Proven Fact Trends

mr_2 · Dec 20, 2006

I Tracked Back Two Years And This Trends Has Been Incredible Insane. Well Not Really, I Jumped Back In Forth Found That In

2005 The Record Was (23-11-2)

2006 The Record Was (42-10-2)

The Trend Is Very Consistent I Should Say. Why? Bc I Didn't Track Every Single First 5 Innings. That Would Be A Lot Of Work To Do.

When Playing This, Expect To Pay Extra Juice....

What Do You Say?

Mr_2

mr_2 · Dec 20, 2006

By The Way I Tracked Only The First 5 Innings If Someone Is Wondering. You Can Tracked For Yourself. I Tracked The Heavy Juice At -170 And Up.

Timetopay · Dec 20, 2006

What the hell are u talking about

MIKEY.1TIME · Dec 21, 2006

i guess i am in. what am i in?

dgk · Dec 21, 2006

Timetopay said:
What the hell are u talking about

I think he is trying to say that he found some trend that produced huge winnings in a set of 89 games that he will use instead of trying to make accurate estimations to bet from.

As long as the trend is not linked to market overreacting or the compilers reading joe public and giving away free value, it certainly will end in misery. If it however is soemhow linked to something like this, you will very likely see the results even out a bit, not saying they will not be winners...

And if I am getting his second post correct the lines where -170 or even bigger favs, which basically could mean the average line is way above -200 and then the record all the sudden loses a bit of it's value.

Oh well, mr_2, care to explain?

mr_2 · Dec 21, 2006

dgk said:
I think he is trying to say that he found some trend that produced huge winnings in a set of 89 games that he will use instead of trying to make accurate estimations to bet from.

As long as the trend is not linked to market overreacting or the compilers reading joe public and giving away free value, it certainly will end in misery. If it however is soemhow linked to something like this, you will very likely see the results even out a bit, not saying they will not be winners...

And if I am getting his second post correct the lines where -170 or even bigger favs, which basically could mean the average line is way above -200 and then the record all the sudden loses a bit of it's value.

Oh well, mr_2, care to explain?

that's correct