NBA Stituational Bet, SDQL

**JMon** · 03-27-14, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by JAnthony

p:LF and p:ats margin<=-7 and op:WD and AF and rest=0

Gonna take this ML.

Looks like a good bet with the short line, JA

p:LF and p:ats margin<=-7 and op:WD and AF and rest=0 and line>=-2

**JAnthony** · 03-27-14, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by JMon

Looks like a good bet with the short line, JA

p:LF and p:ats margin<=-7 and op:WD and AF and rest=0 and line>=-2

Yeah, also just tested it out with a short -3<=line<=0.

**JR007** · 03-27-14, 04:35 PM

thanks guys, on my way now !

**JMon** · 03-27-14, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by JR007

thanks guys, on my way now !

**boydako13** · 03-27-14, 04:43 PM

Can u pls share ur picks..thanks!

**GiveMeaBJ** · 03-27-14, 05:21 PM

Is there a way to input team totals?

**tonywayne** · 03-27-14, 05:58 PM

Question about evaluating the "strength" of a trend...

Do you guys ever look at the "avg line, avg total" and compare that to the stat breakdowns of "Team, Opp"? So, for instance, in the trend above:

p:AL and A and season=2013 and line<=8 and division!=o:division and p:line<2

We see:

42-22-0 (0.37, 65.6%)

avg line: -0.2

And then we see:

37.03	44.9	19.52	77.0	7.91	36.1	4.16	11.12	42.98	21.41	21.45	13.86	25.2	25.6	24.7	24.8	101.5
37.25	44.8	18.67	76.6	7.70	35.3	4.06	10.91	42.92	21.48	21.81	14.48	25.8	25.1	24.8	24.0	100.9

What I'm thinking is that for the game tonight with a 4.5-pt spread, the average results don't line up with the percentages. If the games are averaging a 1-pt finish, wouldn't that suggest an underdog cover, rather than the other way around? Should we be filtering favorites & underdogs into separate trends? I'm wondering how the positive & negative numbers might be skewing results - we're looking at favorites/underdogs, not actual integers.

**b1slickguy** · 03-27-14, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by tonywayne

Question about evaluating the "strength" of a trend...

Do you guys ever look at the "avg line, avg total" and compare that to the stat breakdowns of "Team, Opp"? So, for instance, in the trend above:

p:AL and A and season=2013 and line<=8 and division!=o:division and p:line<2

We see:

42-22-0 (0.37, 65.6%)

avg line: -0.2

And then we see:

37.03	44.9	19.52	77.0	7.91	36.1	4.16	11.12	42.98	21.41	21.45	13.86	25.2	25.6	24.7	24.8	101.5
37.25	44.8	18.67	76.6	7.70	35.3	4.06	10.91	42.92	21.48	21.81	14.48	25.8	25.1	24.8	24.0	100.9

What I'm thinking is that for the game tonight with a 4.5-pt spread, the average results don't line up with the percentages. If the games are averaging a 1-pt finish, wouldn't that suggest an underdog cover, rather than the other way around? Should we be filtering favorites & underdogs into separate trends? I'm wondering how the positive & negative numbers might be skewing results - we're looking at favorites/underdogs, not actual integers.

Use additional filters or modify the existing ones within the query to specifics of the game in question.
Take a look at the KS trend I posted earlier today.
Then see JMon's reply. He had already saved this trend with a slight modification negating the play.
I put the gun back in the holster.
Good luck.

**JAnthony** · 03-27-14, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by tonywayne

Question about evaluating the "strength" of a trend...

Do you guys ever look at the "avg line, avg total" and compare that to the stat breakdowns of "Team, Opp"? So, for instance, in the trend above:

p:AL and A and season=2013 and line<=8 and division!=o:division and p:line<2

We see:

42-22-0 (0.37, 65.6%)

avg line: -0.2

And then we see:

37.03	44.9	19.52	77.0	7.91	36.1	4.16	11.12	42.98	21.41	21.45	13.86	25.2	25.6	24.7	24.8	101.5
37.25	44.8	18.67	76.6	7.70	35.3	4.06	10.91	42.92	21.48	21.81	14.48	25.8	25.1	24.8	24.0	100.9

What I'm thinking is that for the game tonight with a 4.5-pt spread, the average results don't line up with the percentages. If the games are averaging a 1-pt finish, wouldn't that suggest an underdog cover, rather than the other way around? Should we be filtering favorites & underdogs into separate trends? I'm wondering how the positive & negative numbers might be skewing results - we're looking at favorites/underdogs, not actual integers.

I see your point here, but you have to understand one thing - the 'average' as such is not the same as 'most of the games', it can be pretty far from that.

**b1slickguy** · 03-27-14, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by JMon

I have this saved in my personal db. I have since made adjustments...at H, 210 > total > 207.5 not very good

Thanks again. Dodged a loss.
Kept a clean sheet 3-0 for the night.
Good luck.

**GiveMeaBJ** · 03-27-14, 10:31 PM

2-1 thanks to the contributions of you guys. Much appreciated considering i dont know my head from my ass in nba.

**figue** · 03-28-14, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by JAnthony

A and p:AFL and 1<= rest<=2 and season>=2005

p:AL and A and season=2013 and line<=8 and division!=o:division and p:line<2

It seems that the third situation was eliminated because of the line movement, but it suggested that we fade Hawks tonight. Hit rate was above 70%

2-0 on the second.

**figue** · 03-28-14, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by JAnthony

p:LAF and p: points<=90 and rest>=1 and tA(points)>=103

Found this tasty 'under'.

2-0 here too

**figue** · 03-28-14, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by JMon

I have this saved in my personal db. I have since made adjustments...at H, 210 > total > 207.5 not very good

this is the best rate...
H and 209 > total > 201 and 60 >= WP >= 51 and Sum(ou margin@team and season, N=5) >= 36 and season > 2007 and playoffs = 0

**nash13** · 03-28-14, 07:56 AM

what do you guys do when two trends colide with each other? let's say: i have two trends for Spurs to cover and one for Nuggets. Do you leave it out or do you take the Spurs because 2 trends are 1 more than the other?

**green7** · 03-28-14, 09:50 AM

p:AFW and AD and rest=0 and o:rest>0 and playoffs=0 and tA(W)>.5 and conference!=o:conference and 180<total<200 and oA(W)>.5

Hate to go over in Bulls games as they defense teams to death.

**green7** · 03-28-14, 09:52 AM

p:AFW and AD and rest=0 and o:rest>0 and playoffs=0 and tA(W)>.5 and conference!=o:conference and 180<total<200 and oA(W)>.5

The query on the previous post didn't totally copy.....this one here is complete.

**green7** · 03-28-14, 09:53 AM

p:AFW and AD and rest=0 and o:rest>0 and playoffs=0 and tA(W)>.5 and conference!=o:conference and 180<total<200 and oA(W)>.5

**green7** · 03-28-14, 09:57 AM

Geez, tried it three different times! Highlighted to copy and paste and though everything was highlighted it didn't actually copy everything completely.

p:AFW and AD and rest=0 and rest=- and o:rest>0 and playoffs=0 and tA(W)>.5 and conference!=o:conference and 180<total<200.

**green7** · 03-28-14, 09:58 AM

the last part should read "180<total<200".

**green7** · 03-28-14, 09:59 AM

The total should be between 180 and 200.

**green7** · 03-28-14, 10:06 AM

Perhaps "posting a quick reply" was the issue and that is the reason the query would not copy completely.

if you add "an opponent >50% winning percentage" or oA(W)>.50 to the above attempts at giving out a query. the total goes to 39-19 to the over. So, in other words.....

We are taking a team that won last night as an away favorite that today is an away non-conference dog, playing a rested team to go over, when the total is between 180-200.

**green7** · 03-28-14, 10:36 AM

po:WP>65 and p:HFW and AF and rest>0 and o:rest>0 and division!=o:division and op:HL

SU:27-12 (5.08, 69.2%)
ATS:20-19-0 (0.42, 51.3%) avg line: -4.7
O/U:31-8-0 (6.64, 79.5%) avg total: 193.0

**JMon** · 03-28-14, 11:28 AM

Is this it green?

p:AFW and AD and rest=0 and o:rest>0 and playoffs=0 and WP>50 and conference!=o:conference and 200>total>180

**JMon** · 03-28-14, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by green7

po:WP>65 and p:HFW and AF and rest>0 and o:rest>0 and division!=o:division and op:HL

SU:27-12 (5.08, 69.2%)
ATS:20-19-0 (0.42, 51.3%) avg line: -4.7
O/U:31-8-0 (6.64, 79.5%) avg total: 193.0

Nice work. Eastern Conf

**JMon** · 03-28-14, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by JAnthony

Thanks for this Knicks over, JMon!

Here we go again!

**JMon** · 03-28-14, 01:47 PM

Lakers high total..not playing this one as there is not a good sample for high totals under this situation for me to trust it, but wanted to throw this out here for the action junkies. I will say this, aside the outlier on the Dec. 31 Thunder game, some monster points have been scored since 2010.

H and total >= 210 and p:W and p:margin >= 10 and op:L and op:margin >= -3 and o:rest<=2

**azn1234** · 03-28-14, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by JMon

Here we go again!

Play over on a team that is 40-49% win and has won more than 7 in last 10 games, and the total is more than 200. Is that correct? Thanks JMon. It's great learning

**JMon** · 03-28-14, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by azn1234

Play over on a team that is 40-49% win and has won more than 7 in last 10 games, and the total is more than 200. Is that correct? Thanks JMon. It's great learning

**JAnthony** · 03-28-14, 02:13 PM

Guys, I want to apologise, I won't be posting any new SDQL codes tonight, since I'm out drinking Guinness with buddies. Will play some from already saved personal DB. Good luck, fellas!

**JMon** · 03-28-14, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by JAnthony

Guys, I want to apologise, I won't be posting any new SDQL codes tonight, since I'm out drinking Guinness with buddies. Will play some from already saved personal DB. Good luck, fellas!

all good buddy. Enjoy your night out. I've been putting them down since noon. But then again, I made a K off sdql last night and will be making another tonight.

**Mako-SBR** · 03-28-14, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by green7

Geez, tried it three different times! Highlighted to copy and paste and though everything was highlighted it didn't actually copy everything completely.

p:AFW and AD and rest=0 and rest=- and o:rest>0 and playoffs=0 and tA(W)>.5 and conference!=o:conference and 180

<total<200.[ quote]

See post #625 for the solution to your problem, all please read it and commit it to memory as it will happen 100% of the time under that specific query circumstance.

</total<200.[>

**Mako-SBR** · 03-28-14, 04:12 PM

Such great stuff in the thread from everyone, 24-10 over the last 14 days alone, how can anyone argue with those results...

I'm on these tonight, thanks to JMon and everyone else who contributed them for the rest of us to enjoy:

Fav,to win:

HF and WP>=72 and game number>=25 and p:LF and line<=-9.5 and total>=187.5 and season>=2006

Also the under:

F and p:AL and p:margin<=-8 and WP>=o:WP and line<=-10.5 and 185<=total<=216 and C and division!=o:division and season>=2006

Overfit yes, but that's how I like 'em!

**green7** · 03-28-14, 04:14 PM

Apologize to all for the earlier cluttering of thread....yes JMon you have the query correct that you asked about.

As an aside here is a query of how teams do when they have rest versus a team with no rest. I don't advocate playing on this basis alone, but could be used as a way to solidify an strong opinion or to stop playing a game that you are sitting on the fence about. To me, one of the most surprising teams is the Bulls whose physical play I would have thought would translate well when playing a team off no rest. They are only 6-9 ATS this year in this situation.
team and season=2013 and rest>0 and o:rest=0

Playing with no rest is not a terrible thing as long-term the linesmakers have made the balancing odds....long-term it is a slightly advantageous play to take a team on no rest.

However for whatever reason this year has been spectacular for a team away after an away loss with a line of <= 8. So, instead of a historical 50.2% success rate over the past 19 years, we get a 67.6% hit rate this year!

rest=0 and p:AL and A and line<=8 and season=2013

41-34 (0.41, 54.7%)
50-24-1 (2.09, 67.6%)	avg line: 1.7

After an away win with no rest, we get only a 29-28 record with a line of <=8 (applies to Trailblazers tonight), but it is 33-22 to the over.

**Mako-SBR** · 03-28-14, 04:25 PM

Nice green7, good stuff, explanations like that are very helpful to those just starting out with SDQL who aren't quite sure "what" they should be experimenting with in terms of parameters that matter (rest, travel, etc).