11-4 system plays......ytd 28-17-1 (62 %)

[giantfandave]

system plays ytd: 28-17-1 (62%)
this weeks system plays: 8-6-1


system #1:
1989-2000: 36-19-1 (65%)
2001: 2-1-1

play on home team that has won its last 2 games su as an underdog.

the play:
1) raiders -5
2) redskins +2 1/2

system #2:
1989-2000: 48-29-1 (62%)
2001: 0-0

play a home dog when both teams scored 10 or less last week.

the play:
1) cardinals +7

system #3:
1989-2000: 54-33-5 (62%)
2001: 2-0

play on a home team that has won its last 2 games, both on the road.

the play:
1) raiders -5

system #4:
1992-2000: 45-29-3 (61%)
2001: 1-2

play the visitor in a division game if both teams lost su away last week.

the play:
1) jaguars +3

system #5:
1998-2000: 26-11-1 (70%)
2001: 2-0

play against home favorite coming off bye week.

the play:
1) buccaneers +5 1/2
2) patriots +3 1/2

system #6:
1980-2000: 83-44-2 (65%)
2001: 0-1

play on a monday night home team that played its last game away and its opponent was home its last game.

the play:
1) raiders -5

system #7:
1985-2000: 59-33-2 (64%)
2001: 0-1

play on a monday night home team whose opponent won its last game at home su.

the play:
1) raiders -5

system #8:
1997-2000: 16-8 (67%)
2001: 1-1

play ona team that is coming off a monday night victory su & ats over a divional rival.

the play:
1) steelers -2

 

[djv]

I realy enjoy you posting these. I very much include items as these in capping. Everything helps. GL to all.

 

[count zero]

How come some of the angles date their records to 1989 and others only to 1997? You have to be careful when you collect these, as many commercial sources (Phil Steele, Marc Lawrence etc) want to look good, and will conveniently forget to mention that the concept did poorly before the cutoff.

Grew up in N. Jersey and also a Giants fan, since 1955. Like the Jets even more, though. Hope that's not a problem.

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

thanks for posting, giantfandave.

 

[giantfandave]

system plays went 7-3 this week
making them 35-20-1 ytd

 

[count zero]

Guess I shouldn't harp on something people obviously don't want to hear, but you're putting yourself in a potentially bad situation if you don't look at the whole story on these angles. Whoever developed them just cut off the record at whatever year produced the most convincing numbers. Look at the last one, teams off a SU and ATS win in a divisional game on MNF: the record is listed as 16-8 since 1997. Why 1997? Did something happen in 1997 to change the nature of MNF, or of teams that win an important game? Was there some important rules change in the NFL in 1997? No. The reason the angle starts in 1997 is because from 1983 to 1996 this system went 33-42 44%. The real record through last week is 51-50, purely random.

This is true of almost every angle you see printed. Hope anyone who relies on this approach to handicapping will do themselves a favor and track down the true historical record before betting.

 

[spanky2]

Want a SURE angle guys???
Don't bother betting..Plain AND simple !!!
Who makes REAL money doing this???? THE BOOK...
But we like to bet ,that's our nature,right?? So we have to bet for fun, as maybe 1 tenth of 1% can make a REAL living doing it full time.
So there is the BEST SYSTEM of ALL,just don't bet(and you'll be miserable)..
Luck to all....Spanky...

 

[Skinar]

Thanks for the angles GFD. I'll be looking for this thread next week. I'm not going to argue with anyone who's 35-20-1 in the NFL this year.

 

[count zero]

OK, I admit I was just kidding. You guys are can't fail with these magnificent methods. I was trying to keep the secret from becoming public, but Skinar was too slick for me. He alone was smart enough to recognize that a record of 35-20 means you will never lose. Nice going, Skinar!

 

[kosar]

Originally posted by count zero:
OK, I admit I was just kidding. You guys are can't fail with these magnificent methods. I was trying to keep the secret from becoming public, but Skinar was too slick for me. He alone was smart enough to recognize that a record of 35-20 means you will never lose. Nice going, Skinar!

CZ,

LOL

It's like swimming upstream around here sometimes with no chance of anything sinking in. There is, however, the very good chance that some lurker or other might take notice.

If it wasn't for that hope, it would be totally pointless to even try to 'debate' with people that rely on Phil Steele's trends, or whatever.

Here's a tip for you , CZ, check out RobertBIrish's computer. It's on fire! Literally.