For years, I've been backing teams the week after they lose by four touchdowns on the road. It has always done well, 55-58%. But a couple of years ago I split the data into three buckets: teams that lose by 4 TDs, teams that score single digits on the road (regardless of the final score), and teams that both lose by 4 TDs and score single digits on the road.
The one to throw out is those that lose by four TDs while scoring double digits (except for home dogs; they cover at 63%).
0
@theclaw
For years, I've been backing teams the week after they lose by four touchdowns on the road. It has always done well, 55-58%. But a couple of years ago I split the data into three buckets: teams that lose by 4 TDs, teams that score single digits on the road (regardless of the final score), and teams that both lose by 4 TDs and score single digits on the road.
The one to throw out is those that lose by four TDs while scoring double digits (except for home dogs; they cover at 63%).
I got this online ....... Dogs +6 or larger hit 60% ATS past 20 years. Saw this last year, not sure how those dogs did last year. The sweet spot seems to be +8 to +10..... That was over 70% I think 77% but I don't think it was past 20 years more like 10 to 15 years. I wrote that down but can't find it. This one I got this season. Teams that win by 17 pts or more you fade, teams that lose by 17 pts or more you back. That I got last year has a nice winning ATS record like 60 to 65 %. Personally I don't like fading teams off big wins or losses of only 1 game. But I am aware of this trend.
That is bullshxt, and it is not even close.
D and line > 5.7 and season > 2005
ATS: 1026-993-45 (-0.7,50.8%) That is slightly positive, but it would NOT cover the vigorish.
0
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
I got this online ....... Dogs +6 or larger hit 60% ATS past 20 years. Saw this last year, not sure how those dogs did last year. The sweet spot seems to be +8 to +10..... That was over 70% I think 77% but I don't think it was past 20 years more like 10 to 15 years. I wrote that down but can't find it. This one I got this season. Teams that win by 17 pts or more you fade, teams that lose by 17 pts or more you back. That I got last year has a nice winning ATS record like 60 to 65 %. Personally I don't like fading teams off big wins or losses of only 1 game. But I am aware of this trend.
That is bullshxt, and it is not even close.
D and line > 5.7 and season > 2005
ATS: 1026-993-45 (-0.7,50.8%) That is slightly positive, but it would NOT cover the vigorish.
@theclaw For years, I've been backing teams the week after they lose by four touchdowns on the road. It has always done well, 55-58%. But a couple of years ago I split the data into three buckets: teams that lose by 4 TDs, teams that score single digits on the road (regardless of the final score), and teams that both lose by 4 TDs and score single digits on the road. The one to throw out is those that lose by four TDs while scoring double digits (except for home dogs; they cover at 63%).
Véy nice, thanks ...........
0
Quote Originally Posted by garbagetime:
@theclaw For years, I've been backing teams the week after they lose by four touchdowns on the road. It has always done well, 55-58%. But a couple of years ago I split the data into three buckets: teams that lose by 4 TDs, teams that score single digits on the road (regardless of the final score), and teams that both lose by 4 TDs and score single digits on the road. The one to throw out is those that lose by four TDs while scoring double digits (except for home dogs; they cover at 63%).
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: I got this online ....... Dogs +6 or larger hit 60% ATS past 20 years. Saw this last year, not sure how those dogs did last year. The sweet spot seems to be +8 to +10..... That was over 70% I think 77% but I don't think it was past 20 years more like 10 to 15 years. I wrote that down but can't find it. This one I got this season. Teams that win by 17 pts or more you fade, teams that lose by 17 pts or more you back. That I got last year has a nice winning ATS record like 60 to 65 %. Personally I don't like fading teams off big wins or losses of only 1 game. But I am aware of this trend. That is bullshxt, and it is not even close. D and line > 5.7 and season > 2005 ATS: 1026-993-45 (-0.7,50.8%) That is slightly positive, but it would NOT cover the vigorish.
Wow that is way off...............
That's why when people post things online you have to know if you can trust it.
I have found guys making mistakes or just false info before.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: I got this online ....... Dogs +6 or larger hit 60% ATS past 20 years. Saw this last year, not sure how those dogs did last year. The sweet spot seems to be +8 to +10..... That was over 70% I think 77% but I don't think it was past 20 years more like 10 to 15 years. I wrote that down but can't find it. This one I got this season. Teams that win by 17 pts or more you fade, teams that lose by 17 pts or more you back. That I got last year has a nice winning ATS record like 60 to 65 %. Personally I don't like fading teams off big wins or losses of only 1 game. But I am aware of this trend. That is bullshxt, and it is not even close. D and line > 5.7 and season > 2005 ATS: 1026-993-45 (-0.7,50.8%) That is slightly positive, but it would NOT cover the vigorish.
Wow that is way off...............
That's why when people post things online you have to know if you can trust it.
I have found guys making mistakes or just false info before.
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.