Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Congratulations. |
theclaw | 49 |
|
![]() |
Good luck. |
Digitalkarma | 54 |
|
![]() |
Good luck. |
theclaw | 49 |
|
![]() |
I like #20 - PITT over 31.5. Good luck.
|
jowchoo | 17 |
|
![]() |
|
Buffalobob89074 | 45 |
|
![]() |
Good luck. |
Indigo999 | 38 |
|
![]() |
I am a CLV fan. I expected Dillon Gabriel to throw an INT in his first NFL start vs. Brian Flores' tough DEF. He did not, so I was pleasantly surprised and I am NOT eager to see Shedeur Sanders under center. |
Way2Good | 13 |
|
![]() |
It's always nice to hit your bigger bet. Congratulations. |
Digitalkarma | 15 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
I saw you tube saying Eagles were the best team. At this point I don't see it. Maybe by year's end they become the best team. It's very early. Eagles have problems with their offense. They are 30th in yards gained but 7th in pts scored. That don't jive. Much like I pointed out with the Ravens. Eagles outgained in total yards and look at ave per play. Eagles 4.2 and they give up 5.4 = (-1.2) How can a team (-1.2) yards per play be the best team in the league ? 4.2 is terrible and they ave only 5 yards per pass attempt while giving up 5.8 = (-.8) But they are undefeated and are 7th in pts scored. If we look closer they have won the TO Battle 1 to 5 by 4. And block kicks for TD's. And incredibly they are 11 for 11 scoring TD's in the redzone, 100%, not sustainable much longer as last year they were 57%. While their defense is holding opps to 4 TD's in 11 tries or 36.4%. I look up the past 10 years and only 4 or 5 teams held opps to under 40% on the season. Mostly the best teams were around 44% . Last year Eagles were 50% giving up TD's in red zone so their defense is not sustainable either. The key here is to look at how many red zone attempts the Eagles have VS opps. And it is 11 to 11. That is not stuff of the best team. The better teams should have many more attempts getting into the red zone then their opps do. Last year the Eagles were around 68 to only 45 for their defense, somewhere in that neighborhood. As of now I don't see how the Eagles could be the best team. The question was not who will become the best team, maybe the Eagles get things straighten-out and become the best team but as of now how could they be considered the best team ? Great analysis and enjoyable reading. Thanks. |
theclaw | 49 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
The Browns have no running game, their stats are one of the worst in the league, what would happen if you did not have a vet QB in who knows how to read a defense and take a hit?' If this coach pulls Flacco and puts in the spoiled BK kid his job is toast and I hope he sees that. Poor Flacco has to try and generate offense with the bad OL and lack of running game and lack of quality receivers. He has to take more risks than he would prefer because the team is so lacking. Dan Fornek of FTN Fantasy (formerly known as Football Outsiders in the good old days when it was free) ranked CLV's weak OFF line at #30 in this article from July 25, 2025: https://ftnfantasy.com/nfl/2025-offensive-line-rankings I don't think it has improved. The Browns (and I) miss Bill Callahan. |
C-70Blues | 50 |
|
![]() |
Good luck this week. |
theclaw | 49 |
|
![]() |
Hope those dogs are biting for you, DK. Good luck tonight. |
Digitalkarma | 82 |
|
![]() |
The Rams came through. Congratulations. |
theclaw | 62 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: other system .......... Falcons +1.5 over Wash --- .55 units looks like this line is dropping or juiced so seems like 1.5 might be the best line i can find with my books. I'll wait out the others. I'll post all the picks at the end of thread when all have been made. Back Teams lost by 28 or more playing a team won by 17 or more is 58% supports my other system. That is not true. The query is simple and straightforward: p:margin < -27.5 and op:margin > 16.5 SU: 32-55-1 (-5.4,36.8%) ATS: 47-40-1 (0.5,54.0%) Neither 54.0% ATS nor an average margin of 0.5 points provides any confidence. Adding "and H and -3.2 < line < 3.2" make the ATS 5-5. Nothing to see here. Good luck this week. Something is wrong dog. Can you really trust these data-bases ? That was posted on a you tube channel, I wrote it down right away so as to get it correct because it sounded like a decent regression indictator. I will try to run the query at a different database and see what it says.............. I got the exact same results (ATS: 47-40-1 (0.5,54.0%) at Killer Sports as I got at Gimme the Dog. I would love to see verification of any 58% query with an average ATS or OU margin of at least 58% with a minimum sample size of at least 20 games. That should be "with an average ATS or OU margin of at least 3 points". |
theclaw | 62 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: other system .......... Falcons +1.5 over Wash --- .55 units looks like this line is dropping or juiced so seems like 1.5 might be the best line i can find with my books. I'll wait out the others. I'll post all the picks at the end of thread when all have been made. Back Teams lost by 28 or more playing a team won by 17 or more is 58% supports my other system. That is not true. The query is simple and straightforward: p:margin < -27.5 and op:margin > 16.5 SU: 32-55-1 (-5.4,36.8%) ATS: 47-40-1 (0.5,54.0%) Neither 54.0% ATS nor an average margin of 0.5 points provides any confidence. Adding "and H and -3.2 < line < 3.2" make the ATS 5-5. Nothing to see here. Good luck this week. Something is wrong dog. Can you really trust these data-bases ? That was posted on a you tube channel, I wrote it down right away so as to get it correct because it sounded like a decent regression indictator. I will try to run the query at a different database and see what it says.............. I got the exact same results (ATS: 47-40-1 (0.5,54.0%) at Killer Sports as I got at Gimme the Dog. I would love to see verification of any 58% query with an average ATS or OU margin of at least 58% with a minimum sample size of at least 20 games. |
theclaw | 62 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
other system .......... Falcons +1.5 over Wash --- .55 units looks like this line is dropping or juiced so seems like 1.5 might be the best line i can find with my books. I'll wait out the others. I'll post all the picks at the end of thread when all have been made. Back Teams lost by 28 or more playing a team won by 17 or more is 58% supports my other system. That is not true. The query is simple and straightforward: p:margin < -27.5 and op:margin > 16.5 SU: 32-55-1 (-5.4,36.8%) ATS: 47-40-1 (0.5,54.0%) Neither 54.0% ATS nor an average margin of 0.5 points provides any confidence. Adding "and H and -3.2 < line < 3.2" make the ATS 5-5. Nothing to see here. Good luck this week. |
theclaw | 62 |
|
![]() |
@poppyg You're welcome. |
theclaw | 46 |
|
![]() |
Nice hit. Congratulations. |
osubucks1 | 9 |
|
![]() |
replied to
System Plays#48 & #49 (45-2): New England Patriots+1.5 & Dallas Cowboys-1.5 HUGE!!!
in NFL Betting NE +1.5 --- lost 14-21 DAL -1.5 --- lost 14-31 They were HUGE alright - huge losers. I would have more respect for the OP if he/she would show up and admit he/she had a bad day, and also post some verification of that outrageous claim of a 45-2 record. I don't believe that ANY handicapper in the history of sports betting ever had 45 winners out of 47 wagers. |
ThePizzaman0 | 36 |
|
![]() |
Congratulations. |
Irisheric777 | 29 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.