Trend that is 58-36 +16.2 units this year

[RambleOn]

Regular Plays: 5-0 +7 units
Fades: 3-2 +3.25 units
SUDWING: 0-0

Hey guys.

Had a hunch so I researched it and I was correct. After a DOG (+106 or better) wins SU this year, their next game they are 36-58, so fading them would give you a 58-36 record. I went back and checked the prices, and you'd be up around 16 units so far this year.

An extra rule is the game is a no-play if the price is over -170. The record on those games was not good enough to make up for the juice.

Also, it seems like the favorites are the best plays:

Favorites: 47-24 (66.2%) +15.8 units
Dogs: 11-12 (47%) +.7 units


Just thought I would pass this along. The trend went 4-1 today, with Atlanta being the only loser. They were the dog, of course, so favorites went a perfect 4-0 today. I'm going to start posting here, now that I'm done with exams on Friday and should have time. Don't know if it will continue, but I have a hunch that it will.

:shake:

 

[RambleOn]

Oh, and I forgot to add.

I named this SUDWING.

As as: Fade the Straight Up Dog Winner In Next Game

:shake:

 

[RetroVK]

nice numbers on this trend so far this year.

have you checked past years yet ? hehe realize that is a shitload of games.

Love how you are always searching for a new angle to try. best of luck with the soon to be infamous SUDWING

 

[RambleOn]

Haven't yet Kyle. I'm sure at some point I certainly will, at least 2-3 years back.

Like I have said, I am constantly looking for trends in baseball. There are so many games throughout the season that it is a sport that lends itself to certain trends. My totals regression theory didn't work out. I think I've found something that works with this, however.

 

[RambleOn]

Plays for Thursday (copied from my spreadsheet, sorry)

<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 182pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="243"><col style="width: 125pt;" width="167"> <col style="width: 28pt;" width="37"> <col style="width: 29pt;" width="39"> <tbody><tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21"> <td class="xl24" style="height: 15.75pt; width: 125pt;" height="21" width="167">Tampa Bay</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none; width: 28pt;" width="37">?</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none; width: 29pt;" width="39">?</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21"> <td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; height: 15.75pt;" height="21">Cleveland</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="right">-166</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="right">-166</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21"> <td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; height: 15.75pt;" height="21">NY Yankees</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="right">-127</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="right">-127</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21"> <td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; height: 15.75pt;" height="21">Texas</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="right">-105</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="right">-105</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21"> <td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; height: 15.75pt;" height="21">Arizona</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="right">-154</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="right">-154</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21"> <td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; height: 15.75pt;" height="21">San Francisco</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="right">-107</td> <td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" x:num="" align="right">-107</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

[reNew Orleans]

interesting

guess I'll be watching this system closely haha

 

[Ugrath]

Good stuff, never liked betting an underdog that won the next night. I get a feeling they might be content from the night before.

 

[tendog]

and we get a new word as a bonus!

 

[RambleOn]

Thanks guys.

Cleveland is a no play as it is above -170 now. :shake:

 

[RambleOn]

2 more favorites in the books to start off 2-0 on the day, 3 pending......

 

[Handykapt]

Looks nice Ramble, I'm a sucker for a good "system"...
Would you add Cleveland if it fell below 170?

 

[counselor]

opcorn:

 

[RambleOn]

Looks nice Ramble, I'm a sucker for a good "system"...
Would you add Cleveland if it fell below 170?

Handy, the current numbers are based on the closing numbers at Covers, so YES I suppose that it will technically be a play at under -170. For me, if it hovers around -170 it's going to be a no play. I think there have been 24 instances where the play was -170 or above and those were around 4-8 when I stopped counting, so I have no clue how the next 12 did. However, I can say that I'm usually not in the business of laying so much juice so I will try to stay away from those plays anyway.

Here's to hoping it continues. :shake:

 

[RambleOn]

Looks like Cleveland should have been a play, Handy.

 

[Handykapt]

Even so, if Texas holds on, it'll be a 4-1 night....:cheers:

 

[Handykapt]

So if I'm correct, tomorrows fades so far are Tigers, Nats, Padres, and Pitt?

 

[RambleOn]

Looks like Detroit, Pitt, and Washington Handy. SD closed as a -105 favorite, so no fade on them.

Pitt and Washington play each other, so that game is a no play. Yankees is only play, I'll post a thread for tomorrow here in a sec.