-
3over0%0under0%3 -
I would say no relation, if they win SU or cover -1.5 over. Home team -1.5 no relation, home team SU under,Comment -
The logical answer would seem to be under but that's only because 1 run games are more likely with a lower total. However, that doesn't account for the times when +1.5 isn't significant (i.e. when the dog wins outright) so it would be a bit more difficult to say with certainty...Comment -
1999 season to-date, roughly 52.54% of the time the away team DID cover +1.5 AND the total didn't push, the total went under (N=14,846; se ≈ 0.58%).
1999 season to-date, roughly 48.25% of the time the away team DID NOT cover +1.5 AND the total didn't push, the total went under (N=8,696; se ≈ 0.79%).Comment -
Yes although that is a large sample size I also think over 50% of games have gone under in general, so I still feel no relation.Originally posted by GanchrowComment -
I would strongly beg to differ.Originally posted by rm18
This is precisely why I presented the two independent data samples (both where the home team and away team and did not cover). While more games have indeed gone under across the entire population, more games also feature the road team covering the +1.5 run line, tberebye skewing the results and hence, the higher frequency of games going under in the total population (this is not to imply a causal relationship, of course).
The question as to whether or not a game where the away team covers +1.5 has historically been more likely to go under than a game where the away team does not cover is answered rather unambiguously by the data.
Answer: it has been.Comment -
ganchrow isnt forest hills in nassau county ?Comment -
No, it's not.Originally posted by pat venditto
Queens County, New York City.Comment
