Giving up less than 7 points the week before heading into the playoffs...

justanobserver · Jan 7, 2016

Teams that gave up less than 7 points in their last game of the regular season and now playing at home in the playoffs:

playoffs = 1 and po

oints < 7 and p

layoffs = 0 and H

SU:	12-2-0 (8.86, 85.7%)		Teaser Records
ATS:	8-5-1 (3.75, 61.5%)	avg line: -5.1	+6: 12-2-0 (85.7%)	-6: 4-10-0 (28.6%)	+10: 12-2-0 (85.7%)	-10: 4-10-0 (28.6%)
O/U:	10-4-0 (10.57, 71.4%)	avg total: 42.9	+6: 8-6-0 (57.1%)	-6: 11-2-1 (84.6%)	+10: 7-7-0 (50.0%)	-10: 14-0-0 (100.0%)

	Rushes	Rush Yds	Passes	Comp	Pass Yds	TOs	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Final
Team	32.7	130.9	35.9	22.0	254.6	1.3	6.1	9.5	7.1	7.5	31.1
Opp	22.7	83.1	38.9	22.6	243.6	1.9	4.6	7.2	3.6	6.6	22.3

Date	Link	Day	Week	Season	Team	Opp	Site	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Final	Line	Total	SUm	ATSm	OUm	DPS	DPA	SUr	ATSr	OUr	ot
Jan 19, 2002		Saturday	20	2001	Patriots	Raiders	home	0-0	0-7	3-6	10-0	16-13	-3.0	38.5	3	0	-9.5	-4.8	-4.8	W	P	U	1
Jan 11, 2003		Saturday	19	2002	Titans	Steelers	home	14-0	0-13	14-7	3-11	34-31	-3.5	44.0	3	-0.5	21.0	10.2	10.8	W	L	O	1
Jan 12, 2003		Sunday	19	2002	Buccaneers	Fortyniners	home	7-3	21-3	3-0	0-0	31-6	-6.0	39.5	25	19.0	-2.5	8.2	-10.8	W	W	U	0
Jan 12, 2003		Sunday	19	2002	Raiders	Jets	home	3-3	7-7	7-0	13-0	30-10	-5.5	47.0	20	14.5	-7.0	3.8	-10.8	W	W	U	0
Jan 04, 2004		Sunday	18	2003	Packers	Seahawks	home	0-3	13-3	0-14	14-7	33-27	-7.0	45.0	6	-1.0	15.0	7.0	8.0	W	L	O	1
Jan 10, 2004		Saturday	19	2003	Patriots	Titans	home	7-7	7-0	0-7	3-0	17-14	-6.0	37.0	3	-3.0	-6.0	-4.5	-1.5	W	L	U	0
Jan 11, 2004		Sunday	19	2003	Chiefs	Colts	home	3-14	7-7	14-10	7-7	31-38	-3.5	49.5	-7	-10.5	19.5	4.5	15.0	L	L	O	0
Jan 11, 2009		Sunday	19	2008	Steelers	Chargers	home	7-7	7-3	7-0	14-14	35-24	-6.5	38.5	11	4.5	20.5	12.5	8.0	W	W	O	0
Jan 09, 2010		Saturday	18	2009	Cowboys	Eagles	home	0-0	27-7	7-0	0-7	34-14	-4.0	45.0	20	16.0	3.0	9.5	-6.5	W	W	O	0
Jan 08, 2011		Saturday	18	2010	Seahawks	Saints	home	7-10	17-10	10-0	7-16	41-36	10.0	45.5	5	15.0	31.5	23.2	8.2	W	W	O	0
Jan 12, 2013		Saturday	19	2012	Broncos	Ravens	home	14-14	7-7	7-7	7-7	35-38	-9.0	44.0	-3	-12	29	8.5	20.5	L	L	O	1
Jan 13, 2013		Sunday	19	2012	Patriots	Texans	home	7-3	10-10	14-0	10-15	41-28	-9.5	48.5	13	3.5	20.5	12.0	8.5	W	W	O	0
Jan 03, 2015	view	Saturday	18	2014	Panthers	Cardinals	home	10-0	3-14	14-0	0-2	27-16	-5.5	37.5	11	5.5	5.5	5.5	0.0	W	W	O	0
Jan 10, 2015	view	Saturday	19	2014	Seahawks	Panthers	home	7-0	7-10	0-0	17-7	31-17	-12.5	40.5	14	1.5	7.5	4.5	3.0	W	W	O	0
Jan 09, 2016		Saturday	18	2015	Texans	Chiefs	home						3.0	40.0

3pointdog · Jan 7, 2016

Im sorry... Means what????texans the play??? 8-5 ats...??

IM BAD AT READING CHARTS!

justanobserver · Jan 7, 2016

3pointdog said:
Im sorry... Means what????texans the play??? 8-5 ats...??

IM BAD AT READING CHARTS!

Yes if you followed this trend the play would be on the Texans, because the teams are 12-2 SU

Freakzilla · Jan 7, 2016

3pointdog said:
Im sorry... Means what????texans the play??? 8-5 ats...??

IM BAD AT READING CHARTS!

Couldn't agree more. That was wild. Nice info but a little much for me

savage55 · Jan 7, 2016

Over is good too

Mobdeeper7239 · Jan 8, 2016

that looks better I like that. I would also narrow it down to see how many of those teams had back to back hold under 7 pts leading up to the post season, like Houston did this year and like I see the 03-04 Packers did as well. Since really what stands out here is the SU record.

bodyforlife · Jan 8, 2016

Just a question. What is the relevance of what the Patriots and Raiders did back in 2001 to the Texans and the Chiefs this weekend?

Mobdeeper7239 · Jan 8, 2016

bodyforlife said:
Just a question. What is the relevance of what the Patriots and Raiders did back in 2001 to the Texans and the Chiefs this weekend?

Defense.

bodyforlife · Jan 8, 2016

Mobdeeper7239 said:
Defense.

Not following your reply

justanobserver · Jan 8, 2016

bodyforlife said:
Not following your reply

I mean you could ask your question about any trend, but the point is defenses playing well heading into the playoffs are winning at a 86% rate at home.

bodyforlife · Jan 8, 2016

justanobserver said:
I mean you could ask your question about any trend, but the point is defenses playing well heading into the playoffs are winning at a 86% rate at home.

No, not really. There are some trends, if somewhat current, that makes plenty of sense. My point is, this trend has very little relevance. Who decided on less than seven points. Why not less than five points. Why not less than 11.. Who decided we only go back to 2000. Why not go back to 1970. How about only going back to 2008. It's very easy to twist things with numbers, but it's more important to understand what those numbers mean and how they relate to the current game. Most of the players on the Texans and the chiefs where in grammar school when you started you're tren. JJ Watt was not playing in 2004, nor was Alex Smith. For that matter they might not have even been watching the game. There are different coaches. There are rule changes. I just think you can lie very easily with numbers and when we just throw numbers out without looking at actual relevance to the game that is being played they're completely insignificant

justanobserver · Jan 8, 2016

bodyforlife said:
No, not really. There are some trends, if somewhat current, that makes plenty of sense. My point is, this trend has very little relevance. Who decided on less than seven points. Why not less than five points. Why not less than 11.. Who decided we only go back to 2000. Why not go back to 1970. How about only going back to 2008. It's very easy to twist things with numbers, but it's more important to understand what those numbers mean and how they relate to the current game. Most of the players on the Texans and the chiefs where in grammar school when you started you're tren. JJ Watt was not playing in 2004, nor was Alex Smith. For that matter they might not have even been watching the game. There are different coaches. There are rule changes. I just think you can lie very easily with numbers and when we just throw numbers out without looking at actual relevance to the game that is being played they're completely insignificant

Well, generally speaking i start all of my queries with 2000 or newer. This particular query was started with <7 points because i was wondering if teams like the Texans who have been playing championship level defense faired well in their first playoff game. When i look at trends i don't think the players really matter and how old they are when the trend started doesnt at all. My thought was, damn the Texans have been really great on defense lately, i wonder how that translates into playoff success.

bodyforlife · Jan 8, 2016

justanobserver said:
Well, generally speaking i start all of my queries with 2000 or newer. This particular query was started with <7 points because i was wondering if teams like the Texans who have been playing championship level defense faired well in their first playoff game. When i look at trends i don't think the players really matter and how old they are when the trend started doesnt at all. My thought was, damn the Texans have been really great on defense lately, i wonder how that translates into playoff success.

Therein lies the problem, as far as I'm concerned. Yes, the players really do matter. Sometimes it seems we treat players like we're playing some video game, not realizing that there hasn't been a dominant player like JJ Watt since Lawrence Taylor played the game. Wondering how the Texans, who are playing great defense lately, fared in regards to playoff success has nothing to do with a game played by different teams 15 years ago. Unless you can show that the nucleus of players are the same or at least the coaching hasn't changed in a game that team actually played in, one has nothing to do with the other.

Generally speaking, I would have to ask why you start your queries with 2000.

In any event, you're obviously into trends so I will simply say the best of luck to you. I would rather look at current data.

down5k · Jan 9, 2016

bodyforlife said:
Therein lies the problem, as far as I'm concerned. Yes, the players really do matter. Sometimes it seems we treat players like we're playing some video game, not realizing that there hasn't been a dominant player like JJ Watt since Lawrence Taylor played the game. Wondering how the Texans, who are playing great defense lately, fared in regards to playoff success has nothing to do with a game played by different teams 15 years ago. Unless you can show that the nucleus of players are the same or at least the coaching hasn't changed in a game that team actually played in, one has nothing to do with the other.

Generally speaking, I would have to ask why you start your queries with 2000.

In any event, you're obviously into trends so I will simply say the best of luck to you. I would rather look at current data.

Most trends are not tied to players - he's not saying current players aren't relevant, just not as they relate to this trend

JustAnotherAsshole · Jan 9, 2016

bodyforlife said:
Therein lies the problem, as far as I'm concerned. Yes, the players really do matter. Sometimes it seems we treat players like we're playing some video game, not realizing that there hasn't been a dominant player like JJ Watt since Lawrence Taylor played the game. Wondering how the Texans, who are playing great defense lately, fared in regards to playoff success has nothing to do with a game played by different teams 15 years ago. Unless you can show that the nucleus of players are the same or at least the coaching hasn't changed in a game that team actually played in, one has nothing to do with the other.

Generally speaking, I would have to ask why you start your queries with 2000.

In any event, you're obviously into trends so I will simply say the best of luck to you. I would rather look at current data.

It's an interesting piece of data that you are free to use or ignore...I'm sure there is a trend somewhere out there that would even intrigue you, and others that won't serve you in your approach to a game. No idea why the information would bother you though, at worst it should be ignored...

bodyforlife · Jan 9, 2016

JustAnotherAsshole said:
It's an interesting piece of data that you are free to use or ignore...I'm sure there is a trend somewhere out there that would even intrigue you, and others that won't serve you in your approach to a game. No idea why the information would bother you though, at worst it should be ignored...

It doesn't bother me. I'm just making a comment pointing out issues that I have with trends. Isn't this a forum? Don't we encourage an exchange of ideas here? I always wonder why a difference of opinion seems to be such a big deal to others. I've always thought people learn from getting a contrary viewpoint.

JustAnotherAsshole · Jan 9, 2016

bodyforlife said:
It doesn't bother me. I'm just making a comment pointing out issues that I have with trends. Isn't this a forum? Don't we encourage an exchange of ideas here? I always wonder why a difference of opinion seems to be such a big deal to others. I've always thought people learn from getting a contrary viewpoint.

fair enough :toast:

Biz · Jan 9, 2016

bodyforlife said:
No, not really. There are some trends, if somewhat current, that makes plenty of sense. My point is, this trend has very little relevance. Who decided on less than seven points. Why not less than five points. Why not less than 11.. Who decided we only go back to 2000. Why not go back to 1970. How about only going back to 2008. It's very easy to twist things with numbers, but it's more important to understand what those numbers mean and how they relate to the current game. Most of the players on the Texans and the chiefs where in grammar school when you started you're tren. JJ Watt was not playing in 2004, nor was Alex Smith. For that matter they might not have even been watching the game. There are different coaches. There are rule changes. I just think you can lie very easily with numbers and when we just throw numbers out without looking at actual relevance to the game that is being played they're completely insignificant

Trends/systems/whatever you want to call them can be very relevant if framed properly. This one is an extremely small sample size and contains one filter. Its not one that I would put much stock in, although its an interesting piece of information.

Yes, players matter. However, certain teams respond differently after certain things occur. Many overlook the psychological part of sports, we are dealing with humans.

There is a reason winning teams often respond with a winning performance after a bad loss. There is a reason you play against and take the over after a team played in OT and they have a short week, etc..

When a situation occurs over and over, and the ATS/Total trends to one side, that is significant. It doesn't matter who the team is or who the players are. This occurs in every sport.

Many people base their wagers on this information, others don't. Its an acquired taste, and it certainly isn't the only way. But there are people that do very well making plays on this type of analysis, using trends/systems to make their wagers.

GL with your action this weekend.