Double digit dogs......... Hot!! 8-1 vs 15-1

uscmd · Nov 12, 2008

Actual number varies with the source thanks to lots of games at 9.5. But whatever the number, they're on a run.

Since 1985, 396-331 or 54.5%

Since 2000, 141-112 or 55.7%

Whichever number, its clear dd dogs have done pretty well, AND we might be in for a market correction, a regression to the mean.

gl

rolltide · Nov 12, 2008

the problem is what number people are using

Carolina was 10 at almost every outlet, and covered, but I saw someone not counting this, saying they had 9.5

then SF was CLEARLY 9 or 9.5 and it's being counted at +10?

this is why trends can be skewed anyway you want them to be as 15-1 means that Oakland is incorrectly counted at 9.5 and the 49ers incorrectly being used at +10

either way, yes, they're doing well this year but in no way are they 15-1

DocJS · Nov 12, 2008

So, everybody's on detroit this week, then???

Doc

erjaq · Nov 12, 2008

Just to clarify what 'regression to the mean' is...

We should not expect the numbers to reverse, and for double-digits favorites to start covering at a 10-1 rate so things even out by the end of the season.

We should, however, expect double-digit spreads to start to distribute themselves more evenly, which probably means about 50-50.

Which means that there's not much of an edge here, really. But I agree that it's interesting on some level. Wish I'd played every DD dog so far!

BAGIANT · Nov 12, 2008

I think the actual figure is 1-13. Giants are the only DD fave that covered with their safety in their game. Otherwise, they don't cover either.

Raiders and Detroit both DD dogs.

AvidReader · Nov 12, 2008

uscmd said:
Actual number varies with the source thanks to lots of games at 9.5. But whatever the number, they're on a run.

Since 1985, 396-331 or 54.5%

Since 2000, 141-112 or 55.7%

Whichever number, its clear dd dogs have done pretty well, AND we might be in for a market correction, a regression to the mean.

gl