This is a trend you must read!

loveydove84 · 12-26-09, 10:42 AM

I was taking the oakland spread

Pankake · 12-26-09, 11:05 AM

Nice point. I may throw a few bones on Seatle, look for them to keep it close.

LT Profits · 12-26-09, 11:14 AM

11 games means absolutely nothing.

DOMINATER · 12-26-09, 01:00 PM

LT WHATS YOUR POINT iGIVE YOU A STAT LIKE THAT AND THATS YOUR REMARKS

DOMINATER · 12-26-09, 01:03 PM

lt read the post correctly on top it has nothing to do with handicapping for personal advantages it is a trend a team has , means alot if your betting the GREEN BAY games only ,

LT Profits · 12-26-09, 01:10 PM

But you are basing your assumption on an 11 game sample, which means nothing. Fact is Green Bay was 24-20-4 ATS at home in December last 24 years, so there really is no anti-Pack home bias long term.

2daBank · 12-26-09, 05:32 PM

personally i think they giving sea to much credit this weekend...dont see them scoring to many points should be a pissed off gb defense after giving up 500yrds and blowing the game in pit...sea has struggled to score against much worse defenses than this as of late at home and on the road

therber2 · 12-26-09, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by DOMINATER

I HAVE DISCOVERED A TREND that you must be aware of. The Greenbay packers are 3-7-1- against the spread late into december on their home turf, the reason for this is Vegas adjusts for too many points for the cold weather conditions usually associated in GREENBAY; BLOWS THE LINEUP CAUSING THE underdogs to cover,so if you are betting Greenbay please keep this trend in mine, personally I'm much more synical I BELIEVE that Vegas knows and understands that but they are profit ing from it ,and I BELIEVE people hold on to certain thoughts that the puplic relates about GREENBAY games of the past when everthing was frozen and only the home team could win .

Good post. I lean on Green Bay, but something like this + a very large spread against an on off team makes it more of a coin toss

DOMINATER · 12-27-09, 01:40 AM

Lt. first time you posted you were talking about what you did and you totally missed the point. This time your talking about the last 24 years I can't speak whether the line has been inflated all those years, Iwould say with an educated guess absoutley ,just like the notre dame line is always bloated , there are two reason for the n.d. line and green bay line to follow the same pattern. with both teams three or four generations of fans always put a bet in for both teams no matter .this inflates the line by a couple of points thus why these teams sometimes have trouble covering. BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT the last eleven games the people who make the lines in Vegas have evidently inflating the line feeling bad weather would give Green Bay an advantage. This is evident by the lopsided line and results 3-7-1, This has been discovered so I am putting out a warning to all people thay are going to brt the GREEN BAY game to be alert to this FACT. THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD IN THAT SENTENCE IS IT IS A FACT,THAT THE SPREAD HAS CAUSED THE GAMES TO BE FINISHED WITH GREENBAY ONLY WINNING 3 GAMES OUT OF 11 A.T.S. Thats my point if It is something you don't follow or understand then move on to the next thread. Lt I do wish you the best and hope you do well Sunday and many more Sunday.

LT Profits · 12-27-09, 07:48 AM

I know exactly what you are saying, the problem I have with it is that you are drawing your conclusion from an 11-game sampling, which is way too small to be meaningful.

profitmker · 12-27-09, 08:56 AM

who cares what LT thinks. go with your gut. he was all over boston college as well. go with your gut.

LT Profits · 12-27-09, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by profitmker

who cares what LT thinks. go with your gut. he was all over boston college as well. go with your gut.

And what's YOUR documented record right here in the forum?

Bluehorseshoe · 12-27-09, 10:02 AM

3-7-1 on an 11 game sample???

What's the big deal?

blkngold · 12-27-09, 10:15 AM

Looking at the last 11 games in December does give Dominater enough games to form a statistical significance. It is much more accurate than taking the past 24 years. Reason being coaches, players and schemes over the last three years are very similar. If you look over 24 years there are to many variables.

Well done Dominater...............................

jhack704 · 12-27-09, 10:20 AM

i just hope green bay wins, i put a big bet before season started the would win over 9 games and the odds were -110

rkelly110 · 12-27-09, 10:29 AM

Thanks Dominator, I prefer to make my assumtions on recent trends. Who would've thought
Tampa Bay would win a Super Bowl, going on long term trends?

Thanks LT for the Under pick on Ohio/Marshall game yesterday. I cashed.

LT Profits · 12-27-09, 10:32 AM

Anyone that thinks 11 games is enough to be statistically significant really shouldn't be gambling. Heck, even the 48 games in the 24-year sampling is insignificant. You need a sampling of hundreds (preferably thousands) to unearth any bias in the market.

jhack704 · 12-27-09, 10:35 AM

yea even if y ou had a million games you did research on it dont matter anything can happen. all stats are something you can base your prediction on to give you the best odds. even if something hit 99 out of 100 times there was still that one lost and it could happen again. yea you made a alot of money and you should bet that trend hard but im just saying if there were guarentees the whole betting thing would be corrupted. although i would want to be the 1st to know the guarentees

PingPong · 12-27-09, 10:45 AM

looks like a 31-17 game to me, line looks right

LT Profits · 12-27-09, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by jhack704

yea even if y ou had a million games you did research on it dont matter anything can happen. all stats are something you can base your prediction on to give you the best odds. even if something hit 99 out of 100 times there was still that one lost and it could happen again. yea you made a alot of money and you should bet that trend hard but im just saying if there were guarentees the whole betting thing would be corrupted. although i would want to be the 1st to know the guarentees

Of course any play can lose, but the more data you have, the more reliable your model is, The key is to win in the long term, so if you lose one play with a 55% expected win rate at -110, it is no big deal because you will win in the long run if you make that same plays hundreds of times.

blkngold · 12-27-09, 11:05 AM

Wow LT you get very defensive when someone doesn't agree with you.

However, I do appreciate the advice about not gambling. On that note you may have actually made a valid point. Just remember your stats may be schewed if you are looking at to large of a sample. gl

jhack704 · 12-27-09, 11:08 AM

i know LT im just saying, trends are the best way to base a bet instead of your opinion or bias. just saying no such thing as a guarantee

LT Profits · 12-27-09, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by blkngold

Wow LT you get very defensive when someone doesn't agree with you.

However, I do appreciate the advice about not gambling. On that note you may have actually made a valid point. Just remember your stats may be schewed if you are looking at to large of a sample. gl

Well it's not being defensive when I am right.

It isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it is a fact that 11 games is insignificant. Also, the point the OP was trying to make was that the Packers are overvalued at home in December due to the weather factor being overcompensated for, and if that were true, their home December lines would be shaded every year regardless of personnel, making a long range study acceptable. That said, even a 48-game sampling is meaningless.

DOMINATER · 12-27-09, 12:22 PM

Lt you just dont get it

DOMINATER · 12-27-09, 12:29 PM

I JUSTread your points again listen this is a short trend indeed but its something that vegas has not noticed so my point is jump on this now before vegas changes its spread to make things even, DO YOU GET THAT JUMP ON IT NOW I WOULD NEVER SAY YOUR STUPID OR A RETARD I DONT EVEN KNOW YOU BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS JUMP ON THIS TREND OR MODEL BEFORE VEGAS CHANGES IT,

hostile takeover · 12-27-09, 12:35 PM

Green Bay it is!

DOMINATER · 12-28-09, 12:30 AM

GREEN BAY had no trouble but that doesnt mean this trend does not apply next time.

The Seer · 12-28-09, 01:51 AM

In that 11 game sample Favre was the QB for half of it which has no bearing on games with Rogers. You could make an argument that Favre faded in recent years.

NYSportsGuy210 · 12-28-09, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Pankake

Nice point. I may throw a few bones on Seatle, look for them to keep it close.

Haha....you're such an idiot.