only one team with a winning record has ever lost all 3 home games and i believe the bengals are at the very least a .500 team.
The point is you talk about the SITUATION ("situational"). But then you are imposing your statistic of the overall results of teams winning at least 1 game of 3. That is only true if you think of it as the chance a team will win at least 1 of 3 BEFORE they have been played. As the actual stats bear out, AFTER (that is the actual SITUATION, RIGHT?) the first two game have been lost, it is quite the different story. Game 3 results in that SITUATION is that in the past, teams have gone on to lose the 3rd game 20 times, while winning only 19...almost 50/50 but not quite!
If you think about it, it makes sense. If a team is not very good, and they already lose the first two, it becomes a real possibility they will lose again....not a likelihood as you propose that they will win 90% of the time.
You said you believe the Bengals are a .500 team. Well, in order for that to be true, after 8 games, the record should be 4-4, not 3-5. I think the record speaks for itself and when you consider the only wins came against the dregs, and all losses came to at least average or better teams...you have to face the reality that the Bengals are not the team you hope them to be. NYG are above average. Coming off a loss, they are going to be very hard for Cin to beat. I don't see it happening.
Anyway, BOL to you this weekend.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ridibets:
you are only looking at the teams that have lost the first two games. i am looking at the overall 3 game homestand. Also i dont believe the bengals are as bad as the majority of the teams that have lost all 3. only one team with a winning record has ever lost all 3 home games and i believe the bengals are at the very least a .500 team.
The point is you talk about the SITUATION ("situational"). But then you are imposing your statistic of the overall results of teams winning at least 1 game of 3. That is only true if you think of it as the chance a team will win at least 1 of 3 BEFORE they have been played. As the actual stats bear out, AFTER (that is the actual SITUATION, RIGHT?) the first two game have been lost, it is quite the different story. Game 3 results in that SITUATION is that in the past, teams have gone on to lose the 3rd game 20 times, while winning only 19...almost 50/50 but not quite!
If you think about it, it makes sense. If a team is not very good, and they already lose the first two, it becomes a real possibility they will lose again....not a likelihood as you propose that they will win 90% of the time.
You said you believe the Bengals are a .500 team. Well, in order for that to be true, after 8 games, the record should be 4-4, not 3-5. I think the record speaks for itself and when you consider the only wins came against the dregs, and all losses came to at least average or better teams...you have to face the reality that the Bengals are not the team you hope them to be. NYG are above average. Coming off a loss, they are going to be very hard for Cin to beat. I don't see it happening.
Exactly, in this "situational" spot as the thread author stipulates, except that this is after the first two games which have already been lost, so it actually becomes a toss up whether the third game is a win or a loss, statistically speaking. A "non-factor" in fact. So betting on Cin based on this "90 % situational success rate" factor is in actuality, no better than a coin toss. That is not what I would call a betting edge.
Also, I would make the same points already put well enough by shiva in post #6, so I won't mention them again.
BOL
Exactly. Someone who understands.
Prior to all three games being played you might have have a case for Cincinnati. After two of the games have already been played, your logic doesn't hold up.
To clarify, the odds of flipping a coin three times, and having it land on heads each time, is just 1/8. That's something to bet against... probably not gonna happen But after the first two flips, if they both come up heads, doesn't mean you should continue to bet against heads. Now it's down to one flip.
Glad the Bengals won for you, but this kind of faulty reasoning will get you in trouble.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TomE:
Exactly, in this "situational" spot as the thread author stipulates, except that this is after the first two games which have already been lost, so it actually becomes a toss up whether the third game is a win or a loss, statistically speaking. A "non-factor" in fact. So betting on Cin based on this "90 % situational success rate" factor is in actuality, no better than a coin toss. That is not what I would call a betting edge.
Also, I would make the same points already put well enough by shiva in post #6, so I won't mention them again.
BOL
Exactly. Someone who understands.
Prior to all three games being played you might have have a case for Cincinnati. After two of the games have already been played, your logic doesn't hold up.
To clarify, the odds of flipping a coin three times, and having it land on heads each time, is just 1/8. That's something to bet against... probably not gonna happen But after the first two flips, if they both come up heads, doesn't mean you should continue to bet against heads. Now it's down to one flip.
Glad the Bengals won for you, but this kind of faulty reasoning will get you in trouble.
Actually lean you way on the play but isn't this trend 50/50?
According to the trend 39 teams have lost the first two games. Only 19 won the third and 20 lost all three. Doesn't this make the spot the Bengals are in (losing the first two) 19-20 ATS?
Exactly. Someone else who understands.
0
Quote Originally Posted by andarmac99:
Actually lean you way on the play but isn't this trend 50/50?
According to the trend 39 teams have lost the first two games. Only 19 won the third and 20 lost all three. Doesn't this make the spot the Bengals are in (losing the first two) 19-20 ATS?
i definately understand what all the others are saying and how they are looking at it, i just dont agree that it is the same as a coin toss. my point of view is if you knew this stat about losing all 3 games as well as knowing what kind of teams lost all 3 games as stated above
have been
14 teams had between 0-4 wins that season
5 teams had between 5-7 wins that season
1 team has had 9 wins one season. (miami)
i see cincinatti as a minimum .500 team
i also took into account that the giants have not been playing well, they got lucky in dallas( take away the 1qtr and they were dominated), they played horrible and lost last week. also the giants are a very hot and cold team, and it was obvious they were on their cold part of the season.
like i said its as much playing the team as the playing the stat.
KC plays 3 games at home this season and trust me i am not planning on playing them on the thrid game if they lose the first two. they fall into the teams that have lost the 3 games.
0
i definately understand what all the others are saying and how they are looking at it, i just dont agree that it is the same as a coin toss. my point of view is if you knew this stat about losing all 3 games as well as knowing what kind of teams lost all 3 games as stated above
have been
14 teams had between 0-4 wins that season
5 teams had between 5-7 wins that season
1 team has had 9 wins one season. (miami)
i see cincinatti as a minimum .500 team
i also took into account that the giants have not been playing well, they got lucky in dallas( take away the 1qtr and they were dominated), they played horrible and lost last week. also the giants are a very hot and cold team, and it was obvious they were on their cold part of the season.
like i said its as much playing the team as the playing the stat.
KC plays 3 games at home this season and trust me i am not planning on playing them on the thrid game if they lose the first two. they fall into the teams that have lost the 3 games.
i see cincinatti as a minimum .500 team. i also took into account that the giants have not been playing well, they got lucky in dallas( take away the 1qtr and they were dominated), they played horrible and lost last week. also the giants are a very hot and cold team, and it was obvious they were on their cold part of the season.
Okay, good. Those are all valid reasons to bet against the Giants.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ridibets:
i see cincinatti as a minimum .500 team. i also took into account that the giants have not been playing well, they got lucky in dallas( take away the 1qtr and they were dominated), they played horrible and lost last week. also the giants are a very hot and cold team, and it was obvious they were on their cold part of the season.
Okay, good. Those are all valid reasons to bet against the Giants.
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
