ok lets look at nfl teams best ats and worse ats

oldmanTED · 10-16-23, 11:48 PM

good stuff

allabout the $$$ · 10-17-23, 06:34 AM

how would the falcons at 1-5 be second worst when denver is 0-5

ChuckyTheGoat · 10-17-23, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by oldmanTED

good stuff

oldman Ted, where you been?

Enkhbat · 10-17-23, 11:55 AM

So basically just fade the broncos and panthers until they get their shit together.

OldBill · 10-17-23, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by allabout the $$$

how would the falcons at 1-5 be second worst when denver is 0-5

i dunno because they played 6 games just accept fact that falcons 1-5 and panthers 0-6 an d denv. 1-5and patriots 1-5

and all teams that 2-4 are to be faded

OldBill · 10-17-23, 05:34 PM

ok wow taking the worst ats teams 7 of them

falcons 1-5
panthers 0-6
1-11
bears 2-4
3-15
cincy 2-4
5-19
Denv. 0-5
5--24
vikes 2-4
7-28
patriots 1--5
8-33
= 80.5% wins win @$1100 per game $36,300 lose -8800 you are net +$27,500.00 div by 6 weeks = +$4583.33 per week

and aint nmf tout service can match that

OddShotWagers · 10-17-23, 05:40 PM

Pats are a guaranteed loser. No will, no fight, no chance of a cover. This is going on years of terrible ATS performance now

OldBill · 10-17-23, 05:43 PM

im thinking these 7 teams will wind up with 7-10 5-12 4-13 ats sesons weak offenses with strong defenses are not going to cover spreads

DJK · 10-17-23, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by OddShotWagers

Pats are a guaranteed loser. No will, no fight, no chance of a cover. This is going on years of terrible ATS performance now

Someone else has your avatar.

Or did Fishhead change his user name?

Did Fishhead get banned so new user name?

stevenash · 10-17-23, 06:27 PM

The public loves a dog, but I learned a long time ago in the NFL good teams (.500 +) generally cover the number, conversely crap teams (sub .500) don't

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you're usually safe betting the better teams with winning records.