Tweet
When I first spotted this thread titled,
"Dark-shirted or 'home team' always covers in Bowl games."
I rolled my eyes but took a peek anyways.
The OP (original poster (not to be confused with OPP :sm:)) started with this:
"I remember commenting on this to my brother the last 2 years. The dark-shirted or 'home' team (I know, the home team might be wearing their whites) seems to cover more times than not. This is a statisitical anomoly I have observed the last two years. If you bet the team wearing their home darks, you would win at a clip of 60-70% in my estimation."
According to the OP it ( the "system") finished like this:
22-10-2
...BUT he called Troy's loss a push. Thing is the line ended at +3.5 for Troy. I know because I lost with CMU -3.5 (44-41).
So I have the final tally for this anomaly (apparently three years running) at:
23-10-1 70%
:eeek: :eeek: :eeek:
I may not be rollin these eyes next year.
"Dark-shirted or 'home team' always covers in Bowl games."
I rolled my eyes but took a peek anyways.
The OP (original poster (not to be confused with OPP :sm:)) started with this:
"I remember commenting on this to my brother the last 2 years. The dark-shirted or 'home' team (I know, the home team might be wearing their whites) seems to cover more times than not. This is a statisitical anomoly I have observed the last two years. If you bet the team wearing their home darks, you would win at a clip of 60-70% in my estimation."
According to the OP it ( the "system") finished like this:
22-10-2
...BUT he called Troy's loss a push. Thing is the line ended at +3.5 for Troy. I know because I lost with CMU -3.5 (44-41).
So I have the final tally for this anomaly (apparently three years running) at:
23-10-1 70%
:eeek: :eeek: :eeek:
I may not be rollin these eyes next year.
Comment