those trends have nothing to do with the current teams though jderrida....read this....Nolan put it up and it is excellent.....
"WHEN GOOD TRENDS GO BAD"
One thing I've spent some time investigating is the application of TRENDS in NFL handicapping. It's critical that we weed-out trends that are completely worthless (which sadly, constitutes the overwhelming majority of trends which are posted in the linesheets) -- versus trends which might actually be useful (which are few and far between).
For instance, here's a trend to think about: The Dallas Cowboys are now 15-3 ATS in home games played in October, since 1996. Does anyone think this "trend" has any significance whatsoever? Of course not! 90 percent of this team's personnel was not around in the years 1996, 1997, and so on. How about the trend that the Kansas City Chiefs are just 1-13 ATS in games against the AFC East? Again -- more worthless junk.
Question: Does anyone think that Chiefs' players actually say to themselves, "We're really screwed this week -- we have to play the Patriots." These trends that are published in all the top sports gambling magazines are just total rubbish. Ignore them.
What about trends where one team has dominated another historically? Actually, the LONGER such a trend continues, the more inclined I am to BET AGAINST IT. For instance, Pittsburgh had lost 7 straight games to Tennessee before the MNF game two weeks ago. What I looked at was the fact the Steelers had played the Titans in two extremely tough games last season (losses of 2 and 3 points respectively). They were playing on Monday Night Football in a huge home game against the banged-up Titans. Tampa Bay had lost a 678,359 straight games at Green Bay. Oakland had lost 11 of 12 to the Broncos. What I believe happens is this -- players start getting tired of hearing all the smack that TEAM A can't beat TEAM B. So, an additional motivation factor gradually surfaces. When an athlete is motivated, that's always a positive development. Conversely, teams that have dominated recent history may start to feel complacent. "Ah, what the hell -- we beat these turkeys the last 9 straight games." That's the mentality.
Of course, Pittsburgh did beat Tennessee. Tampa covered easily in Green Bay. And, Oakland snapped the bad streak against Denver on Monday night. I admit this is SELECTIVE data analysis for just the last week or so. But the point is -- winning or losing streaks really don't mean that much in the NFL with all the changing rosters, revolving coaching staffs, inconsistent motivations, and player injuries.
One point: I DO place added emphasis on trends as they relate to betting TOTALS. If two teams traditionally play close, low-scoring games I am inclined to give that some weight in upcoming games. Players NEVER say to themselves "Since we went OVER the last 6 games, let's try to go UNDER this week." But they do use trends as a motive to break long losing streaks. I think if two teams have a history of producing either high or low scoring games -- that same tendency carries over in the next contest to a certain extent. Of course, this is purely situational and you have to look at many other factors.
One final point: There are hundreds of trends out there about playing a team in such-and-such situation. Some sound very convincing. Here's a great example taken from yesterday's Message Forum:
CountZero is the author of the following: "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 one?.TEAMS OFF A SU AND ATS WIN IN A DIVISIONAL ROAD 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? Were there some important rule changes 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 percent). 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."
CONCLUSION: Some trends are very useful in handicapping. I'll stick with one of the most reliable and well-known -- playing a Monday Night home dog: That trend is 110-56 since 1970. The reasons why this is a strong play are obvious (although the trend is not nearly as powerful as it once was -- since linesmakers have caught on to the trend and made adjustments over the years, thus decreasing the line value). There are many others, which are explainable by applying logic. Letdown theories, inner-division rivalries, and so forth. As a general rule, if it's a trend that can be explained in a logical and systematic fashion, I think it's worth looking at -- meaning you should then see if stands the test of time (go back as far as possible). If the basis of the trend defies human explanation -- it's probably rubbish and will not help you pick winners.
that being said, i hope you won with your picks and always hope you do, but i want to make sure i expose bad handicapping and tried to BEFORE you make you bet so that you make the right call.....turns out you were right tonight so congrats....i was wrong....but solid handicapping in the end ALWAYS prevails and i am trying to get better at it and so are you too so i would appreciate if you give me insight and i will share with you mine.....
as for my picks today....
i picked 4 games with 2 dogs....all four teams won with only 2 covering...not too happy about this.....have been hot with the favs lately though so i guess it is about time i get some that don't cover.....
i guess Chi was pissed about the whoopin they took and probably played with some fire....shouldda taken that into account and passed but was 3-0 fadin em so far and liked the single digit line against a top tier east team....i don't know what happened in NJ as i didn't expect that one to be close at all.....
Golden State whipped the Knicks who have already melted down, and remember my prediction: look for Van Grundy to be out of there by at least just after the all star break......Tor. took it to the Jazz as i see everything has a time to live and a time to die and the success of the Jazz is gonna die and in a year or two this franchise will win 20 games.....
