Trends & Things NFL 2007-2008 week 6

Play Under - In any game involving 2 good offensive teams ( 23-27 PPG )

Results thus far>>>

53-23 ATS over last 5 seasons...68.8 %

The average total posted in these games was 44.3

The average total points scored in these games was 41.9

The situation's record in 2005-2006 is 9-6

In the last 3 seasons, the situation's record is 75-50

Since 1983, the situation's record is 161-116

Explanation: This is a totals System that proves how vulnerable the public can be, partcularly when 2 attractive offensive teams get together. As you can see, playing the under in games of this sort typically nets more than a 65 % winning percentage.

This system has not been updated to include last year or this year's numbers.. If anyone cares to do so , be my guest .

I have used this play successfully since then ...

cont  >>>

However, I am a little confused about this play because it states that the offfenses should average in between 23-27 points per game ...

My theory, when this came up earlier in the year was that this system doesn't apply  then because the teams involved haven't played enough games , and the numbers may be schewed ...So, the limited range of 23-27 takes both of these teams out ...

On the other hand , this system may not have proved as valuable outside of this range ....

But I brought it up anyway given the magnitude of this game with the # 1 and # 2 offenses playing each other and the lines being as high as it is >> 53 ...

What I do in these cases is dig up how the totals have held up involving each team separately ...and in addition to that how totals this high have performed in general for all teams involved ...

I can't find a single game that Dallas is been involved in where the total has been set at over  49 points

In the case of New England they have been involved in only 3 games in which the total was above 49 and in all 3 cases the Under has hit ...

the search was done for regular season only ...

With the search parameter involving ANY team where the total has been above 49 >>>>

 Under is :

51-33 ( 60.7 % )  since 1996

23-16 ( 59 % ) since 2004

5-0 ( 100 % ) last year

So, even if the system play ...is not in play ...the theory for it applies ...and it could not possibly apply better than to this matchup , unless this was a MNF game and it had playoffs implications ...

These 5-0 teams with high power offenses have very good defenses , with New England # 3 in points allowed and Dallas # 13 in points allowed ...

The line has been set high as the public focuses on the offenses , but overlook the defenses ...

In addition the history for these teams involving totals this high either are non-existent or don't account for a single over since 1996

 Last year , we 5 unders and no overs when the oddsmakers set the line above 49 ....

This needs to be considered as a  strong trend for the UNDER

******************************************

I have been hearing a lot of discussions about this subject ...

In an attempt to quantify this argument this is what I found .>>>

Betting Against the Public in the NFL

Over the past 4 seasons, betting on dogs would have resulted in a 51.3% winning percentage.  If you Bet Against the Public (in the NFL, most of these plays would be on the dog, at the 75% level), you would have hit 55.4% over the past three years (see Table 2, below).  Results are fairly consistent each year, with Betting Against the Public adding about 4% value per year. 

This shows that Betting Against the Public can be beneficial to your handicapping.  As you can see, the results can jump around from season to season.  This is partly due to the relatively low number of games during the NFL Season.  It’s also the nature of any investment:  there is both risk AND return.  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Table 2: Benefit of Betting Against Public (vs. Spread) at 75% Level

2006:

Week 12

CIN @ CLE +3

78% on CIN   69% on Over

game goes CIN/UND   30-0

2005

week 5:

NO at GB-3  

69% on GB and 74% on the over

game goes GB over 52-3

week 6

cin -3 at ten

WEEK 6 2006

cin -3 at ten

0