So do you fade the top 3 in win margin or points or both?
I'll usually fade the top 3 for each category ( offensive points and win margin for 3 and 2 games respectively ); however, if the other team was the SN loser or the MN loser, or some other reason that they'll win, I'll cross it off my card.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MJ2345:
So do you fade the top 3 in win margin or points or both?
I'll usually fade the top 3 for each category ( offensive points and win margin for 3 and 2 games respectively ); however, if the other team was the SN loser or the MN loser, or some other reason that they'll win, I'll cross it off my card.
Why?Because KC is #1
in rank over the last 3 games in defense
STL +12
Why? Because NO is #1 in offense in the NFL over the last 3
game.
CLE +9.5
Why?Because SF is #1
in the NFL in win margin over the last two games.
For these plays, I don't just use the last game's totals, I use a few different things. I noticed how effective Kalind was at picking totals, and I began to look at point totals, and I believe I've tapped into some strategies that he uses, but I don't know for sure. One thing I do know, is that I like the totals he posted last year, and they usually fit with what I do too.
JAC / HOU Over 40.5
MIN / CAR Under 47.5
WAS / Buff Under 46
0
Fade the top 3 for each. Yes
My plays then are:
SD -4
Why?Because KC is #1
in rank over the last 3 games in defense
STL +12
Why? Because NO is #1 in offense in the NFL over the last 3
game.
CLE +9.5
Why?Because SF is #1
in the NFL in win margin over the last two games.
For these plays, I don't just use the last game's totals, I use a few different things. I noticed how effective Kalind was at picking totals, and I began to look at point totals, and I believe I've tapped into some strategies that he uses, but I don't know for sure. One thing I do know, is that I like the totals he posted last year, and they usually fit with what I do too.
What if you have 2 that play each other like lets say a team was #1 in winnnning margin was playing the team that was #1 in points scored for the 2 weeks?? A no play correct because you are suppose to fade both correct!!
0
What if you have 2 that play each other like lets say a team was #1 in winnnning margin was playing the team that was #1 in points scored for the 2 weeks?? A no play correct because you are suppose to fade both correct!!
You make some good points. Especially about a good team underachieving then bouncing back the next week. But rolling with an ATS streak is also the smart thing to do. You gotta pick and chose your battles, sir. I like Baltimore to bounce back and destroy Arizona this week. But I also like New Orleans to cover the spread vs. St Louis. You have to account for everything, not just the result of the previous game.
And taking the opposite of what happened in the past, is using the past as a reference just as much as rolling with it.
0
You make some good points. Especially about a good team underachieving then bouncing back the next week. But rolling with an ATS streak is also the smart thing to do. You gotta pick and chose your battles, sir. I like Baltimore to bounce back and destroy Arizona this week. But I also like New Orleans to cover the spread vs. St Louis. You have to account for everything, not just the result of the previous game.
And taking the opposite of what happened in the past, is using the past as a reference just as much as rolling with it.
You made some good points. But you have also taken a small sample size. 1 week of games
1 week of nfl games does not indicate a pattern or future predictabilty I think. On any given week you can extrapolate the stats and come up with some crazy shit, trends etc. but how relaible are they.
If you do this then you have become like the masses yourself, betting largely with your emotions based on what happened the previous week.
I would say what happened to those teams was more of an statistical anomoly (deviation) than a pattern or trend. I would not draw any conclusions from that other than a bunch of good teams did not cover the spread in week 7
0
You made some good points. But you have also taken a small sample size. 1 week of games
1 week of nfl games does not indicate a pattern or future predictabilty I think. On any given week you can extrapolate the stats and come up with some crazy shit, trends etc. but how relaible are they.
If you do this then you have become like the masses yourself, betting largely with your emotions based on what happened the previous week.
I would say what happened to those teams was more of an statistical anomoly (deviation) than a pattern or trend. I would not draw any conclusions from that other than a bunch of good teams did not cover the spread in week 7
You make some good points. Especially about a good team underachieving then bouncing back the next week. But rolling with an ATS streak is also the smart thing to do. You gotta pick and chose your battles, sir. I like Baltimore to bounce back and destroy Arizona this week. But I also like New Orleans to cover the spread vs. St Louis. You have to account for everything, not just the result of the previous game.
And taking the opposite of what happened in the past, is using the past as a reference just as much as rolling with it.
This argument is made and most people don't distinguish between MOMENTUM and REGRESSION.
I would describe momentum as a team on a streak winning, but not winning by 40 points.
Regression would be a team that's winning by 20 to 30 points each week for 2 or 3 weeks in a row.
The problem most people have is that they'll finally muster up the courage to place a wager after a team has been absolutely steamrolling their opponents for 2 or 3 games straight. This usually calls for regression.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Chicago859:
You make some good points. Especially about a good team underachieving then bouncing back the next week. But rolling with an ATS streak is also the smart thing to do. You gotta pick and chose your battles, sir. I like Baltimore to bounce back and destroy Arizona this week. But I also like New Orleans to cover the spread vs. St Louis. You have to account for everything, not just the result of the previous game.
And taking the opposite of what happened in the past, is using the past as a reference just as much as rolling with it.
This argument is made and most people don't distinguish between MOMENTUM and REGRESSION.
I would describe momentum as a team on a streak winning, but not winning by 40 points.
Regression would be a team that's winning by 20 to 30 points each week for 2 or 3 weeks in a row.
The problem most people have is that they'll finally muster up the courage to place a wager after a team has been absolutely steamrolling their opponents for 2 or 3 games straight. This usually calls for regression.
I am back tracking since the 3rd week i dont like this because you seemed to always be playing against the best teams when they are on a roll and good teams like GB,NO etc.. continue to go onn rolls for weeks and weeks in like i said above a streak and hten you find yourself fading them every week and thats NO GOOD
0
I am back tracking since the 3rd week i dont like this because you seemed to always be playing against the best teams when they are on a roll and good teams like GB,NO etc.. continue to go onn rolls for weeks and weeks in like i said above a streak and hten you find yourself fading them every week and thats NO GOOD
TWO of their losses against the spread, and I believe they were their only two, came after they won games by absolutely steamrolling their opponents in the TWO previous games.
Cle ATS winner Mia ATS winner
New England in 2010 lost ATS twice after beating the hell out of their opponents in TWO Straight games.
SD lost ATS and SU to the Cincinnati Bengals? A San Diego team who was ranked #1 in Offense and #1 in Defense at that point in the season as they were fighting for a playoff spot.
Buffalo scored 30 points or more for 3 straight games this year, then lost to the Bengals.
This past week had some more absolute LOCKS, GB and BALT. One of them lost Straight Up.
My picks won't be right all the time, but I like to pick my spots, and I have them well defined and calculated out.
The bottom line is that it's much easier to pick a spot for a hot team to lose than it is for a cold team to win!
Quality sample size is boss
0
Look at the 1985 Bears. 15 - 1
TWO of their losses against the spread, and I believe they were their only two, came after they won games by absolutely steamrolling their opponents in the TWO previous games.
Cle ATS winner Mia ATS winner
New England in 2010 lost ATS twice after beating the hell out of their opponents in TWO Straight games.
SD lost ATS and SU to the Cincinnati Bengals? A San Diego team who was ranked #1 in Offense and #1 in Defense at that point in the season as they were fighting for a playoff spot.
Buffalo scored 30 points or more for 3 straight games this year, then lost to the Bengals.
This past week had some more absolute LOCKS, GB and BALT. One of them lost Straight Up.
My picks won't be right all the time, but I like to pick my spots, and I have them well defined and calculated out.
The bottom line is that it's much easier to pick a spot for a hot team to lose than it is for a cold team to win!
TWO of their losses against the spread, and I believe they were their only two, came after they won games by absolutely steamrolling their opponents in the TWO previous games.
Cle ATS winner Mia ATS winner
New England in 2010 lost ATS twice after beating the hell out of their opponents in TWO Straight games.
SD lost ATS and SU to the Cincinnati Bengals? A San Diego team who was ranked #1 in Offense and #1 in Defense at that point in the season as they were fighting for a playoff spot.
Buffalo scored 30 points or more for 3 straight games this year, then lost to the Bengals.
This past week had some more absolute LOCKS, GB and BALT. One of them lost Straight Up.
My picks won't be right all the time, but I like to pick my spots, and I have them well defined and calculated out.
The bottom line is that it's much easier to pick a spot for a hot team to lose than it is for a cold team to win!
Quality sample size is boss
Ah no you are just picking out specific instances where a person can pick out other ones
0
Quote Originally Posted by tafter12:
Look at the 1985 Bears. 15 - 1
TWO of their losses against the spread, and I believe they were their only two, came after they won games by absolutely steamrolling their opponents in the TWO previous games.
Cle ATS winner Mia ATS winner
New England in 2010 lost ATS twice after beating the hell out of their opponents in TWO Straight games.
SD lost ATS and SU to the Cincinnati Bengals? A San Diego team who was ranked #1 in Offense and #1 in Defense at that point in the season as they were fighting for a playoff spot.
Buffalo scored 30 points or more for 3 straight games this year, then lost to the Bengals.
This past week had some more absolute LOCKS, GB and BALT. One of them lost Straight Up.
My picks won't be right all the time, but I like to pick my spots, and I have them well defined and calculated out.
The bottom line is that it's much easier to pick a spot for a hot team to lose than it is for a cold team to win!
Quality sample size is boss
Ah no you are just picking out specific instances where a person can pick out other ones
I understand what you are talking about the blowouts its a proven fact what you are saying about 30 pt blowouts back to back and so on but i am talking about your most points scored and biggest margin the previous 2 weeks do not like and think it will lose money.You are fading too many good teams week after week.I will tell you one tihng it will never ever work in college!
0
I understand what you are talking about the blowouts its a proven fact what you are saying about 30 pt blowouts back to back and so on but i am talking about your most points scored and biggest margin the previous 2 weeks do not like and think it will lose money.You are fading too many good teams week after week.I will tell you one tihng it will never ever work in college!
In theory tafter is correct. The key is having a feel for the sport that you are betting and knowing when to pick your spots. Obviously you cant just go opposite the norm on every play. Last night was a good spot to take the Jags. Public was on Ravens, national TV, etc... The obvious happened the night before in the Saints win. These factors and more made Jacksonville FEEL like one of these spots.
0
In theory tafter is correct. The key is having a feel for the sport that you are betting and knowing when to pick your spots. Obviously you cant just go opposite the norm on every play. Last night was a good spot to take the Jags. Public was on Ravens, national TV, etc... The obvious happened the night before in the Saints win. These factors and more made Jacksonville FEEL like one of these spots.
Ok I went pretty fast so bare with it!These are teams you would have had to fade each week with your theory system of margins and points.Teams are too good to keep fading and when they hit a streak you will get killed!!The ATS records would be yours if you faded them!!
So you would be 6-7-1 ATS and lucky to be that fading those kinda teams every week
0
Ok I went pretty fast so bare with it!These are teams you would have had to fade each week with your theory system of margins and points.Teams are too good to keep fading and when they hit a streak you will get killed!!The ATS records would be yours if you faded them!!
In theory tafter is correct. The key is having a feel for the sport that you are betting and knowing when to pick your spots. Obviously you cant just go opposite the norm on every play. Last night was a good spot to take the Jags. Public was on Ravens, national TV, etc... The obvious happened the night before in the Saints win. These factors and more made Jacksonville FEEL like one of these spots.
LOL the sunday night has absolutely nothing to do with the monday game.And its easy to say after the fact.Last week the Bears blew out Minn 39-10 expectidily and the Jets beat up Miami 24-6 expectidly!!
0
Quote Originally Posted by SUPEREAGLE43:
In theory tafter is correct. The key is having a feel for the sport that you are betting and knowing when to pick your spots. Obviously you cant just go opposite the norm on every play. Last night was a good spot to take the Jags. Public was on Ravens, national TV, etc... The obvious happened the night before in the Saints win. These factors and more made Jacksonville FEEL like one of these spots.
LOL the sunday night has absolutely nothing to do with the monday game.And its easy to say after the fact.Last week the Bears blew out Minn 39-10 expectidily and the Jets beat up Miami 24-6 expectidly!!
This past week had some more absolute LOCKS, GB and BALT. One of them lost Straight Up.
But what you failed to say is GB and Balt werent the only games people thought were locks NO and Dallas and they crushed!!If you bet every weeks against the top 5 so called locks you would be down money for the year.As the person said above you have to be able to pick the spots b4 hand its easy to say after the fact!!
0
This past week had some more absolute LOCKS, GB and BALT. One of them lost Straight Up.
But what you failed to say is GB and Balt werent the only games people thought were locks NO and Dallas and they crushed!!If you bet every weeks against the top 5 so called locks you would be down money for the year.As the person said above you have to be able to pick the spots b4 hand its easy to say after the fact!!
I understand what you are talking about the blowouts its a proven fact what you are saying about 30 pt blowouts back to back and so on but i am talking about your most points scored and biggest margin the previous 2 weeks do not like and think it will lose money.You are fading too many good teams week after week.I will tell you one tihng it will never ever work in college!
I agree with you on College. Conventional handicapping works well in NCAAF, but I've found that regression works better in the NFL.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MJ2345:
I understand what you are talking about the blowouts its a proven fact what you are saying about 30 pt blowouts back to back and so on but i am talking about your most points scored and biggest margin the previous 2 weeks do not like and think it will lose money.You are fading too many good teams week after week.I will tell you one tihng it will never ever work in college!
I agree with you on College. Conventional handicapping works well in NCAAF, but I've found that regression works better in the NFL.
This past week had some more absolute LOCKS, GB and BALT. One of them lost Straight Up.
But what you failed to say is GB and Balt werent the only games people thought were locks NO and Dallas and they crushed!!If you bet every weeks against the top 5 so called locks you would be down money for the year.As the person said above you have to be able to pick the spots b4 hand its easy to say after the fact!!
NO / INDY would have been NO or no play as we have a good team off of a loss.
Dal / STL would have been DAL or no play as we have another good team off of a loss.
With those 4 games, my system was 4 - 0, 3 - 0 , or 2 - 0.
Don't twist my words around. I'm not saying fade the good teams, I'm saying fade teams that score astronomical points in their previous games.
I also said to bet on good teams off an ATS loss or a SU loss.
If we did this, then we'd have to add to the card:
BALT -13
DET -3.5
0
Quote Originally Posted by MJ2345:
This past week had some more absolute LOCKS, GB and BALT. One of them lost Straight Up.
But what you failed to say is GB and Balt werent the only games people thought were locks NO and Dallas and they crushed!!If you bet every weeks against the top 5 so called locks you would be down money for the year.As the person said above you have to be able to pick the spots b4 hand its easy to say after the fact!!
NO / INDY would have been NO or no play as we have a good team off of a loss.
Dal / STL would have been DAL or no play as we have another good team off of a loss.
With those 4 games, my system was 4 - 0, 3 - 0 , or 2 - 0.
Don't twist my words around. I'm not saying fade the good teams, I'm saying fade teams that score astronomical points in their previous games.
I also said to bet on good teams off an ATS loss or a SU loss.
If we did this, then we'd have to add to the card:
Ok Tafter sounds good i just wanted to go over everything and have the criteria set so there's no questions!!
So lets go week by week and take the plays from your criteria and see how they do.Like I said I like some of it like the back to back blow outs.
Something i have been doing for a few yrs which is in another thread is Fav off a bye there is 6 this week!Its been very profitable!2-2 ATS this yr so far!
0
Ok Tafter sounds good i just wanted to go over everything and have the criteria set so there's no questions!!
So lets go week by week and take the plays from your criteria and see how they do.Like I said I like some of it like the back to back blow outs.
Something i have been doing for a few yrs which is in another thread is Fav off a bye there is 6 this week!Its been very profitable!2-2 ATS this yr so far!
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.