I find it difficult and inconsistent finding info on GTD. Tht site is frustrating to me. ON Killer you have 5 free queries in each sport. see if you can see if the query is 8-47 ATS like i see.
Yes. I am annoyed when the query is written correctly, the query results are displayed but the current matchups are missing.
Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935:
I find it difficult and inconsistent finding info on GTD. Tht site is frustrating to me. ON Killer you have 5 free queries in each sport. see if you can see if the query is 8-47 ATS like i see.
Yes. I am annoyed when the query is written correctly, the query results are displayed but the current matchups are missing.
Cases for the Chiefs : D and playoffs=1 and t:conference!=o:conference and p:points>32 This is 1-4 ats for the dog Eagles. BUT! The one victory for the dog was when their opponent made an appearance in 3+ playoff games the previous season tpS(playoffs)>2 D and playoffs=1 and t:conference!=o:conference and p:points>32 and opS(playoffs)>2. 1-0 Eagles. Look we can all find different query results for the team we lick to back. What I find most trustworthy long term is pp:F and p:F and F Bettors that were successful the last 2 weeks betting on one of the best teams in the league get debunked in the Super Bowl. See the undefeated Patriots and 14 teams included in the 0-14 results. I will make the Chiefs beat me. One concern in my opinion is the Eagles high output of points last week. When dogs score 33+ points in the conference final the previous week they are 1-4 ats in the superbowl. Bettors trust high scoring teams and that can create a false narrative as well. Bottom line I like the Eagles but can find reasons for the Chiefs.
In yr opinion how many points did the spread tighten in SB bc of PHI's win vs WAS?
Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935:
Cases for the Chiefs : D and playoffs=1 and t:conference!=o:conference and p:points>32 This is 1-4 ats for the dog Eagles. BUT! The one victory for the dog was when their opponent made an appearance in 3+ playoff games the previous season tpS(playoffs)>2 D and playoffs=1 and t:conference!=o:conference and p:points>32 and opS(playoffs)>2. 1-0 Eagles. Look we can all find different query results for the team we lick to back. What I find most trustworthy long term is pp:F and p:F and F Bettors that were successful the last 2 weeks betting on one of the best teams in the league get debunked in the Super Bowl. See the undefeated Patriots and 14 teams included in the 0-14 results. I will make the Chiefs beat me. One concern in my opinion is the Eagles high output of points last week. When dogs score 33+ points in the conference final the previous week they are 1-4 ats in the superbowl. Bettors trust high scoring teams and that can create a false narrative as well. Bottom line I like the Eagles but can find reasons for the Chiefs.
In yr opinion how many points did the spread tighten in SB bc of PHI's win vs WAS?
Mahomes is great in the playoffs, but that is built into the betting line (mostly KC -1.5 or -2). Based on just the power ratings, respected gentlemen all rate PHL as stronger:
Ken Massey:
PHL -3.00, 60% chance of a SU win
Jeff Sagarin:
PHL -4.08 on his basic PR, 63% 65% 60% chances of a SU win based on various PRs
As Joe Fortenbaugh has said on ESPN Bet Live, bettors are basically paying a tax to take KC based on PM's post-season magic. I have more queries favoring PHL than KC, but it is certainly easy to see KC getting yet another one-score victory.
@begginerboy
Mahomes is great in the playoffs, but that is built into the betting line (mostly KC -1.5 or -2). Based on just the power ratings, respected gentlemen all rate PHL as stronger:
Ken Massey:
PHL -3.00, 60% chance of a SU win
Jeff Sagarin:
PHL -4.08 on his basic PR, 63% 65% 60% chances of a SU win based on various PRs
As Joe Fortenbaugh has said on ESPN Bet Live, bettors are basically paying a tax to take KC based on PM's post-season magic. I have more queries favoring PHL than KC, but it is certainly easy to see KC getting yet another one-score victory.
Playoff games above 0.5 EPA/Play: MAHOMES 7 Brady 3 Allen 3 Peyton 3 Warner 3 Wilson 3 Big Ben 2 Flacco 2 Brees 1 Rodgers 1 Rivers 1
Quote Originally Posted by Riderx:
Regardless of the line & basic...teams in their 4th playoff game & were in the playoffs last year: tS(playoffs=1)>2 and tpS(playoffs=1)>0 7-0 s/u...dog or fav Philly s/u
OUTSTANDING.,............Thankyou
Quote Originally Posted by begginerboy:
Playoff games above 0.5 EPA/Play: MAHOMES 7 Brady 3 Allen 3 Peyton 3 Warner 3 Wilson 3 Big Ben 2 Flacco 2 Brees 1 Rodgers 1 Rivers 1
Quote Originally Posted by Riderx:
Regardless of the line & basic...teams in their 4th playoff game & were in the playoffs last year: tS(playoffs=1)>2 and tpS(playoffs=1)>0 7-0 s/u...dog or fav Philly s/u
There are several queries that show PHL is a risky bet coming off that 55-point scoregasm vs. WAS. This query likes PHL in a likely competitive game (based on the line) because KC's previous game was not a standout DEF effort:
playoffs = 1 and p:points > 33.5 and opo:points > 26.5 and -4.7 < line < 4.7
SU: 9-1 (5.5,90.0%)
ATS: 9-1 (6.3,90.0%)
There are several queries that show PHL is a risky bet coming off that 55-point scoregasm vs. WAS. This query likes PHL in a likely competitive game (based on the line) because KC's previous game was not a standout DEF effort:
playoffs = 1 and p:points > 33.5 and opo:points > 26.5 and -4.7 < line < 4.7
PO = 1 and tS(rushes)/tS(passes) > 1.38 12 games SU 10-2 (6.5,83.3%), ATS 8-4 (7.1,66.7%)
PO = 1 and tS(rushes)/tS(passes) < 1.38 534 games No trends, everything is about 50/50.
The 2004 PIT, 2005 PIT, 2009 NYJ and 2024 PHL teams were/are extremely unbalanced and skewed toward rushing. Their opponents ALL knew this and couldn't stop them. Some RB's are big, fast, powerful and elusive. Some have coaches with innovative blocking schemes. Some are blessed with dominant OFF lines.
Some might actually be able to defeat a dominant DEF coordinator with a great record.
This game is shaping up to be mighty interesting to the point that I am considering watching it.
PHL's OFF is extremely unbalanced.
PO = 1 and tS(rushes)/tS(passes) > 1.38 12 games SU 10-2 (6.5,83.3%), ATS 8-4 (7.1,66.7%)
PO = 1 and tS(rushes)/tS(passes) < 1.38 534 games No trends, everything is about 50/50.
The 2004 PIT, 2005 PIT, 2009 NYJ and 2024 PHL teams were/are extremely unbalanced and skewed toward rushing. Their opponents ALL knew this and couldn't stop them. Some RB's are big, fast, powerful and elusive. Some have coaches with innovative blocking schemes. Some are blessed with dominant OFF lines.
Some might actually be able to defeat a dominant DEF coordinator with a great record.
This game is shaping up to be mighty interesting to the point that I am considering watching it.
according to the outputs, youre still allowing lower scoring in previous games to dominate. Thus the 55 point "scoregasm" becomes irrelevant. The fact is the 55 point point :"scoregasm" is a main point in my opinion because its such a rarity. I just the way i see it thru all kinds of data and the data clearly shows when omitting the bigger previous scores its misleading to take Philly.
playoffs = 1 and p:points >38 and opo:points > 26.5
the results are 1-1 here when the lines you selected are in place. I omitted the lines and it 4-5ATS.
This game according to my data is a fade of Philly and A fade of KC both. I have found the under however is in play (post #131)
Spottie2935 on socials
@DogbiteWilliams
Hi DBW
according to the outputs, youre still allowing lower scoring in previous games to dominate. Thus the 55 point "scoregasm" becomes irrelevant. The fact is the 55 point point :"scoregasm" is a main point in my opinion because its such a rarity. I just the way i see it thru all kinds of data and the data clearly shows when omitting the bigger previous scores its misleading to take Philly.
playoffs = 1 and p:points >38 and opo:points > 26.5
the results are 1-1 here when the lines you selected are in place. I omitted the lines and it 4-5ATS.
This game according to my data is a fade of Philly and A fade of KC both. I have found the under however is in play (post #131)
@DogbiteWilliams Hi DBW according to the outputs, youre still allowing lower scoring in previous games to dominate. Thus the 55 point "scoregasm" becomes irrelevant. The fact is the 55 point point :"scoregasm" is a main point in my opinion because its such a rarity. I just the way i see it thru all kinds of data and the data clearly shows when omitting the bigger previous scores its misleading to take Philly. playoffs = 1 and p:points >38 and opo:points > 26.5 the results are 1-1 here when the lines you selected are in place. I omitted the lines and it 4-5ATS. This game according to my data is a fade of Philly and A fade of KC both. I have found the under however is in play (post #131)
Good adjustments to discard inapplicable games.
Quote Originally Posted by spottie2935:
@DogbiteWilliams Hi DBW according to the outputs, youre still allowing lower scoring in previous games to dominate. Thus the 55 point "scoregasm" becomes irrelevant. The fact is the 55 point point :"scoregasm" is a main point in my opinion because its such a rarity. I just the way i see it thru all kinds of data and the data clearly shows when omitting the bigger previous scores its misleading to take Philly. playoffs = 1 and p:points >38 and opo:points > 26.5 the results are 1-1 here when the lines you selected are in place. I omitted the lines and it 4-5ATS. This game according to my data is a fade of Philly and A fade of KC both. I have found the under however is in play (post #131)
SU 3-2, ATS 2-3, OU 3-2. All as close to 50/50 as a 5-game sample can be.
I view scoring 51+ points as a definite outlier with little predicitive value for the next game. However, since we disagree and I am having a terrible NFL season, you are probably correct.
For spottie2935:
PO = 1 and p:points > 50.5
SU 3-2, ATS 2-3, OU 3-2. All as close to 50/50 as a 5-game sample can be.
I view scoring 51+ points as a definite outlier with little predicitive value for the next game. However, since we disagree and I am having a terrible NFL season, you are probably correct.
For spottie2935: PO = 1 and p:points > 50.5 SU 3-2, ATS 2-3, OU 3-2. All as close to 50/50 as a 5-game sample can be. I view scoring 51+ points as a definite outlier with little predicitive value for the next game. However, since we disagree and I am having a terrible NFL season, you are probably correct.
That should be "predictive." I am under a spell trying to predict Super Bowl LIX.
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
For spottie2935: PO = 1 and p:points > 50.5 SU 3-2, ATS 2-3, OU 3-2. All as close to 50/50 as a 5-game sample can be. I view scoring 51+ points as a definite outlier with little predicitive value for the next game. However, since we disagree and I am having a terrible NFL season, you are probably correct.
That should be "predictive." I am under a spell trying to predict Super Bowl LIX.
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: For spottie2935: PO = 1 and p:points > 50.5 SU 3-2, ATS 2-3, OU 3-2. All as close to 50/50 as a 5-game sample can be. I view scoring 51+ points as a definite outlier with little predicitive value for the next game. However, since we disagree and I am having a terrible NFL season, you are probably correct. That should be "predictive." I am under a spell trying to predict Super Bowl LIX.
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: For spottie2935: PO = 1 and p:points > 50.5 SU 3-2, ATS 2-3, OU 3-2. All as close to 50/50 as a 5-game sample can be. I view scoring 51+ points as a definite outlier with little predicitive value for the next game. However, since we disagree and I am having a terrible NFL season, you are probably correct. That should be "predictive." I am under a spell trying to predict Super Bowl LIX.
This is another Munchkin query. It's only 7 games, but all of the margins are impressive. PHL and Under. PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and tA(o:points) < oA(o:points) and week > 21.5 SU: 6-1 (7.5,85.7%) Doubly impressive because 5 of the 7 were dogs. ATS: 7-0-0 (11.9,100.0%) OU: 0-7-0 (-14.1,0.0%) Dadgummit, I wish I had run this query before last year's Super Bowl.
And the Oscar goes to DogbiteWilliams for his latest " Munckin"
Kudos my man!
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
This is another Munchkin query. It's only 7 games, but all of the margins are impressive. PHL and Under. PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and tA(o:points) < oA(o:points) and week > 21.5 SU: 6-1 (7.5,85.7%) Doubly impressive because 5 of the 7 were dogs. ATS: 7-0-0 (11.9,100.0%) OU: 0-7-0 (-14.1,0.0%) Dadgummit, I wish I had run this query before last year's Super Bowl.
And the Oscar goes to DogbiteWilliams for his latest " Munckin"
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: This is another Munchkin query. It's only 7 games, but all of the margins are impressive. PHL and Under. PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and tA(o:points) < oA(o:points) and week > 21.5 SU: 6-1 (7.5,85.7%) Doubly impressive because 5 of the 7 were dogs. ATS: 7-0-0 (11.9,100.0%) OU: 0-7-0 (-14.1,0.0%) Dadgummit, I wish I had run this query before last year's Super Bowl. And the Oscar goes to DogbiteWilliams for his latest " Munckin" Kudos my man!
Thanks.
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo:
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: This is another Munchkin query. It's only 7 games, but all of the margins are impressive. PHL and Under. PO = 1 and losses > o:losses and tA(o:points) < oA(o:points) and week > 21.5 SU: 6-1 (7.5,85.7%) Doubly impressive because 5 of the 7 were dogs. ATS: 7-0-0 (11.9,100.0%) OU: 0-7-0 (-14.1,0.0%) Dadgummit, I wish I had run this query before last year's Super Bowl. And the Oscar goes to DogbiteWilliams for his latest " Munckin" Kudos my man!
I only like Philly because they are a dog. KC was the dog in their last superbowl meeting. I can not find any solid data on either side but the under is my play based upon post #131
Spottie2935 on socials
@DogbiteWilliams
I only like Philly because they are a dog. KC was the dog in their last superbowl meeting. I can not find any solid data on either side but the under is my play based upon post #131
Hot Forum Topics
