[MinnesotaFats]

Just an observation but the team seems to play to competition 3 qtrs then put them away in 4th

Great stat/ trend to live bet if true

[lakerboy]

Refs helped them out tonight

[vinnykal2323]

Just an observation but the team seems to play to competition 3 qtrs then put them away in 4th

Great stat/ trend to live bet if true

Fats, its the high altitude in Denver. Away teams seem to get crushed in the 4th quarter by the nuggets when its played in Denver. Just my thoughts, but i feel like the away team gets tired by the 4th and cant hang. Ive been playing the nuggets 4th quarter system for years.

[danshan11]

past 10 years at home avg spread -3, they dont even cover the spread in the 4th
Q1 26.2 25.1
Q2 25.9 25.4
Q3 25.7 24.6
Q4 25.1 24.6

this year avg game line -5.5
q4 27.1 22.1

[vinnykal2323]

past 10 years at home avg spread -3, they dont even cover the spread in the 4th
Q1 26.2 25.1
Q2 25.9 25.4
Q3 25.7 24.6
Q4 25.1 24.6

this year avg game line -5.5
q4 27.1 22.1

Lol, you cant go by the average of the spread. What about the games they were plus points in the 4th qtr?

[danshan11]

this is points scored per qtr and as you can quickly see this season in a very small sample size is the only time they outscored the expected score in the 4th qtr. The theory of them being a "easy winner" in the 4th because of altitude has not proven true before this year and this year I would say that is probably just variance.
if a team is a 4 point favorite for the game you would expect to see them winning the 4th qtr by 1 on the average. Denver is a 5 pt favorite this year at home and they are outscoring opponents by 5 in the 4th qtr, this tells me currently (probably noise) they are exceeding the expected result by more than 3 points in the 4th

[danshan11]

Just an observation but the team seems to play to competition 3 qtrs then put them away in 4th

Great stat/ trend to live bet if true

this season that has been the case but that is a very small sample size to be using to put money down

[TechnicalTrader]

The only Nuggets trend you should be aware of is what they have done to pacific division teams. 28-15-1 dating back to 2016 but nobody on here expects you degens to figure something like that out. Just bet with your emotions and you'll be fine you degen!

And if you don't even know how to find a simple a$$ trend like that then you really need to ask yourself what you are doing wagering money on sports!

To the smart a$$ claiming the sample size is too small, what the hell do you expect from a team trend??? You people crack me up in here.

[danshan11]

The only Nuggets trend you should be aware of is what they have done to pacific division teams. 28-15-1 dating back to 2016 but nobody on here expects you degens to figure something like that out. Just bet with your emotions and you'll be fine you degen!

And if you don't even know how to find a simple a$$ trend like that then you really need to ask yourself what you are doing wagering money on sports!

To the smart a$$ claiming the sample size is too small, what the hell do you expect from a team trend??? You people crack me up in here.

what does their record against pacific division teams mean? I think you are confusing the word trend with noise. it happens a ton and really irritates uneducated bettors

[TechnicalTrader]

what does their record against pacific division teams mean? I think you are confusing the word trend with noise. it happens a ton and really irritates uneducated bettors

It's a a so called trend! He's asking for trends, I gave him a trend! Did I say it was going to continue? No.

Here's the definition of what he asked for:

--

trend
NOUN
general direction in which something is developing or changing.
--

Is the fact that they are "currently" winning against pacific division teams something that is developing or changing? Yes, because from 2013 till the end of 2015, they were only 28-26.

Now go educate yourself!

[danshan11]

A it sounds like you need to take a nap and or some calm down juice

B he asked for trends in regards to their recent 4th qtr success

C Trends is what the books live for!

[Poisec]

A sample of 44 matches is way too small to be called a trend, if anything I would be against them when they play vs. a Pacific division, such abnormal win % is more likely to be corrected soon or later.

[danshan11]

that guy is clueless, he puts up a straight up record and calls it a trend, who cares trends are useless anyway, each game is independent of each other, that is the same thing as the Yankees are the best team ever on Wednesdays, so that means we just bet the ranch on the yankees on wednesdays it is dumb!

[TechnicalTrader]

that guy is clueless, he puts up a straight up record and calls it a trend, who cares trends are useless anyway, each game is independent of each other, that is the same thing as the Yankees are the best team ever on Wednesdays, so that means we just bet the ranch on the yankees on wednesdays it is dumb!

Nope, it's an ATS record. You are clueless little boy.

A trend is a trend, short term trends, long term trends... A trend is a trend. Did I mention anything about Mondays, Yankees, Wednesdays? Nope. So don't put words in my mouth. Again, finding long term team trends is almost impossible.

[danshan11]

there are tons of long term trends that teams have they are called noise. if you look at roulette and see over the last 1000 rolls black is winning at 58% what is the chance of it being black the next roll?

[TechnicalTrader]

there are tons of long term trends that teams have they are called noise. if you look at roulette and see over the last 1000 rolls black is winning at 58% what is the chance of it being black the next roll?

First and foremost, please comment on your accusation of me posting a straight up trend which was in fact an ATS trend.

So what the S&P index did from May 2018 until October 2018 was not a trend? Was that only noise? What about Apple's stock since October? noise again. And Bitcoins, all noise?? Those certainly can't be trends, right? What about Gold on an hourly chart since December 14th?

And to answer your question about roulette, I'll guess a little under 50%.

You really love to twist people's words, don't you?

[danshan11]

I falsely assumed your trend was a straight up not an ATS trend you are correct.

we are getting a little off subject but here is my question please try and answer it so I understand what you are saying

Yankees beat the Reds 25 times straight is that in anyway indicative of what the result will be in their next game or next 25 games against the Reds?

[TechnicalTrader]

I falsely assumed your trend was a straight up not an ATS trend you are correct.

we are getting a little off subject but here is my question please try and answer it so I understand what you are saying

Yankees beat the Reds 25 times straight is that in anyway indicative of what the result will be in their next game or next 25 games against the Reds?

I played baseball at a semi pro level as a catcher and have coached semi pro ball. Yes, that is an indication (yes an indication) that the odds of the Yankees beating the Reds (of course if all current variables are somewhat similar to past variables (similar coaching, batting, hitting, defence, etc)) is pretty good. Now over their next 25 games? I can't answer that question, you'd have to evaluate each current game and compare to prior matchups.

So certain batters own certain pitchers? Yes! Do certain pitchers own certain batters, yes.

So my question to you is; assuming no major changes have taken place to both the Yankees and the Reds in that same situation, would you take the Reds at -110 or the Yankees at -110??

[danshan11]

that fact is most trends are just noise. if you take a billion things mix them up and then try and grab small chunks of information out of them and narrow it down, you will find tons of trends that will most likely regress back to the mean.

think of dice say you have 3 walls and you throw 2 dice 1000 times at each wall
do you think the results of wall 1 averaging 8.2 wall 2 averaging 6.4 and wall 3 averaging 5.9 does that indicate if I throw the dice again against wall 1 the over under should be 8 on that wall or the over under is still 6 on all 3 walls?

[danshan11]

I played baseball at a semi pro level as a catcher and have coached semi pro ball. Yes, that is an indication (yes an indication) that the odds of the Yankees beating the Reds (of course if all current variables are somewhat similar to past variables (similar coaching, batting, hitting, defence, etc)) is pretty good. Now over their next 25 games? I can't answer that question, you'd have to evaluate each current game and compare to prior matchups.

So certain batters own certain pitchers? Yes! Do certain pitchers own certain batters, yes.

So my question to you is; assuming no major changes have taken place to both the Yankees and the Reds in that same situation, would you take the Reds at -110 or the Yankees at -110??

if the fair line was -110 I would take neither.

[TechnicalTrader]

if the fair line was -110 I would take neither.

Who determines what is fair? You'd be a complete moron to not take that line at -110, that is if all circumstances are similar to the previous 25 matchups and the line is only -110. A complete moron!!!

[danshan11]

if the line is -110 in the MLB, I would say there is a very good chance that line is fair with some juice and that is a losing bet

[TechnicalTrader]

that fact is most trends are just noise. if you take a billion things mix them up and then try and grab small chunks of information out of them and narrow it down, you will find tons of trends that will most likely regress back to the mean.

think of dice say you have 3 walls and you throw 2 dice 1000 times at each wall
do you think the results of wall 1 averaging 8.2 wall 2 averaging 6.4 and wall 3 averaging 5.9 does that indicate if I throw the dice again against wall 1 the over under should be 8 on that wall or the over under is still 6 on all 3 walls?

Don't compare dice rolling to sportsbetting. When rolling dice (assuming you roll on the exact same surface), odds do not change. Sports is slightly different. Dan, just stop... You are making a fool of yourself.

If you honestly think it is impossible to ride a trend and be profitable, you are clueless. A lot of technical traders on wall street can prove you wrong.

[danshan11]

you need to understand that overall the line is most likely efficient and if it is -110 and it will close at -110,long term I just lost 10% on that bet.

answer my wall with dice question because that is a true trend and one of the most telling busters of trends!

youre smart enough to know that 8 is the wrong number on a 2 dice roll forget what history shows but on the same token you think its smart to play a -110 bet on a probable coin toss because some trend shows they beat the team 20 straight times before.

[TechnicalTrader]

if the line is -110 in the MLB, I would say there is a very good chance that line is fair with some juice and that is a losing bet

Again, you are not listening to what I asked! I said under the same circumstances. We both know the "fair line" should not be -110.

You asked me if I would play the Yankees after they beat the Reds 25 times, I simply said "Yes, if the line was even"

[TechnicalTrader]

you need to understand that overall the line is most likely efficient and if it is -110 and it will close at -110,long term I just lost 10% on that bet.

answer my wall with dice question because that is a true trend and one of the most telling busters of trends!

youre smart enough to know that 8 is the wrong number on a 2 dice roll forget what history shows but on the same token you think its smart to play a -110 bet on a probable coin toss because some trend shows they beat the team 20 straight times before.

I'm not here to discuss dice.

I proved you wrong here that books are not as accurate with their closing lines as you lead us to believe:

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...l#post28303465

[danshan11]

trends mean nothing if the line is efficient. if the line is efficient a trend is useless. now is it possible for a trend to be moving faster than the book is updating the line. example Power ranking of Nuggets is semi strong and Nuggets in the last 5 games are crushing the power ranking number is it possible to jump on that heater before the line catches up. sometimes a power ranking or line can be behind the updated current version of the team and it takes time for that line to catch up, Rockets are a good example of that this year. they were playing way below their rankings at the beginning of the year and if someone jumped on that trend early they would have been able to profit until the line caught up.

[TechnicalTrader]

you need to understand that overall the line is most likely efficient and if it is -110 and it will close at -110,long term I just lost 10% on that bet.

answer my wall with dice question because that is a true trend and one of the most telling busters of trends!

youre smart enough to know that 8 is the wrong number on a 2 dice roll forget what history shows but on the same token you think its smart to play a -110 bet on a probable coin toss because some trend shows they beat the team 20 straight times before.

What does this tell you?

http://killersports.com/nba/query?sd...+S+D+Q+L+%21++

http://killersports.com/nba/query?sd...+S+D+Q+L+%21++

[danshan11]

rockets before dec

ATS:	8-12-1 (-4.24, 40.0%)

rockets since dec 1

ATS:	10-4-1 (-0.03, 71.4%)

so people thought the rockets were good and they bet with them and lost and then the line said ok rockets suck and they moved it and bam the rockets caught up to the line

[TechnicalTrader]

rockets before dec

ATS:	8-12-1 (-4.24, 40.0%)

rockets since dec 1

ATS:	10-4-1 (-0.03, 71.4%)

so people thought the rockets were good and they bet with them and lost and then the line said ok rockets suck and they moved it and bam the rockets caught up to the line

Answer question in post #28

[TechnicalTrader]

trends mean nothing if the line is efficient. if the line is efficient a trend is useless. now is it possible for a trend to be moving faster than the book is updating the line. example Power ranking of Nuggets is semi strong and Nuggets in the last 5 games are crushing the power ranking number is it possible to jump on that heater before the line catches up. sometimes a power ranking or line can be behind the updated current version of the team and it takes time for that line to catch up, Rockets are a good example of that this year. they were playing way below their rankings at the beginning of the year and if someone jumped on that trend early they would have been able to profit until the line caught up.

So you are saying that if you play a so called "break out strategy", that would be different than riding a trend?

[danshan11]

I am saying that trends are useless when the line is efficient. I am not playing any strategy I was showing you that I can see how someone can see this and think there is something here. its the same thing you did with the line efficiency you picked through a ton of data and handpicked a few little details to show the data is wrong. I know people hate my line preaching but you will be hard pressed to find anyone serious to tell you they dont think overall the line is efficient.

[TechnicalTrader]

I am saying that trends are useless when the line is efficient. I am not playing any strategy I was showing you that I can see how someone can see this and think there is something here. its the same thing you did with the line efficiency you picked through a ton of data and handpicked a few little details to show the data is wrong. I know people hate my line preaching but you will be hard pressed to find anyone serious to tell you they dont think overall the line is efficient.

Biggest myth in sportsbetting is that lines are accurate and efficient. Answer post #28

[danshan11]

Answer question in post #28

its the same thing as trends, you go through a ton of data and handpick a few little tiny details and say look this proves the whole thing is wrong. what you gave me is the same thing as the dice example, exact same thing. if I said the over under on dice is 6, you would pull the wall 1 data and say no way that is BS look it was 8 here on a huge sample size

[TechnicalTrader]

its the same thing as trends, you go through a ton of data and handpick a few little tiny details and say look this proves the whole thing is wrong. what you gave me is the same thing as the dice example, exact same thing. if I said the over under on dice is 6, you would pull the wall 1 data and say no way that is BS look it was 8 here on a huge sample size

Wrong, try again. That is not what I was showing you and you know it.


Again, what do you see when you click on the links in post #28?