MLB - Situation Plays - SDQL

[JMon]

Second and third play : ( Bases )

Under 7 - 105 Phillies vs Mets
Under 6.5 - 105 Nationals vs Mariners

season > 2008 and H and 10 > month > 5 and SG < 4 and 5 > streak > -5 and 1 > tA(HR) > .7 and s:SRA < 6 and p:hits < 11 and 16 > op:hits > 4 and sss:SRA < 4 and rest = 0 and p:home runs < 2 and os:SSO < 11 and oss:SSO < 10 and os:SHA < 11 and 2 < oss:SHA < 11 and p:IT < 6 and p:LOB < 21 and s:SPT < 122 and ss:SPT < 119 and team != Rockies and team != Athletics and o:team != Blue Jays and (p:errors + pp:errors + ppp:errors + pppp:errors + ppppp:errors + pppppp:errors) < 10 and (op:errors + opp:errors + oppp:errors + opppp:errors + oppppp:errors + opppppp:errors) < 8 and (p:temperature < 91 or p:temperature = Indoors)

Mariners 5-24 o-u in this spot

[JMon]

Active Again Ari

team=Rockies and D and p:walks<=1 and p:L and
SG!=SGS and date>=20140526

[JMon]

Strasburg sucks away, so what should we do?

Here's extra support for Wash

-140<=line<=120 and p:margin<=-4 and pp:margin<=-4 and op:runs>=8 and H and SG<4 and total<11

[JMon]

Look how road favs do when revenging a same season shutout loss; a winning team, playing a winning team. Look in the month of Aug (month=8)

SDQL
A and -150<=line <= -100 and P:L and P:runs = 0 and P:season = season and WP > 50 and o:WP > 50 and 2009 <= season

[JMon]

Look how road favs do when revenging a same season shutout loss; a winning team, playing a winning team. Look in the month of Aug (month=8)

SDQL
A and -150<=line <= -100 and P:L and P:runs = 0 and P:season = season and WP > 50 and o:WP > 50 and 2009 <= season

team=Angels and H and total>=7 and division=o:division and o:WP< WP and date>=20140520

[emceeaye]

team=Angels and H and total>=7 and division=o:division and o:WP<WP and date>=20140520

Thanks! You're missing a term..you might need to add a space or two

[JMon]

Thanks! You're missing a term..you might need to add a space or two

I edited it..space after <

[JMon]

Thanks! You're missing a term..you might need to add a space or two

Thinking about parlaying Mets, Ari and Laa. I normally do not play pars but I got one of the feelings.

[emceeaye]

Thinking about parlaying Mets, Ari and Laa. I normally do not play pars but I got one of the feelings.

Well all right dude, your queries are great favoring those teams....why, not put a little on a parlay. In addition to the others of course, I'm hoping the Mets SU is the one of the two that comes through for us, especially given that the cards failed us for that one query.

[JMon]

Well all right dude, your queries are great favoring those teams....why, not put a little on a parlay. In addition to the others of course, I'm hoping the Mets SU is the one of the two that comes through for us, especially given that the cards failed us for that one query.

Let's do it! ya,, damn cards

[JMon]

Fellow SDQL miners

Sign up for the NFL contest!!!

http://contests.sportsbookreview.com/jmon-s-2nd-annual-nfl-fly-me-contest-5016/

[Alex Vaile]

2 and 1 today for + .95 units

106 and 85 overall
+ 13.64 units

[mdunlap3]

Scary...but
Play BoSox

AD and season > 2010 and month != 7 and p:hits < 8 and pp:hits > 6 and 18 > ppp:hits > 2 and pppp:hits > 5 and 17 > ppppp:hits > 4 and 16 > op:hits > 6 and s:SRA < 6 and streak > -5 and SG < 4 and line < 190 and total < 10.01 and 1.9 > STDSWHIP > 1.2

[mdunlap3]

SDQL by bases

Under Braves
Under Nats

season > 2008 and H and 10 > month > 5 and SG < 4 and 5 > streak > -5 and 1 > tA(HR) > .7 and s:SRA < 6 and p:hits < 11 and 16 > op:hits > 4 and sss:SRA < 4 and rest = 0 and p:home runs < 2 and os:SSO < 11 and oss:SSO < 10 and os:SHA < 11 and 2 < oss:SHA < 11 and p:IT < 6 and p:LOB < 21 and s:SPT < 122 and ss:SPT < 119 and team != Rockies and team != Athletics and o:team != Blue Jays and (p:errors + pp:errors + ppp:errors + pppp:errors + ppppp:errors + pppppp:errors) < 10 and (op:errors + opp:errors + oppp:errors + opppp:errors + oppppp:errors + opppppp:errors) < 8 and (p:temperature < 91 or p:temperature = Indoors)

[JMon]

ref post #750

Situation A: Fade a Sunday NL Getaway team

2014 tracking results on the fade: 26-40 (39.4%) (+815)

Last week (+83)

Fading (play against)

Marlins
Rockies
Brewers
Nationals
Phillies
Dodgers

[JMon]

ref post #750

Situation B: Sunday Under Getaway

2014 tracking results over-under-push: 32-39-3 (+395)

Last week: (+300)

Play Under:

Col
Milw
LAD

note. Rockies 0-3-1 to the under in this spot this year. Ryu (-150) on the road, back on 7/22 vs Stults with a total of 7 went 2-1 LAD. Today, Ryu (-140) on the road vs Stults with a total of 7. Does history repeat itself on the under play????

[JMon]

Balt Under

SDQL by bases notes spaces after :

-5 < ou streak < 2 and SG = 3 and H and o: ou streak > -4 and tS(ou margin, N=10) < 11 and 6 < tS(O, N=20) < 11 and oS(total, N=10) > 81.5 and tS(total, N=10) > 76 and s:SHF > 20 and os:SHF > 13 and os:SPT > 73 and 76 < s:SPT < 117 and -3.5 < s: ou margin < 5.5 and os: ou margin < 4.5 and p:hits + pp:hits > 9 and op:hits + opp:hits < 27 and p:margin > -6 and p:RMAX < 6 and op:SII < 4 and pp:RMAX < 6 and opp:SII < 6 and team=Orioles

[JMon]

SDQL by bases to confirm LAD getaway Under play (note space after o : )

tS(W, N=10) > 5 and oS(W, N=10) = 6 and 4 > SG > 1 and 2 < SGS < 5 and ou streak < 2 and o: ou streak < 2 and oS(O, N=10) < 8 and tS(O, N=10) < 8 and -25 < oS(ou margin, N=10) < 28 and -27 < tS(ou margin, N=10) < 30 and s:SHF < 33 and os:SHF < 33 and game number > 18 and (division != AL West or NDIV) and op:HR + p:HR < 7 and 16.9 < (p:SIP + pp:SIP + ppp:SIP + pppp:SIP) < 30.1 and -11 < site streak < 10 and o:site streak > -8 and 0 < s:SSO < 11 and os:SSO < 9 and ss:SSO < 11 and oss:SSO < 11

[JMon]

emc..you and I query is active today. ML/RL and over. Although a very small sample, It's conflicting with LAD under ...Thoughts? I really liked the under but now>>

Any way the query is pointed to SD and Clev (ML, RL and OV)

SDQL

line<=-150 and tA(HR)<=.9 and p:TLOB>=10 and pp:TLOB>=10 and total<9 and .61>tA(runs, N=11)/tA(TLOB, N=20)

[JMon]

SDQL by supports Clev ML and RL

s:SRA = 1 and s:SIP < 7 and s:SHA < 7 and s:SWA < 6 and 0 < s:SSO < 8 and 74 < s:SPT < 109 and starter rest < 10 and day != Wednesday and day != Thursday and 6 < p:hits < 18 and 3 < pp:hits < 14 and game number < 165 and (game number < 79 or game number > 89) and (game number > 28 or game number < 20) and line > -220 and -5 < streak < 5 and o:streak < 4 and op:hits < 15 and team=Royals

[JMon]

SDQL that contradicts the CLEV play

AD and DIV and p:ADW and pp:ADW and DAY and p:margin=1 and series game=3 and 10>month>4

[Alex Vaile]

First play : ( Dr.M )

Disagrees with getaway fade of dodgers but good results.

Dodgers - 164

team=Dodgers and p:BL=0 and pp:BL=0 and date>=20130601
team=Dodgers and F and oS:W and oS:season=season and date>=20140512

[mdunlap3]

Rangers under
Yanks under
Angels under

tp:runs<=2 and op:runs<=2 and conference=AL and A

[emceeaye]

emc..you and I query is active today. ML/RL and over. Although a very small sample, It's conflicting with LAD under ...Thoughts? I really liked the under but now>>

Any way the query is pointed to SD and Clev (ML, RL and OV)

SDQL

line<=-150 and tA(HR)<=.9 and p:TLOB>=10 and pp:TLOB>=10 and total<9 and .61>tA(runs, N=11)/tA(TLOB, N=20)

damn, goes against all the Indians/royals unders that showed up today...and when you add SG=3, and switch tA(TLOB, N=20) to tA(TLOB,N=11), it gets even more pronounced in favor of INdians RL and ML as well as Padres RL and ML...and of course as luck would have it, the over is more dramatic for both.

based on my new approach, no play on Indians under and padres under.

Thanks for posting!

[hyahya]

110 30

padres
indians

33 160

twins

28 450

rays

29 415
under indians

29.5 660
indians

33 215
cards

29 500
rockies

29 270
under dodgers

39 430
under yanks
under rockies
under dodgers
under bosox
under indians

30 250
over cubs
over rangers
over tigers

36 250
padres

52 77
jays

27 500
under indians

88 22
cubs

29 370
padres

35 415
chisox

8.2 1400
brew
padres
marlins

8.7 1200
rays

43 150
bosox

60 43
under dodgers

37 160
under nats

13 700
rockies
padres
indians

11 1350
rockies
phils

36 250
padres

19 220
astros

24 450
under indians
under dodgers

29 270
padres

32 320
bosox

33 420
under phils

31 530
under braves
under nats

20 150
under braves

29 250
cards

51 94
rangers

25 460
under twins

24 370
under dodgers

20 900
under indians

[hyahya]

damn, goes against all the Indians/royals unders that showed up today...and when you add SG=3, and switch tA(TLOB, N=20) to tA(TLOB,N=11), it gets even more pronounced in favor of INdians RL and ML as well as Padres RL and ML...and of course as luck would have it, the over is more dramatic for both.

based on my new approach, no play on Indians under and padres under.

Thanks for posting!

I tend to disagree. I just posted a slew of queries with hundreds of samples pointing to both the indians and dodgers unders. I don't necessarily think a query with 30 samples should overrule that. Obviously I'm not saying those bets will win but sample size is a significant factor.

[JMon]

damn, goes against all the Indians/royals unders that showed up today...and when you add SG=3, and switch tA(TLOB, N=20) to tA(TLOB,N=11), it gets even more pronounced in favor of INdians RL and ML as well as Padres RL and ML...and of course as luck would have it, the over is more dramatic for both.

based on my new approach, no play on Indians under and padres under.

Thanks for posting!

Ya a lot coming in on KC ML as well as LAD ML

[JMon]

hyahya

what queries was this one

110 30

padres
indians

[emceeaye]

I tend to disagree. I just posted a slew of queries with hundreds of samples pointing to both the indians and dodgers unders. I don't necessarily think a query with 30 samples should overrule that. Obviously I'm not saying those bets will win but sample size is a significant factor.

I hear you...very frustrating, but all it takes is one query to tell you conflicting information...and I'm not sure there's any formula saying that teams supported by multiple queries with larger sample sizes will win more often than the one query pointingnin the opposite direction with a smaller sample size...its just a more cautious approach to do a no play.

[hyahya]

hyahya

what queries was this one

110 30

padres
indians

That was the one you posted today:

line<=-150 and tA(HR)<=.9 and p:TLOB>=10 and pp:TLOB>=10 and total<9 and .61>tA(runs, N=11)/tA(TLOB, N=20)

[JMon]

That was the one you posted today:

line<=-150 and tA(HR)<=.9 and p:TLOB>=10 and pp:TLOB>=10 and total<9 and .61>tA(runs, N=11)/tA(TLOB, N=20)

ok thought so, but was confused on sample size..

[Alex Vaile]

Second play : ( Bases)

Under 6.5 -115 Washington vs Seattle

More support for my fav query already posted. Gotta play it!

STR and o:STR and s:margin = -1 and s:streak = 2 and s:biggest lead < 3 and s:errors < 2 and -9 < p:M8 < 3 and p:M8 != -2 and -4 < p:M1 < 3

Great numbers

[JMon]

Second play : ( Bases)

Under 6.5 -115 Washington vs Seattle

More support for my fav query already posted. Gotta play it!

STR and o:STR and s:margin = -1 and s:streak = 2 and s:biggest lead < 3 and s:errors < 2 and -9 < p:M8 < 3 and p:M8 != -2 and -4 < p:M1 < 3

Great numbers

get it!

[emceeaye]

ok thought so, but was confused on sample size..

This Is another off-shoot of it:

line<=-150 and tA(HR)<=.9 and p:TLOB>=10 and pp:TLOB>=10 and total<9

[JMon]

This Is another off-shoot of it:

line<=-150 and tA(HR)<=.9 and p:TLOB>=10 and pp:TLOB>=10 and total<9

tough one for sure..I want to play both, but only risking SD. Besides contradiction on both, it scares me more a team trying to avoid a sweep at home.