Many people use a sports betting system to put bets down on all sorts of sports, everything from American football to basketball. However, there are two types of systems and knowing which one is better is a big question that many people ask. So, which is better, the multiple regressions or the statistical anomalies?
The fact is that both systems work well under the right circumstances and appeal to different people. Let's look at the differences between the two first:
• multiple regressions use historical data gathered
• historical data tends to give much more accurate types of results
• neither can let anyone call games with 100% accuracy
• both are affected by unforeseen factors
• the better the data, the better the chances of predicting a sport's outcome
• multiple regressions use team changes, injuries, losing/winning streaks, past 10 outcomes of games, away/home records for games, win to loss ratios, losses and wins
• statistical anomalies focus on common factor deviations
• statistical anomalies offer advantages that are competitive
• statistical anomalies use conversions, missed points, safeties, injuries, team psyche, weather conditions, public opinion, stadium types and atmospheric conditions in relation to their affects on teams' and players' statistics
Whichever sports betting system is used, they can work. However, the multiple regressions one is definitely more accurate. In fact, as many bookies will attest to, winning and losing is based on so many factors that in reality the chances of having a successful bet is about 50-50. If you want to up your chances, using the historical data, combined with the psyche of the teams and players can work wonders if applied cautiously and without high expectations. In addition, by using data gathered yourself for your multiple regressions sports betting system, you can probably increase your winning ability even more.