Originally posted by Cutler'sThumb
-
Yeah, the conflict is a bummer, but it's such a small sample size relative to the others you indicated. Also, even though only an even smaller sample size, when you add month=1, it's not that great anymore... Perhaps that is somewhat comforting if you went with the under on Islanders.Comment -
H and -100>=line>=-150 and tA(o:goals@season)<=2.55 and p:W and p
vertime=1
Comment -
AD and 100 <= line <= 200 and p:L and p:division = o:division and pp:L and pp:division = o:division and rest = 2Comment -
p:HW and po:goals=0 and po:WP>50 and game number <=41Comment -
I rewrite queryOriginally posted by nash13
p:HW and po:goals=0 and game number <=42 and op:U
profit distrubution is betterComment -
Devils ml
HF and p:W and p:margin>=3 and tA(period scores[2])-tA(o
eriod scores[2])<=-.2
However, this one conflicts:
p:L and pp:L and (p:shots on goal)>(po:shots on goal) and (pp:shots on goal)>(ppo:shots on goal) and A
However, when you add ppp:L and day=Wednesday, the ROI benefit disappears.Comment -
NHL62 use current game result as parameter----power play goals=0
p:short handed goals=0 and power play goals = 0 and 0 < op:short handed goals + oower play goals < 3 and day = Saturday and rest < 5 and o:rest < 2 and streak = -1 and o:streak > -3
Comment -
corrected it, now it is a over playComment -
Also, is this part accurate?Originally posted by nash13should it read:
Comment -
yikes..
gl
F and p:L and p:margin <= -4 and p:division = po:division and op:AL and 2010 <= seasonComment -
Wow JMon, nice find! It's not as if I would have picked ML because too juicy anyway and didn't see enough justification for a -1.5 pick, bur it's some justification for going with ML or +1.5 dog here!Originally posted by JMon
add o:streak<=-3
add WP>=o:WP+20Comment -
it's a bit troubling as we haven't seen a <=-300, but I did take them 1.5..bol friendOriginally posted by emceeayeComment -
I know... It's somewhat comforting though that when you set the line at <-100, results are equally as lopsided and with a larger sample size than say line<-170.Originally posted by JMon
I'm also on +1.5...thanks, and GL to you too buddy
Comment -
Cheers! I will be shooting you a PM regarding MLB..just regarding some thoughts and possibly a project for you and I. So be on the look out for it!Originally posted by emceeayeI know... It's somewhat comforting though that when you set the line at <-100, results are equally as lopsided and with a larger sample size than say line<-170.
I'm also on +1.5...thanks, and GL to you too buddyComment -
Penguins ml:
A and game number>=42 and tA(o:goals)<=2.4 and po:goals>=3 and ppo:goals>=3 and season>=2008
HF and oA(o:goals)<=2.52 and opo:goals>=3 and oppo:goals>=3 and opppo:goals>=3 and season>=2008 and o:rest>=1 and p:W
season>=2011 and HF and p:A and p:W and p:line<=-115
H and F and p:A and p:F and p:W and date>=20111022 and P:season=season and oP:goals=0
HF and oA(o:goals)<=2.55 and opo:goals>=3 and oppo:goals>=3 and opppo:goals>=3 and season>=2011
add term op:goals=0 to them and although sample size drops to almost unacceptably low levels, results good.Comment -
Flames ml?
I found two queries on Flames for today... Don't have them handy. I noticed the line change from -120 to -101 since yesterday afternoon, so decided to no-play this because it looks like the public knows something I don't.
Any thoughts about what may account for this significant line change?Comment -
tA(goals/minutes) +.000009< A(goals/minutes) and season >= 2010 and day=Tuesday and (month=2 or month=5)
p:A and pp:A and ppp:A and op:A and opp:A and oppp:A and opppp:A and rest<3 and o:rest<3 and month!=1
tA(ou margin)<=.81*A(ou margin) and oA(ou margin)<=.81*A(ou margin) and (day=Tuesday or day=Saturday) and month!=5 and month!=1 and month!=10Comment -
line>=200 and tS(L, N=8) >= 6 and 7 - (rest + p:rest + pp:rest) = 4 and 2010 <= season
Update: Just found this when I noticed an almost 40 pt. line drop since yesterday... be careful when the road team had lost the previous same season home match-up by 5 or more goals:
A and P:margin<=-5 and P:HL and P:season=season
no PL or ML play for me.Comment -
AF and tS(L,N=3) = 2 and ou streak = -1 and o:streak <3Comment -
Yeah, I saw that one as well but decided to no-playing it when I found another one on the caps that I don't have handy at the moment that interacted negatively with the following revenge situation:Originally posted by nash13
P:margin=1 and P:HW and P:season=season
It looks like the one you posted above works nicely with it however.Comment -
Islanders ml
I found about 3 or more queries today with no conflicts pointing to the Islanders ml. But I'm not at home and therefore don't have access to them. If someone knows what they are, can you post one or more?Comment -
I'm on the run now so I cannot say which ones either, but I remember seeing at least 6 trends on the Islanders tonight. It was a no play for me though because there was one lonely dog trend on the Flyers. If I get home before game time I'll post them.Originally posted by emceeayeComment -
Thanks Cutler, I'd love to take a look at that lone Flyers query if you have it handy.Originally posted by Cutler'sThumb
Thanks in advance.Comment -
Sorry, I didn't get home til after it started and I'm only just now looking at results from last night. Hope you took the Islanders anyway, but here's the Flyers trend (#98):Originally posted by emceeaye
division=o:division and p:U and op:LO and D
*Banner night overall for the unconflicted trends, btw. 12-2, +10 units. Overall since I started keeping up with it daily on 1/27, it's 62-45, +11 units. Been as high as +18 units, but had a swoon over the weekend.Comment -
where can i see how high a query has been in units at any given time?Originally posted by Cutler'sThumbComment -
Yeah I'm interested in that one too...would be good to determine that. Perhaps it can be gleaned by looking at ROI.Originally posted by zxqwpdbgComment -
Devils ml and Jets ML
Devils:
One with no conflicts:
HF and p:goals=2 and op:goals=3 and 4>pp:goals>1
add "and season>=2010 and day=Friday"
Jets ML:
SDQL for one of Ross Benjamin's described situations for today on jets that I like:
A and P:margin<=-2 and P:HL and P:season=season and p:goals=0 and p:AL and season>=2008Comment -
Couldn't we just insert a date specific filter into the trend (date>=20141031 and date<=20150131)? Then just look at the $$ to figure out win/loss.Originally posted by zxqwpdbgComment -
Thanks Cutler... Thankfully I stayed with Islanders but it did go to shootout, so close one....Originally posted by Cutler'sThumb
Also, either way, checking the results of that query, it should be noted that for some reason, this season, it hasn't done well at all--It has an ROI well into the minus (-27%) and record is 8-16 (33%).Comment -
Wild ml
AW and PP:HW and Po:goals=0 and P:margin>=2 and P:season=season and PP:season=season and P:division=Po:division
add and po:goals=0
po:goals = 0 and op:goals = 0 and playoffs = 0 and p:goals >= opo:goals and o:conference = Western and day=SaturdayComment -
Bruins ml
HF and p:goals=2 and op:goals=3 and 4>pp:goals>1
add "and season>=2010 and day=Friday"
H and op:AW and op:division=opo:division and day=Saturday and season>=2009 and o:rest<=2 and rest<=2
A and p:A and p:F and p:W and date>=20111204
I know, the last one is pretty weak, but still minor support especially if you add day=Saturday and month=FeburaryComment -
Yep, I saw that too. It's been a solid winner 3 of 4 years previous, but it definitely looks like one of those dog trends that is simply going to have off seasons intermittently. '13,'12,'10,'06 were all great (22%-39% ROI), '08,'07 were just OK (5% and 14%), and '11 and '09 were negative (-1% and -8%).Originally posted by emceeaye
I know you don't favor this kind of longer term profile, but I think it tells us that we will see good results from this trend, but must be willing to accept some degree of inconsistency (which it looks like we're seeing this season...altho hopefully it still has time to recover somewhat before the season ends).Comment -
Tonight should be an interesting one.
Oilers +165 is indicated by 10 trends, without a single one on the Devils (16,18,26,32,37,45,73,144,145,146).
Blackhawks/Coyotes Under 5.5, -120 is the other larger play (55,66,131,167).
Since I started using the analyzer with my own filter over layed, the record is 91-60, +27.5 units. NBA has been a different story, but working on finding the correct filter there.Comment -
Thanks Cutler.Originally posted by Cutler'sThumb
First, can you remind me what this analyzer tool does exactly?
With respect to Blackhawks/Devils under pick supported by a number of queries, I was also on it. But, I just discovered the following query and its offshoots that make it a no-play for me:
A and total = 5.5 and game number > 42 and P:margin <= -3 and 40 >= WP >= 30
A and total = 5.5 and game number > 42 and P:AL and P:margin <= -3 and 40 >= WP >= 30
A and total = 5.5 and game number > 42 and P:AL and P:margin <= -3 and 40 >= WP >= 30
A and total=5.5 and game number>42 and P:margin<=-3 and 40>=WP>=30 and day=MondayComment -
The analyzer is the software program that nash13 got developed. It goes thru every trend on the spreadsheet and generates all the active trends for each sport for that day. Takes a process that is nearly impossible to do manually each day, and performs it in about 10-15 min.Originally posted by emceeaye
I already had my under play in for the Blackhawks tonight so hopefully it hits. Your trend does present an argument, but I think the significant difference in sample sizes makes me feel ok about the play. The 4 under trends here are some of the very best on the spreadsheet, imho.Comment
