[rake922]

Cin @ Hou
1st half - Hou
2nd half - Hou
game - Hou

Det@NO
1st half - Det
2nd half - NO
game - NO

Atl@ NY
1st half - NY
2nd half- NY
game - NY

Pitt @ Den
1st half -Den
2nd half -Pitt
game - Den

NO @ SF
1st half - SF
2nd half - SF
game - SF

Den@NE
1st half - NE
2nd half - NE
game - NE

[rake922]

OVERS 5-1

Cin @ Hou
1st half - OVER
2nd half - UNDER
game - OVER

Det@NO
1st half - UNDER
2nd half - OVER
game - OVER

Atl@ NY
1st half - UNDER
2nd half- UNDER
game - UNDER

Pitt @ Den
1st half -OVER
2nd half -OVER
game - OVER

NO @ SF
1st half - OVER
2nd half - OVER
game - OVER

Den@NE
1st half - OVER
2nd half - UNDER
game - OVER

[john230]

I think at least one of the 2 dogs today gets the cover against the spread.

[jetsjets1028]

unbelievable how road teams cant win all sudden in nfl ncaa bball wow

[wantitall4moi]

home teams are great ATS every year in the play offs. That has never been a secret. You could bet the home team on the blind and make money. Theyre over 70% since 2000 I think.

Most people just dont pay attention or dont have very good memories.

[E in AZ]

home teams are great ATS every year in the play offs. That has never been a secret. You could bet the home team on the blind and make money. Theyre over 70% since 2000 I think.

Most people just dont pay attention or dont have very good memories.

No better way to put it. Go Ravens!

[FourLengthsClear]

home teams are great ATS every year in the play offs. That has never been a secret. You could bet the home team on the blind and make money. Theyre over 70% since 2000 I think.

Most people just dont pay attention or dont have very good memories.

It is around 61%. Home underdogs are over 70% but that is a very small sample.

[GatorTD]

Texans need to break that trend.

[BigdaddyQH]

It appears that the Home Team trend will continue. If it does, at least we get the two best regular season teams in the Superbowl.

[Utah_Jay]

I think at least one of the 2 dogs today gets the cover against the spread.

My money goes to the Giants here.

[wantitall4moi]

It is around 61%. Home underdogs are over 70% but that is a very small sample.

I was going off memory.

But sample size is irrelevant when it is every game played. You cant have more examples than there are games played.

It basically shows books over valued 'better' teams especially on the road.

Home teams in the NFL cover at a high enough rate so you could bet the board every week with the best number and show a profit at the season. This year home teams were 'only' 54.2% at 139-117 ATS.

This basically shows that results are not 50/50 or close to 50/50 as a whole and therefore shows variance or regression theory is a non issue.

[FourLengthsClear]

I was going off memory.

But sample size is irrelevant when it is every game played. You cant have more examples than there are games played.

It basically shows books over valued 'better' teams especially on the road.

Home teams in the NFL cover at a high enough rate so you could bet the board every week with the best number and show a profit at the season. This year home teams were 'only' 54.2% at 139-117 ATS.

This basically shows that results are not 50/50 or close to 50/50 as a whole and therefore shows variance or regression theory is a non issue.

Not this crap again.
If you get the best number the same is true of road teams.
How did home teams do last season year in the regular season (2010) against the closer? Or the year before?

Sample size is irrelevant?
At what point does it become irrelevant. If you have a sample size of two, is that enough? If not how about twenty? Get a clue.

[rake922]

Mark Sanchez has 4 road ATS wins , he played in AFC championship twice.... so 2 ATS wins in 2010, then 2 more in 2011

[wantitall4moi]

Not this crap again.
If you get the best number the same is true of road teams.
How did home teams do last season year in the regular season (2010) against the closer? Or the year before?

Sample size is irrelevant?
At what point does it become irrelevant. If you have a sample size of two, is that enough? If not how about twenty? Get a clue.

Its not MATH its sports. If home teams are habitually under estimated by the books then they have a built in edge. Use your head.

If I see 10 games where the home team wins SU and was a dog in 4 of them I say the books are dumb and dont know anything, it doesnt matter if it was 'only' 10 games. SINGLE games all add up over time. Trick is to be on those games before everyone else sees a pattern.

In the play offs it is even more apparent. Especially with teams that get home games due to winning a conference, like Denver was against pitt. Pit had a better record but Den still won. Spread was way too high in that game Den winning SU was just a bonus.

But no getting the best line on the other side wouldnt make it nearly as productive. Not enough to overcome the results.

[paco]

Packers lost outright

[FourLengthsClear]

Its not MATH its sports. If home teams are habitually under estimated by the books then they have a built in edge. Use your head.

If I see 10 games where the home team wins SU and was a dog in 4 of them I say the books are dumb and dont know anything, it doesnt matter if it was 'only' 10 games. SINGLE games all add up over time. Trick is to be on those games before everyone else sees a pattern.

In the play offs it is even more apparent. Especially with teams that get home games due to winning a conference, like Denver was against pitt. Pit had a better record but Den still won. Spread was way too high in that game Den winning SU was just a bonus.

But no getting the best line on the other side wouldnt make it nearly as productive. Not enough to overcome the results.

But they are not. I asked how home teams performed ATS (closing line) in 2009 and 2010 and you ignored it. Why is that?

They issue of the play-offs over the last 10 years is a possible case of lines being driven too much by regular season form/stats but I repeat that a sample of 120 games is way too small to conclude that as a fact.

[BallDontLie]

did texans cover?

[UpInsmoke33]

did texans cover?

in most cases they did.

[wantitall4moi]

But they are not. I asked how home teams performed ATS (closing line) in 2009 and 2010 and you ignored it. Why is that?

They issue of the play-offs over the last 10 years is a possible case of lines being driven too much by regular season form/stats but I repeat that a sample of 120 games is way too small to conclude that as a fact.

I am sure you know or you wouldnt be asking.

But in 2010 the SU winner got the money. Not a single dog "covered". Meaning no team lost and covered a spread. So spread had nothing to do with anything.

Same thing with 2009 if the team won SU they covered the spread. Points were irrelevant.

Same thing this year.

It is that way for the most part, which is what I originally said. Teams that win SU get the covers. Just happens that more home teams win than road teams. Which also goes with something else I said if you like a dog you bet them on the ML.

[FourLengthsClear]

I am sure you know or you wouldnt be asking.

But in 2010 the SU winner got the money. Not a single dog "covered". Meaning no team lost and covered a spread. So spread had nothing to do with anything.

Same thing with 2009 if the team won SU they covered the spread. Points were irrelevant.

Same thing this year.

It is that way for the most part, which is what I originally said. Teams that win SU get the covers. Just happens that more home teams win than road teams. Which also goes with something else I said if you like a dog you bet them on the ML.

I do know and road teams won 51.6% and 50.7% ATS in '09 and '10 respectively.

You are moving the goalposts a bit but yes in the NFL the winner SU covers the spread 82-83% of the time.

[antifoil]

what percentage that 80 percent is dogs?

[rake922]

Hou@Bal
1st half - Hou
2nd half - Hou
game - Hou

Hou@Bal
1st half - Over
2nd half - Under
Game - Under

Nyg@GB
1st half- Nyg
2nd half - Nyg
Game - Nyg

Nyg@GB
1st half- Over
2nd half - Under
Game - Over

[FourLengthsClear]

what percentage that 80 percent is dogs?

As a whole since 1990:

33.4% of underdogs won SU and by definition also cover the spread.
51.3% of underdogs covered the spread

66.6% of favourites won SU
48.7% of favourites covered the spread

The contention that if you like the underdog, you should bet them SU doesn't hold up overall but it does better in recent years and would have been slightly profitable (based on closing lines) betting blind over a narrow spread range which I will keep to myself!

[Chi_archie]

good stuff Raker

[antifoil]

yeah i mentioned that in another thread in think tank. i figured if you narrow it down to the smaller spreads, it is probably around 5 or less on the moneyline it would be profitable.

i didn't get any response so i figured i was on to something. that is how you tell if your idea is good in the think tank. there is no response calling you an idiot.

edit: i would guess the area would be profitable would be from 3 to 6.5

[FourLengthsClear]

yeah i mentioned that in another thread in think tank. i figured if you narrow it down to the smaller spreads, it is probably around 5 or less on the moneyline it would be profitable.

i didn't get any response so i figured i was on to something. that is how you tell if your idea is good in the think tank. there is no response calling you an idiot.

edit: i would guess the area would be profitable would be from 3 to 6.5

LOL. Suffice to say you are not an idiot.
Betting blind like that is not my thing but it's good information to have nonetheless.

[rake922]

Bal@NE
1st half - Bal
2nd half - Bal
game - Bal

Bal@NE
1st half - Under
2nd half - Under
Game - Under

Nyg@SF
1st half- Nyg
2nd half - Push
Game - Nyg

Nyg@SF
1st half- Under
2nd half - Push
Game - Under