again, if you can't see the correlation between long-term success through several different coaches and short-term success (last 10 times as a home underdog) then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it means that UCLA plays well in the underdog role at home. Maybe it just means they are a good home team. What do the Rams have to do with it? UCLA has been playing at the Rose Bowl for a long time and they've always performed well as an underdog at home.
yep listened to the 94 game on the radio during a run to west nashville and back . the black qb went down , then helton went down, then in came true freshman peyton manning. i was happy as hell the other guys got hurt. i was in my sisters wedding that day at my parents house and remember being freaked out cause i had a 1/4 of coke in my vest pocket during the entire wedding.
i remember the game , but that has nothing to do with monday. now todd helton is playing baseball, and the manning family owns the nfl. things change
game sucked but manning got the job.
i got a good memory
I will just say this..those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This doesn't mean UCLA will cover and there are other reasons why I like UCLA but their history (recent and long-term) when they come an underdog at home doesn't bother me.
I have made a lot of money over the years betting against Tennessee as a home favorite because Fulmer has a long history as being very bad ATS as a home favorite (especially against better teams) but I guess that's not relevant either.
I have made a lot of money over the years betting against Tennessee as a home favorite because Fulmer has a long history as being very bad ATS as a home favorite (especially against better teams) but I guess that's not relevant either.
So I haven't made any money betting on UCLA as a home underdog even though they have covered 10 straight? Interesting. What do you base your plays off of? Feel or gut or maybe just playing your team? I guess those long term trends that Fulmer doesn't cover big spreads at home haven't made me money either. I guess that's imaginary money I have been making. It's obvious you've never been involved in the stock market either - and that's probably a good thing - for you.
sure you made money.
i made money today i bought a lottery ticket for 2 bucks and cashed it for 10. does that mean if i buy one tomorrow i will win again ? it has no relevance.
your fulmer trends have more merit than team trends but still not valid. maybe they are 5-0 when fulmer wakes up on an even numbered minute of the day too.
go on and buy that shit. lot of people need jobs.
buy what? it's not hard to find things on your own. All you have to have is a database with all the old lines. So it's just coincidence that Fulmer has a terrible history of covering home spreads of more than three points against teams with better than a 67% winning percentage? Maybe it means that Tennessee is overvalued at home and that Neyland Stadium does not have the home field advantage that it's reputation. I guess playing "my gut" or "feel" or being a homer would be more productive than time proven results. But I doubt it. I'll stick to what I do and you stick to whatever it is you do.
There's a difference between random variation (winning a lottery ticket one day and losing the next) or flipping a coin to get your plays which will result in a 50% winning percentage long-term and taking trends and regression analysis and making it work for you.
Funny that you would compare a trend that says UCLA has covered 10 straight as a home underdog to lottery tickets and changing long-distance providers.
There's a difference between random variation (winning a lottery ticket one day and losing the next) or flipping a coin to get your plays which will result in a 50% winning percentage long-term and taking trends and regression analysis and making it work for you.
Funny that you would compare a trend that says UCLA has covered 10 straight as a home underdog to lottery tickets and changing long-distance providers.
i dont blame you, an entire industry is built on covincing people that such trends matter. if it brings you comfort and happiness so be it.
in all the above cases either the sample is too small., the variables are too many, or the time span is too wide.
do you honestly believe if teh minnesota vikings went 5-0 on MNF in the 80's - if they played MNF this year it would mean anything ? how much money you spend a week on bottled water?
thank you for advice. now go do your research before making an assumption. i often bet against the vols. especially in basketball, look up my posted plays here it may be 55/45 one way or the other bettign for/against.
but if you are gullible enough to believe in trends you are most definitely likely to believe a fan can not be objective.
if you are scared to bet on your team when you got good value only because they are "your team" then you are losing a lot of money. was that not in the book of rules that you bought on ebay ?
what industry? I am not selling plays. I am not buying plays. No, Minnesota's record on a Monday night have no merit whatsoever. Just because it's Monday doesn't mean they will play well. However, if Minnesota had covered 10 games in a row as a home underdog then yes,that would mean something. Surely you can see that. Bottled water? Again, what in the world do these things you bring have to do with this conversation? Money brings me comfort and happiness. My methods win so therefore, I am comforted and happy.
what do you consider great ? i dont know what you want to use to measure it , but id say in 5 yrs the ratio of players from each current team monday playing in the NFL in 2013 is 2:1 or 8:5 in favor of the vols.
so how the hell am i wrong ?
rudy was a great player at notre dame to some people but i could kick his ass
