I noticed from visiting another site on American sport how one of the contributors kept giving out in accurate trends. I e-mailed the site to inform them of this fact and was replied to almost immediatly informing me that my points will be passed on to the contributor. I wake up this morning to find a e-mail from this guy initials "J.D." saying that I am wrong and no one has complained in the past. Does that mean that no one has the right to complain or as I was doing, pointing out inaccurcies.
I will post the following and recommend that before believing what we read, one should always check it out.
Here are the trends given out for Friday 30th May
Friday, all ATS except where O/U specified
MLB
The Giants have gone under 35-14 since 1997 after scoring 10 or more runs
Colorado is 1-14 -13.1 on the road this year if their OBP was .415 or better over their previous five games
Boston has gone over 19-4 to the division this year
Detroit has gone over 33-14 the last three years after consecutive games as a favorite
The Yanks have gone over 18-4 as a road favorite this year
The White Sox are 2-9 this year -12.3 units after allowing and scoring three runs or less
Anaheim is 9-1 at Tampa the last three years
Now I disputed that both the Giants and the Tigers trends were wrong. This is the reply I got;
In all the sites that I have my trends on in all the years, today I got my first email directly or indirectly questioning the accuracy. Based on the inflammatory nature and the absurd leaps of faith it was a bit tough to take seriously. Well I guess part of it was "right". There was one word missing. Okay two counting "at".
It should have read Giants (san fran) are 35 - 14 *AT HOME* under since 1997 after scoring 10 or more runs.
I am proud of both my reputation and I rely greatly on ******* because of their reputation. The Detroit trend is 100 percent accurate. I could not help but notice the person questioning it assured us based on blind faith, without quoting a source.
I apologize for ommitting "at home".
Speaking of trends, I have a system that says I will get another email questioning accuracy of my trends...in June of 2005 if current "trends" hold up.
And according to this trend, it will be merely a typographical ommission, not an inaccuracy.
I have removed the name because any mention here is advertising however good or bad the publicity is.
Now FIRSTLY to obmit home from the trend of the Giants is clearly most significant. The reply appears to make a joke of this. Little does the person who supplies these trends realise that many will follow these trends and bet their hard earned cash on what is clearly crap being served.
SECONDLY, he stills thinks Detroit is 100% accurate. Well let me tell you all from the results of this and previous seasons from "covers results section" the result is as follows (not including last nights game against the Yankees)
2003 0 - 1 ( O/U )
2002 11 - 1 ( O/U )
2001 10 - 9 ( O/U )
2000 14 - 27 ( O/U )
35 - 38 is a far cry from what was stated " 33 - 14 "
Stand up ******* and J. D., take a bow and give yourselfs a pat on the back for dealing up trends that are fiction and not fact.
I will post the following and recommend that before believing what we read, one should always check it out.
Here are the trends given out for Friday 30th May
Friday, all ATS except where O/U specified
MLB
The Giants have gone under 35-14 since 1997 after scoring 10 or more runs
Colorado is 1-14 -13.1 on the road this year if their OBP was .415 or better over their previous five games
Boston has gone over 19-4 to the division this year
Detroit has gone over 33-14 the last three years after consecutive games as a favorite
The Yanks have gone over 18-4 as a road favorite this year
The White Sox are 2-9 this year -12.3 units after allowing and scoring three runs or less
Anaheim is 9-1 at Tampa the last three years
Now I disputed that both the Giants and the Tigers trends were wrong. This is the reply I got;
In all the sites that I have my trends on in all the years, today I got my first email directly or indirectly questioning the accuracy. Based on the inflammatory nature and the absurd leaps of faith it was a bit tough to take seriously. Well I guess part of it was "right". There was one word missing. Okay two counting "at".
It should have read Giants (san fran) are 35 - 14 *AT HOME* under since 1997 after scoring 10 or more runs.
I am proud of both my reputation and I rely greatly on ******* because of their reputation. The Detroit trend is 100 percent accurate. I could not help but notice the person questioning it assured us based on blind faith, without quoting a source.
I apologize for ommitting "at home".
Speaking of trends, I have a system that says I will get another email questioning accuracy of my trends...in June of 2005 if current "trends" hold up.
And according to this trend, it will be merely a typographical ommission, not an inaccuracy.
I have removed the name because any mention here is advertising however good or bad the publicity is.
Now FIRSTLY to obmit home from the trend of the Giants is clearly most significant. The reply appears to make a joke of this. Little does the person who supplies these trends realise that many will follow these trends and bet their hard earned cash on what is clearly crap being served.
SECONDLY, he stills thinks Detroit is 100% accurate. Well let me tell you all from the results of this and previous seasons from "covers results section" the result is as follows (not including last nights game against the Yankees)
2003 0 - 1 ( O/U )
2002 11 - 1 ( O/U )
2001 10 - 9 ( O/U )
2000 14 - 27 ( O/U )
35 - 38 is a far cry from what was stated " 33 - 14 "
Stand up ******* and J. D., take a bow and give yourselfs a pat on the back for dealing up trends that are fiction and not fact.
Last edited:
