This is a fairly simple query: PO = 1 and HF and op:sack yards - p:sack yards > 28.5 ATS = 3-8-2
Sports Data Query Language (SDQL) considers sacks and sack yardage an OFF stat. In this query, playoff HF's whose opponent's previous sack yards were at least 29 yards more than theirs were just 3-8-2 ATS.
Now a sample size of only 12 games does not mean bettors should automatically fade KC because the sample size is so small that it's not super reliable, but it does mean that AD's that survived despite yielding a lot more sack yards can still manage to cover the next game.
I hope this topic encourages at least a few of you to teach yourself SDQL. It doesn't produce any locks, but it certainly can provide you with a lot more information.
This is a fairly simple query: PO = 1 and HF and op:sack yards - p:sack yards > 28.5 ATS = 3-8-2
Sports Data Query Language (SDQL) considers sacks and sack yardage an OFF stat. In this query, playoff HF's whose opponent's previous sack yards were at least 29 yards more than theirs were just 3-8-2 ATS.
Now a sample size of only 12 games does not mean bettors should automatically fade KC because the sample size is so small that it's not super reliable, but it does mean that AD's that survived despite yielding a lot more sack yards can still manage to cover the next game.
I hope this topic encourages at least a few of you to teach yourself SDQL. It doesn't produce any locks, but it certainly can provide you with a lot more information.
This is a fairly simple query: PO = 1 and HF and op:sack yards - p:sack yards > 28.5 ATS = 3-8-2 Sports Data Query Language (SDQL) considers sacks and sack yardage an OFF stat. In this query, playoff HF's whose opponent's previous sack yards were at least 29 yards more than theirs were just 3-8-2 ATS. Now a sample size of only 12 games does not mean bettors should automatically fade KC because the sample size is so small that it's not super reliable, but it does mean that AD's that survived despite yielding a lot more sack yards can still manage to cover the next game. I hope this topic encourages at least a few of you to teach yourself SDQL. It doesn't produce any locks, but it certainly can provide you with a lot more information. Good luck everybody.
This is a fairly simple query: PO = 1 and HF and op:sack yards - p:sack yards > 28.5 ATS = 3-8-2 Sports Data Query Language (SDQL) considers sacks and sack yardage an OFF stat. In this query, playoff HF's whose opponent's previous sack yards were at least 29 yards more than theirs were just 3-8-2 ATS. Now a sample size of only 12 games does not mean bettors should automatically fade KC because the sample size is so small that it's not super reliable, but it does mean that AD's that survived despite yielding a lot more sack yards can still manage to cover the next game. I hope this topic encourages at least a few of you to teach yourself SDQL. It doesn't produce any locks, but it certainly can provide you with a lot more information. Good luck everybody.
I agree It's not very likely he gets sacked 9 times again just because he got sacked 9 times last game. That tied the record for Divisional Round, an anomaly. Bengals will make adjustments and be much more focused about pass protection. It's not like now all of a sudden Bengals will set all-time sack records every week.
I agree It's not very likely he gets sacked 9 times again just because he got sacked 9 times last game. That tied the record for Divisional Round, an anomaly. Bengals will make adjustments and be much more focused about pass protection. It's not like now all of a sudden Bengals will set all-time sack records every week.
I agree It's not very likely he gets sacked 9 times again just because he got sacked 9 times last game. That tied the record for Divisional Round, an anomaly. Bengals will make adjustments and be much more focused about pass protection. It's not like now all of a sudden Bengals will set all-time sack records every week.
Some positive regression for CIN should be expected. Extremes usually move towards means.
I agree It's not very likely he gets sacked 9 times again just because he got sacked 9 times last game. That tied the record for Divisional Round, an anomaly. Bengals will make adjustments and be much more focused about pass protection. It's not like now all of a sudden Bengals will set all-time sack records every week.
Some positive regression for CIN should be expected. Extremes usually move towards means.
It's not the sacks that's their problem but rather KC's much better offense.
Baloney. If you knew SDQL and wrote the correct query, you would know that HF's in the playoffs that outscored today's opponents by at least 35 points in their last two games are just 2-6 ATS.
Good luck with your wager(s) on KC. I think you are headed for trouble.
It's not the sacks that's their problem but rather KC's much better offense.
Baloney. If you knew SDQL and wrote the correct query, you would know that HF's in the playoffs that outscored today's opponents by at least 35 points in their last two games are just 2-6 ATS.
Good luck with your wager(s) on KC. I think you are headed for trouble.
Quote Originally Posted by UglyKidJoe: It's not the sacks that's their problem but rather KC's much better offense. Baloney. If you knew SDQL and wrote the correct query, you would know that HF's in the playoffs that outscored today's opponents by at least 35 points in their last two games are just 2-6 ATS. Good luck with your wager(s) on KC. I think you are headed for trouble.
woof woof! interesting analysis indeed GL DBW
What do you call an Eternal Optimist? An accordion with a beeper!
Quote Originally Posted by UglyKidJoe: It's not the sacks that's their problem but rather KC's much better offense. Baloney. If you knew SDQL and wrote the correct query, you would know that HF's in the playoffs that outscored today's opponents by at least 35 points in their last two games are just 2-6 ATS. Good luck with your wager(s) on KC. I think you are headed for trouble.
More of these threads should be on Covers to learn & read instead of some of the annoying & ridiculous garbage TITLED threads that are fixed or rigged etc etc comments we see on a daily basis about the games here on these forums.
…. not to mention any names of course you certainly know who you are on this Covers Circus community.
What do you call an Eternal Optimist? An accordion with a beeper!
More of these threads should be on Covers to learn & read instead of some of the annoying & ridiculous garbage TITLED threads that are fixed or rigged etc etc comments we see on a daily basis about the games here on these forums.
…. not to mention any names of course you certainly know who you are on this Covers Circus community.
Thanks. I am a small bettor, but Sunday was my best day ever in terms of units and I have been betting sports since 1980.
I did not watch either game, but I had a lot more bets on the CIN-KC game and I am really glad I didn't watch it. My only two-unit bet for the day was KC Under 3.5 TD's and I saw by the box score that KC got 3 by halftime. The second half and OT would have been torture.
I would have thought the more-experienced coach would have won the battle of halftime adjustments, but I was wrong. I guess Zac Taylor might be sharper than I thought.
Were Mahomes two INT's good DEF or bad OFF? Home favorites that throw 2+ INT's are now 5-36-1 ATS.
How did CIN manage to yield just one sack? They figured to improve from such a dreadful performance, but I would have expected KC to get at least 3 sacks.
I live in Los Angeles so I might be rooting for LAR. I haven't done any handicapping yet. Do you have a strong choice already, lancer89074?
Thanks. I am a small bettor, but Sunday was my best day ever in terms of units and I have been betting sports since 1980.
I did not watch either game, but I had a lot more bets on the CIN-KC game and I am really glad I didn't watch it. My only two-unit bet for the day was KC Under 3.5 TD's and I saw by the box score that KC got 3 by halftime. The second half and OT would have been torture.
I would have thought the more-experienced coach would have won the battle of halftime adjustments, but I was wrong. I guess Zac Taylor might be sharper than I thought.
Were Mahomes two INT's good DEF or bad OFF? Home favorites that throw 2+ INT's are now 5-36-1 ATS.
How did CIN manage to yield just one sack? They figured to improve from such a dreadful performance, but I would have expected KC to get at least 3 sacks.
I live in Los Angeles so I might be rooting for LAR. I haven't done any handicapping yet. Do you have a strong choice already, lancer89074?
Thanks for the kind words. Yes, actual handicapping is benificial; yapping about scripts, rigged games and crooked refs doesn't produce anything of value.
Thanks for the kind words. Yes, actual handicapping is benificial; yapping about scripts, rigged games and crooked refs doesn't produce anything of value.
Is there a book or a short course that I can take about SDQL? How do you choose your queries in letters and symbols instead of full words? Do I need to get a paid subscription for this service? Queries look like Fortran to me. Thank you in advance.
Is there a book or a short course that I can take about SDQL? How do you choose your queries in letters and symbols instead of full words? Do I need to get a paid subscription for this service? Queries look like Fortran to me. Thank you in advance.
Go to killersports.com. Check the left side and print out the NFL SDQL Manual (pdf). Read it and try to grasp as much as you can. Click on NFL and then SDQL Query on the far right. You will see the query field, explanations and a list of abbreviations which may not all work (you'll have to use "playoffs" instead of "PO").
Just start with simple queries you can understand such as "AD and line > 6.7" which will give you Query Results (QR's) for all road (Away) Dogs of 7+ points. I use .2 and .7 in my queries to avoid confusion. If I didn't, neither "AD and line > 7" nor "AD and line < 7" would provide QR's for exactly 7, and I would certainly want that information.
If some things don't seem to be working, check out gimmethedog.com. It seem to work better, but you won't have the list of abbreviations and there are no manuals or other information.
Go to killersports.com. Check the left side and print out the NFL SDQL Manual (pdf). Read it and try to grasp as much as you can. Click on NFL and then SDQL Query on the far right. You will see the query field, explanations and a list of abbreviations which may not all work (you'll have to use "playoffs" instead of "PO").
Just start with simple queries you can understand such as "AD and line > 6.7" which will give you Query Results (QR's) for all road (Away) Dogs of 7+ points. I use .2 and .7 in my queries to avoid confusion. If I didn't, neither "AD and line > 7" nor "AD and line < 7" would provide QR's for exactly 7, and I would certainly want that information.
If some things don't seem to be working, check out gimmethedog.com. It seem to work better, but you won't have the list of abbreviations and there are no manuals or other information.
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.