|
|
#14
12-01-2005, 01:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Minnesota -2.5
FWIW, Minn is 74% - 24% over Detroit on Wagerline.
Tampa over the Saints is 82% -18%, the only larger discrepancy this week. Early indications from my system is that Detroit will be a strong play, but I've still got a little more crunching to do. 
|
|
#15
12-01-2005, 01:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Minnesota -2.5
FWIW, Minnesota has beaten Detroit 7 straight times. Also Minny has won 4 of last 5 in Detroit and 11 of the last 12 overall against Detroit.
|
|
#16
12-01-2005, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Minnesota -2.5
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, Minnesota has beaten Detroit 7 straight times. Also Minny has won 4 of last 5 in Detroit and 11 of the last 12 overall against Detroit. [/ QUOTE ] I'm never quite sure what to do with this kind of information in pro sports. Really. I have no idea.
|
|
#17
12-01-2005, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Minnesota -2.5
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] FWIW, Minnesota has beaten Detroit 7 straight times. Also Minny has won 4 of last 5 in Detroit and 11 of the last 12 overall against Detroit. [/ QUOTE ] I'm never quite sure what to do with this kind of information in pro sports. Really. I have no idea. [/ QUOTE ] By the time people notice a trend like this and start talking about it, the books have already adjusted for it in their lines (that is, assuming the trend is valid and not just a big coincidence). So I find myself going against such trends more often than not. But I agree that the trend in and of itself is not enough information to make a play on either side.
|
|
#18
12-01-2005, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Minnesota -2.5
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] FWIW, Minnesota has beaten Detroit 7 straight times. Also Minny has won 4 of last 5 in Detroit and 11 of the last 12 overall against Detroit. [/ QUOTE ] I'm never quite sure what to do with this kind of information in pro sports. Really. I have no idea. [/ QUOTE ] By the time people notice a trend like this and start talking about it, the books have already adjusted for it in their lines (that is, assuming the trend is valid and not just a big coincidence). So I find myself going against such trends more often than not. But I agree that the trend in and of itself is not enough information to make a play on either side. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah I agree as well, just because they have won a lot in a row doesn't mean they will cover this week. I was just throwing it out as a FYI.
|
|
#19
12-01-2005, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Minnesota -2.5
Force, that's what I figured you were doing. And I think Shamu probably made the best point of how to handle such info.
There is a guy in another forum who always posts hot records ATS, like Detroit games have gone under the last xx games. This seems a little more valuable b/c it often shows how the public perceives a certain team if their totals keep going under the spread. However, I wasn't sure how to apply these other statistics to handicapping. -SC
|
|
#20
12-01-2005, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Minnesota -2.5
Now, I'll admit I don't know much about sports betting and I'm sure this post will illustrate that, but I just can't see how Minnessota is not a lock.
Minnessota was picked by many to make the playoffs this year and possibly to go deep into the playoffs. They started out the season playing terribly because of the play of Culpepper. For whatever reason, the guy could not protect the football this year. The Vikings seem to be a much better team with Brad Johnson as QB. Brad Johnson is a guy who has always been smart and solid. The rest of the team is probably about average. But they have momentum, and they are fighting for a playoff spot. Detroit, on the other hand, has been horrible for YEARS. Both of their QBs suck. They just fired their coach. The entire organization sucks. They can't run. They can't pass. They have no shot at the playoffs. Their players are USED TO LOSING. So, will someone please explain to me how Detroit can possibly be a good play, let alone a LOCK?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
