NFL - Situational Plays - SDQL

[JMon]

no-cover where the team won as a favorite against opponent off an upset win as a road underdog

SDQL:

49>=total>=42.5 and p: DW and op:FW and op:ats margin<0

Interesting to note here when the opt. is the Patriots.

SDQL:

49>=total>=42.5 and p: DW and op:FW and op:ats margin<0 and o:team=Patriots

Note: space after p:

[Mako-SBR]

no-cover where the team won as a favorite against opponent off an upset win as a road underdog

SDQL:

49>=total>=42.5 and p: DW and op:FW and op:ats margin<0

Interesting to note here when the opt. is the Patriots.

SDQL:

49>=total>=42.5 and p: DW and op:FW and op:ats margin<0 and o:team=Patriots

Note: space after p:

VERY interesting.

Good one buddy, squares really got demolished on NE tonight. Cashed.

[nash13]

Since we don't have NCAAF situational play thread: I tried to look at various things, and figured out that combining ML Parlays may be another way to create profitable bets out of it.

points>49 and site==home and pooints<points and line>-32.5 and p:line<0 and site==home and line<0 and season = 2014

Let's take a look at the first weeks.
16-0 so far. (for some of the heavy favs there is no ML option to bet, so i will just leave them out, i take European Odds, for easier Calculations)

Week 2:
Kentucky 1.21
North Carolina 1.18
Oregon 1.23
Utah 1.22
Parlay: 2.04

Week 3:
Florida 1.11
LSU 1.01
Oklahoma 1.1
Texas A&M 1.03
Washington 1.21
Parlay: 1.54

Week 4:
Alabama 1.19
Cincinnati 1.02
Nebraska 1.35
Parlay:1.61

Week 5:
Georgia 1.13
Michigan State 1.02
Mississippi 1.11
Ohio State 1.15
Parlay: 1.43

+2.62 Units
Compared to the ATS its not as good, but maybe the safer bet at times.

[hyahya]

p:ats margin>9 and p:H and F and season>2003 and op:HW

[emceeaye]

Dr. M' over query pointing to jaguars/steelers over on Sunday:

week<=5 and H and line>1 and p:dps<0 and pp:dps<0 and p:line>5 and p:INT + pp:INT>=2 and season>=1994

[JMon]

Dr. M' over query pointing to jaguars/steelers over on Sunday:

week<=5 and H and line>1 and p:dps<0 and pp:dps<0 and p:line>5 and p:INT + pp:INT>=2 and season>=1994

Thanks emc.. let's start keeping track of his plays.

[chopperocker]

I love college football moneyline parlays. what is the location of the database you are accessing, please sir?

[FortySix]

Hey EMC, can I ask where you get that info from? I googled it and the first hit i got was pregame but I couldn't find that SDQL you posted. Do you subscribe to pregame? If so, is it worth the subscription. Thanks for the assistance.

[emceeaye]

Hey EMC, can I ask where you get that info from? I googled it and the first hit i got was pregame but I couldn't find that SDQL you posted. Do you subscribe to pregame? If so, is it worth the subscription. Thanks for the assistance.

No, I didnt subscribe to anything. You have mail

[Mako-SBR]

I'll start off with a well known nfl play that has done well in the past, away favs coming off a bye:

week=p:week+2 and AF and playoffs=0 and season>2001

48-18-1 (4.19, 72.7%)

Slow work day, might as well do a write up for fun.

The following is how I try to work through picks when systems show conflicting information (i.e., your favorite SDQL scenarios pick both sides of a game and you're not sure who to go with).

So as an example, two plays are active this week for the above string from post #1 in this thread, as we're coming out of the first bye week for NFL teams with Seattle (-7) going to Washington and Cincinnati (-1) going to New England.

The Seattle play is up against recent trends where teams coming off a publicly humiliating prime-time beatdown (MNF, TNF, SNF) where they lost by 8+ points or more, typically have rebounded and beaten the spread in their very next game (roughly 66-70% win rate ATS depending on line, week #, other variables).

In this case to go against the original post-bye trend you'd have to believe Kirk Cousins and that awful Washington defense can somehow rise up to handle Seattle in all three phases of the game, who by the way despite the reputation of being a "poor" away team, are actually 8-3 ATS in road games over their last 11 (including even the straight-up loss this season to SD), going back to December of 2012 (Wilson's first season as QB).

They've done even better on the road when they're laying larger points, showing that they do typically dominate the teams they're "supposed" to beat, even if some geographical distance is covered and they're away from their "12th man" cushion.

Regardless, this is a case where I would choose to ignore the 2+ other SDQL scenarios I have showing Washington as the pick due to the post-beatdown scenario that has done well over time, and still go with the other scenarios that are pointing to Seattle.

It's tough because that's a square amateur-hour clown pick that makes the typically losing public feel all warm and fuzzy to bet (choosing a big point lay on the current SB champion is about as square as it gets), but the truth is that the perception of a team being awful on the road versus the stark reality of SDQL data showing it isn't the case makes aligning myself with the dart-throwing public less of a barrier.

In the other example, we're up against nearly the exact same scenario as betting against Washington, with New England being absolutely embarrassed and taken to the woodshed by Kansas City in a prime-time game (MNF), now hosting a rested and trending Cincinnati team coming off a bye and laying -1 despite being the away team in a hostile stadium.

The first thought I had just off the top of my head is that the Patriots can't possibly lose two straight games ATS that often in the recent Belichick/Brady era, particularly not when that second game is at their house, where they've been strong over time.

But feeding it all into SDQL showed that wasn't the case, and that since 2008 when the Patriots have had an away loss where the ATS loss margin was heavy, they typically have gone home and not outperformed the mean of any home team, winning roughly 50% ATS.

The problem is that the sample size is as you would assume, extremely small, fewer than six games, because the Patriots have been a good enough team the past decade that they don't often endure away losses that exceed the spread by such a large margin followed right away by a home game.

Betting Cincinnati is actually the statistically safer play than betting Seattle over Washington, simply because the post-bye scenario is a 70%+ winner with a great sample size of games with no other top-level scenarios conflicting on the pick.

Tough to pull the trigger on Cincy though, I'm having a hard time with it personally despite already going with Seattle at -7. It's a case of the heart and the head not aligning, just can't go with that similarly square play as easily as I should be able to due too much hero-worship by the media on Belichick/Brady/Patriots the past decade...clouding my decision-making ha.

Anyway, we all need to share more of the thinking of "why" we bet, or don't bet, our own SDQL scenarios, because finding the strings is only 50% of the solution to actually outperforming 52.4% and winning...the other half is figuring out the signal versus the noise, and ignoring the trends that simply don't apply while isolating the ones that do. That's the magic of using SDQL properly.

TLDR VERSION OF THIS POST: Two of my favorite SDQL scenarios are pointing to opposite teams this week, how I chose to bet despite the conflicts comes down to perception versus reality, and SDQL illustrating that reality by helping to cut through the fog.

[neilb1973]

You make some great points. Thank you.

[KeepItCummin]

Wow guys(gals if any), I finally found the nfl sdql thread.. I just am catching up what's been posted so far.. Hella language it is here. I am still trying to read the sdql manual to understand what the heck I am reading sometimes but I wish I can one day contribute to what u guys r saying. Until then I hope u do to mind me just taking ur word for each pick by either dr m or sdql stats. Keep up the good work!

[Alex Vaile]

Rams Eagles over for Dr.M
21 and.0 system

team=Eagles and p and points <23 and date >= 20051201

[JMon]

Wow guys(gals if any), I finally found the nfl sdql thread.. I just am catching up what's been posted so far.. Hella language it is here. I am still trying to read the sdql manual to understand what the heck I am reading sometimes but I wish I can one day contribute to what u guys r saying. Until then I hope u do to mind me just taking ur word for each pick by either dr m or sdql stats. Keep up the good work!

Welcome Keep! We are all here to help in your learning. Just ask if you need anything.

[JMon]

Rams Eagles over for Dr.M
21 and.0 system

team=Eagles and p and points <23 and date >= 20051201

Thanks for posting Alex... need to try and clean it up a bit to avoid sbr emoticons...

team=Eagles and p: D and p: points <23 and date >= 20051201

(eliminate spaces after the colons)

[JMon]

Slow work day, might as well do a write up for fun.

The following is how I try to work through picks when systems show conflicting information (i.e., your favorite SDQL scenarios pick both sides of a game and you're not sure who to go with).

So as an example, two plays are active this week for the above string from post #1 in this thread, as we're coming out of the first bye week for NFL teams with Seattle (-7) going to Washington and Cincinnati (-1) going to New England.

The Seattle play is up against recent trends where teams coming off a publicly humiliating prime-time beatdown (MNF, TNF, SNF) where they lost by 8+ points or more, typically have rebounded and beaten the spread in their very next game (roughly 66-70% win rate ATS depending on line, week #, other variables).

In this case to go against the original post-bye trend you'd have to believe Kirk Cousins and that awful Washington defense can somehow rise up to handle Seattle in all three phases of the game, who by the way despite the reputation of being a "poor" away team, are actually 8-3 ATS in road games over their last 11 (including even the straight-up loss this season to SD), going back to December of 2012 (Wilson's first season as QB).

They've done even better on the road when they're laying larger points, showing that they do typically dominate the teams they're "supposed" to beat, even if some geographical distance is covered and they're away from their "12th man" cushion.

Regardless, this is a case where I would choose to ignore the 2+ other SDQL scenarios I have showing Washington as the pick due to the post-beatdown scenario that has done well over time, and still go with the other scenarios that are pointing to Seattle.

It's tough because that's a square amateur-hour clown pick that makes the typically losing public feel all warm and fuzzy to bet (choosing a big point lay on the current SB champion is about as square as it gets), but the truth is that the perception of a team being awful on the road versus the stark reality of SDQL data showing it isn't the case makes aligning myself with the dart-throwing public less of a barrier.

In the other example, we're up against nearly the exact same scenario as betting against Washington, with New England being absolutely embarrassed and taken to the woodshed by Kansas City in a prime-time game (MNF), now hosting a rested and trending Cincinnati team coming off a bye and laying -1 despite being the away team in a hostile stadium.

The first thought I had just off the top of my head is that the Patriots can't possibly lose two straight games ATS that often in the recent Belichick/Brady era, particularly not when that second game is at their house, where they've been strong over time.

But feeding it all into SDQL showed that wasn't the case, and that since 2008 when the Patriots have had an away loss where the ATS loss margin was heavy, they typically have gone home and not outperformed the mean of any home team, winning roughly 50% ATS.

The problem is that the sample size is as you would assume, extremely small, fewer than six games, because the Patriots have been a good enough team the past decade that they don't often endure away losses that exceed the spread by such a large margin followed right away by a home game.

Betting Cincinnati is actually the statistically safer play than betting Seattle over Washington, simply because the post-bye scenario is a 70%+ winner with a great sample size of games with no other top-level scenarios conflicting on the pick.

Tough to pull the trigger on Cincy though, I'm having a hard time with it personally despite already going with Seattle at -7. It's a case of the heart and the head not aligning, just can't go with that similarly square play as easily as I should be able to due too much hero-worship by the media on Belichick/Brady/Patriots the past decade...clouding my decision-making ha.

Anyway, we all need to share more of the thinking of "why" we bet, or don't bet, our own SDQL scenarios, because finding the strings is only 50% of the solution to actually outperforming 52.4% and winning...the other half is figuring out the signal versus the noise, and ignoring the trends that simply don't apply while isolating the ones that do. That's the magic of using SDQL properly.

TLDR VERSION OF THIS POST: Two of my favorite SDQL scenarios are pointing to opposite teams this week, how I chose to bet despite the conflicts comes down to perception versus reality, and SDQL illustrating that reality by helping to cut through the fog.

Nice write up Mako..always appreciate you doing so. As you have said in the past each uses the power of SDQL differently. After the NBA, MLB threads, I assume you already know my methodology is different than yours. Not saying one is better than the other. Good to see you active in the threads tho. Cheers mate!

[emceeaye]

Slow work day, might as well do a write up for fun.

The following is how I try to work through picks when systems show conflicting information (i.e., your favorite SDQL scenarios pick both sides of a game and you're not sure who to go with).

So as an example, two plays are active this week for the above string from post #1 in this thread, as we're coming out of the first bye week for NFL teams with Seattle (-7) going to Washington and Cincinnati (-1) going to New England.

The Seattle play is up against recent trends where teams coming off a publicly humiliating prime-time beatdown (MNF, TNF, SNF) where they lost by 8+ points or more, typically have rebounded and beaten the spread in their very next game (roughly 66-70% win rate ATS depending on line, week #, other variables).

In this case to go against the original post-bye trend you'd have to believe Kirk Cousins and that awful Washington defense can somehow rise up to handle Seattle in all three phases of the game, who by the way despite the reputation of being a "poor" away team, are actually 8-3 ATS in road games over their last 11 (including even the straight-up loss this season to SD), going back to December of 2012 (Wilson's first season as QB).

They've done even better on the road when they're laying larger points, showing that they do typically dominate the teams they're "supposed" to beat, even if some geographical distance is covered and they're away from their "12th man" cushion.

Regardless, this is a case where I would choose to ignore the 2+ other SDQL scenarios I have showing Washington as the pick due to the post-beatdown scenario that has done well over time, and still go with the other scenarios that are pointing to Seattle.

It's tough because that's a square amateur-hour clown pick that makes the typically losing public feel all warm and fuzzy to bet (choosing a big point lay on the current SB champion is about as square as it gets), but the truth is that the perception of a team being awful on the road versus the stark reality of SDQL data showing it isn't the case makes aligning myself with the dart-throwing public less of a barrier.

In the other example, we're up against nearly the exact same scenario as betting against Washington, with New England being absolutely embarrassed and taken to the woodshed by Kansas City in a prime-time game (MNF), now hosting a rested and trending Cincinnati team coming off a bye and laying -1 despite being the away team in a hostile stadium.

The first thought I had just off the top of my head is that the Patriots can't possibly lose two straight games ATS that often in the recent Belichick/Brady era, particularly not when that second game is at their house, where they've been strong over time.

But feeding it all into SDQL showed that wasn't the case, and that since 2008 when the Patriots have had an away loss where the ATS loss margin was heavy, they typically have gone home and not outperformed the mean of any home team, winning roughly 50% ATS.

The problem is that the sample size is as you would assume, extremely small, fewer than six games, because the Patriots have been a good enough team the past decade that they don't often endure away losses that exceed the spread by such a large margin followed right away by a home game.

Betting Cincinnati is actually the statistically safer play than betting Seattle over Washington, simply because the post-bye scenario is a 70%+ winner with a great sample size of games with no other top-level scenarios conflicting on the pick.

Tough to pull the trigger on Cincy though, I'm having a hard time with it personally despite already going with Seattle at -7. It's a case of the heart and the head not aligning, just can't go with that similarly square play as easily as I should be able to due too much hero-worship by the media on Belichick/Brady/Patriots the past decade...clouding my decision-making ha.

Anyway, we all need to share more of the thinking of "why" we bet, or don't bet, our own SDQL scenarios, because finding the strings is only 50% of the solution to actually outperforming 52.4% and winning...the other half is figuring out the signal versus the noise, and ignoring the trends that simply don't apply while isolating the ones that do. That's the magic of using SDQL properly.

TLDR VERSION OF THIS POST: Two of my favorite SDQL scenarios are pointing to opposite teams this week, how I chose to bet despite the conflicts comes down to perception versus reality, and SDQL illustrating that reality by helping to cut through the fog.

Thank you for sharing your rationales for your picks. I like your thought process, especially the premium you place on trying to consider the objective reality vs the vicissitudes of your heart. The beauty of SDQL is it provides a healthy dose of skepticism for your heart and in effect, actually already removed any "noise" from your data with the statistical weight of the results of your query that factored in relevant variables, even if not all of them.

[KeepItCummin]

Thanks JMod n everyone, I do believe just as someone mentioned before about having a good karma thread amongst everyone will b produce positive results..

[JMon]

Thanks JMod n everyone, I do believe just as someone mentioned before about having a good karma thread amongst everyone will b produce positive results..

Friend..there is always good karma in these threads, I and many make sure of it. Cheers.

[Alex Vaile]

Today from Dr.M

Under 48.5 Vikes vs Pack

team=Vikings and p:rushes>35 and p:RY>=200 and p: points>=24 and season>=2002

[Alex Vaile]

Thanks for posting Alex... need to try and clean it up a bit to avoid sbr emoticons...

team=Eagles and p: D and p: points <23 and date >= 20051201



(eliminate spaces after the colons)

Thanks JMon

[Alex Vaile]

p:H and HD and op:A and (2009,1)<=(season,week)

28-11-2 Over

Next active date 10/26. Looks good Chopper!

[JMon]

Today from Dr.M

Under 48.5 Vikes vs Pack

team=Vikings and p:rushes>35 and p:RY>=200 and p: points>=24 and season>=2002

While very limited in sample, the following SDQL support the under as well.

division=to:division and 0<p:line and pooints<points and p:margin>=10 and 2007<=season and site=away and conference=NFC

[Mako-SBR]

Nice write up Mako..always appreciate you doing so. As you have said in the past each uses the power of SDQL differently. After the NBA, MLB threads, I assume you already know my methodology is different than yours. Not saying one is better than the other. Good to see you active in the threads tho. Cheers mate!

"You da real MVP" my friend, without your excellent work these threads wouldn't even exist. Thanks for all the great shares across multiple sports J!

[chopperocker]

Next active date 10/26. Looks good Chopper!

that game might not qualify when date arrives but I usually don't see total trends that strong without stats involved.

[chopperocker]

Today from Dr.M

Under 48.5 Vikes vs Pack

team=Vikings and p:rushes>35 and p:RY>=200 and p: points>=24 and season>=2002

good deal cuz I found queries indicating an Under also. i'll see if I saved them.

[chopperocker]

rest<5 and (2004,1)<=(season,week) and op:HDW

rest<5 and (2004,1)<=(season,week) and op:HDW and H

rest<5 and (2004,1)<=(season,week) and DIV

rest<5 and (2004,1)<=(season,week) and DIV and p:W

[KeepItCummin]

[QUOTE=chopperocker;22691481]week+2=tn:week and (1989,1)<=(season,week) and site=home and op:A and opp:A

hi there chopper, can you translate that into words friend? im trying to make sense of this one. i see it on sdql and i think saints is the play here. just want to know the word version.

to me i think it says team stat that is for any team favor by 2 or more since 1989 and something with opponents previous few games..lol.. im trying to understand this new language but its brutal. my old brain is sort of slow right now..

[Mako-SBR]

While very limited in sample, the following SDQL support the under as well.

The weather may give the under a bit of a boost as well.

Just to stay interested tonight I teased the total to 54 and took the under with GB to win via a dropped line of -2.5. Half unit.

[chopperocker]

[QUOTE=KeepItCummin;22711719]

week+2=tn:week and (1989,1)<=(season,week) and site=home and op:A and opp:A

hi there chopper, can you translate that into words friend? im trying to make sense of this one. i see it on sdql and i think saints is the play here. just want to know the word version.

to me i think it says team stat that is for any team favor by 2 or more since 1989 and something with opponents previous few games..lol.. im trying to understand this new language but its brutal. my old brain is sort of slow right now..

basically -
week+2=tn:week (represents a pre-bye week team)
op:A (opponents previous "game" was Away)
opp:A (opponents previous previous "game" was Away)

pre-bye home team vs an opponent that is playing its 3rd consecutive away game

[chopperocker]

The weather may give the under a bit of a boost as well.

Just to stay interested tonight I teased the total to 54 and took the under with GB to win via a dropped line of -2.5. Half unit.

I did the same, Vikings fan here. Pack win.

[chopperocker]

WP=25 and p:L and op:W and 5<=t:week<=6 and -10<=t:line<=8.5 and (1989,1)<=(season,week)

42-15-2 ATS

WP=25 and p:L and op:W and DIV and 5<=t:week<=6 and -10<=t:line<=8.5 and (1989,1)<=(season,week)

18-1 ATS

[JMon]

Play Colts

SDQL fading the Ravens

WP > 60 and A and p:W and p:margin > 10 and op: points + opo: points > 49 and 16 > game number > 2 and playoffs = 0 and (D and line <= 4.5 or -10 <= line <= -3.5) and division!=AFC South

Play Falcons

Play road conference teams, after a road game where both teams scored 24 or more points

SDQL

A and conference=o:conference and p:A and p: points>=24 and po: points>=24 and 2008<=season and line>-10 and game number>2 and 40< total<51.5

(note spaces after : )

[emceeaye]

Bears ATS

Here's one from Dr. M for today, but he has since taken it down from his site:

Thoughts?

A and rest>4 and -3<=line<=3 and NDIV and p:L and WP=50 and NB and season>=2004

[Mako-SBR]

Play Colts

SDQL fading the Ravens

WP > 60 and A and p:W and p:margin > 10 and op: points + opo: points > 49 and 16 > game number > 2 and playoffs = 0 and (D and line <= 4.5 or -10 <= line <= -3.5) and division!=AFC South

Play Falcons

Play road conference teams, after a road game where both teams scored 24 or more points

SDQL

A and conference=o:conference and p:A and p: points>=24 and po: points>=24 and 2008<=season and line>-10 and game number>2 and 40< total<51.5

(note spaces after : )

Both of these are excellent, because they make logical sense and are easily explained in terms of why they work. Both should have won today too...nice J!