[ackem19]

Teams who have 3 consecutive ATS wins heading into Week 12:

North Carolina

UAB

Rutgers

Louisiana Tech

Stanford


Fade Away. If you were to fade teams in this situation last week, you would have went 5-3.

[HoulihansTX]

Good Info, will look into this tonight.

Man you are a helpful capper.

[tblues2005]

I think taking Stanford at home vs. California is a good play still. I think they are really underrated from what I have seen the last two weeks.

[Cougar Bait]

Damn, I like Rutgers.

[HoulihansTX]

bump

[iceminers26]

good info, thanks

[Shortstop]

Good info, what were the results?

[LLXC]

3-2

[RJ89]

Damn dude, thanks for posting this. I had huge leans on Stanford and Rutgers, and this thread is part of what led me to avoid those games. I ended up going 4-1 and it may have actually been my best week of the season for CFB. This is really great info to have.

[ackem19]

North Carolina W

UAB L

Rutgers L

Louisiana Tech W

Stanford L

2-3 this week
just a reminder. all wins/losses are ATS. Not necessarily SU.

[BigdaddyQH]

HOw convient that you limit your guesses to teams that have convered 3 in a row. What about the teams that have covered MORE than 3 in a row? How come I did not see Arkansas on your list? What about teams that LOST 3 or more in a row? I will tell you to blow your theory up once and for all. Arkansas State 0-3 ATS, LOST. Colorado State, 0-4 ATS, LOST. Eastern MIchigan 0-3 ATS, LOST. Idaho, 0-3, Kansas, 0-7, LOST. Memphis, 0-4 ATS, LOST. Michigan, 0-4 ATS, Won-Lost-Tied depending on what line you got. San Diego State, 0-3 ATS, LOST. San Jose State, 0-3 ATS, LOST. Toledo, 0-3 ATS, WON. So we have 1 winner, 7 losers, and the Michigan outcome, which I will call a push, because the line I had was 11. So if you had faded every team that had LOST their past 3 games ATS, you would have gone 7-1. That, to me, is a much stronger play than fading winners. Like I said, I have ARkansas down as winner of 3 ATS before this weekend, so that would make your theory 3-3.

If you look at the stats so far, you will see many teams with streaks (winning or losing) of 4 games or more. Colorado State is now 0-5 ATS (1-7 in their last 8 games). Eastern Michigan is 0-4, (1-8 in their last 9 ATS). Ga. Tech covered 6 in a row before losing ATS. Idaho covered their first 7, them lost their last 4. Illinois lost 5 straight before covering 3 straight. Kansas has lost their last 8 ATS. Kent covered 6 in a row. Memphis has dropped 5 in a row and has only covered 1 game all year. Michigan dropped 4 straight before Ohio State. Middle Tennessee has covered 5 straight. Ohio State covered 5 straight eariler in the season. Oregon covered 6 straight. Oregon State covered 6 out of 7. San Jose State covered once this season. USC has dropped 5 straight ATS. TCU has covered 6 in a row. UNLV lost 5 straight ATS. That is a whole lot of money lost to the guys who always go against a streak, and a whole lot of money won by the guys baking the streak.

[hhsilver]

Thanks Bigdaddy, I got no response to my comment on such naivete in an earlier thread on this topic.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/college-fo...-ats-wins.html

[polson22]

HOw convient that you limit your guesses to teams that have convered 3 in a row. What about the teams that have covered MORE than 3 in a row? How come I did not see Arkansas on your list? What about teams that LOST 3 or more in a row? I will tell you to blow your theory up once and for all. Arkansas State 0-3 ATS, LOST. Colorado State, 0-4 ATS, LOST. Eastern MIchigan 0-3 ATS, LOST. Idaho, 0-3, Kansas, 0-7, LOST. Memphis, 0-4 ATS, LOST. Michigan, 0-4 ATS, Won-Lost-Tied depending on what line you got. San Diego State, 0-3 ATS, LOST. San Jose State, 0-3 ATS, LOST. Toledo, 0-3 ATS, WON. So we have 1 winner, 7 losers, and the Michigan outcome, which I will call a push, because the line I had was 11. So if you had faded every team that had LOST their past 3 games ATS, you would have gone 7-1. That, to me, is a much stronger play than fading winners. Like I said, I have ARkansas down as winner of 3 ATS before this weekend, so that would make your theory 3-3.

If you look at the stats so far, you will see many teams with streaks (winning or losing) of 4 games or more. Colorado State is now 0-5 ATS (1-7 in their last 8 games). Eastern Michigan is 0-4, (1-8 in their last 9 ATS). Ga. Tech covered 6 in a row before losing ATS. Idaho covered their first 7, them lost their last 4. Illinois lost 5 straight before covering 3 straight. Kansas has lost their last 8 ATS. Kent covered 6 in a row. Memphis has dropped 5 in a row and has only covered 1 game all year. Michigan dropped 4 straight before Ohio State. Middle Tennessee has covered 5 straight. Ohio State covered 5 straight eariler in the season. Oregon covered 6 straight. Oregon State covered 6 out of 7. San Jose State covered once this season. USC has dropped 5 straight ATS. TCU has covered 6 in a row. UNLV lost 5 straight ATS. That is a whole lot of money lost to the guys who always go against a streak, and a whole lot of money won by the guys baking the streak.

didn't he post his picks before the game? and it sounds like it got people off two teams that people were all over (rutgers, stanford). i like trends, but come on, everyone in the world knew those teams were on nice runs (helps when the ESPN announcer says it repeatedly near the end of the rutgers-SF game)

not sure i necessarily agree with OP on one minor matter (double 3 game streak counting again... should either count all 4 or more or 3 and only 3), but he did lay out how he was going to pick games.

i think a better argument is that its 60% win rate is based on 5 games i.e. tiny sample... but like i said, it could have kept people off very popular sides.... i think OP pitched it as system, not some general theory on going with or against trends.

[polson22]

HOw convient that you limit your guesses to teams that have convered 3 in a row. What about the teams that have covered MORE than 3 in a row? How come I did not see Arkansas on your list? What about teams that LOST 3 or more in a row? I will tell you to blow your theory up once and for all. Arkansas State 0-3 ATS, LOST. Colorado State, 0-4 ATS, LOST. Eastern MIchigan 0-3 ATS, LOST. Idaho, 0-3, Kansas, 0-7, LOST. Memphis, 0-4 ATS, LOST. Michigan, 0-4 ATS, Won-Lost-Tied depending on what line you got. San Diego State, 0-3 ATS, LOST. San Jose State, 0-3 ATS, LOST. Toledo, 0-3 ATS, WON. So we have 1 winner, 7 losers, and the Michigan outcome, which I will call a push, because the line I had was 11. So if you had faded every team that had LOST their past 3 games ATS, you would have gone 7-1. That, to me, is a much stronger play than fading winners. Like I said, I have ARkansas down as winner of 3 ATS before this weekend, so that would make your theory 3-3.

this is completely irrelevent to the thread, but interesting info for sure.