<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7965585998403674176.post4375506549154033955..comments</id><updated>2009-10-20T20:49:16.476-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Comments on Vegas Watch: Updated 2009 NFL Wins Over/Unders</title><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://vegaswatch.net/feeds/4375506549154033955/comments/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7965585998403674176/4375506549154033955/comments/default'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://vegaswatch.net/2009/10/updated-2009-nfl-wins-overunders.html'/><author><name>Vegas Watch</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02353166004125421683</uri><email>vegaswatch@gmail.com</email></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>3</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7965585998403674176.post-2896062924757905656</id><published>2009-10-20T20:49:16.476-04:00</published><updated>2009-10-20T20:49:16.476-04:00</updated><title type='text'>I have been using 3.6% of DAVE = one point.  I hav...</title><content type='html'>I have been using 3.6% of DAVE = one point.  I haven&amp;#39;t empirically tested it, but it was suggested to me by someone who has and it has produced reasonable enough results.</content><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7965585998403674176/4375506549154033955/comments/default/2896062924757905656'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7965585998403674176/4375506549154033955/comments/default/2896062924757905656'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://vegaswatch.net/2009/10/updated-2009-nfl-wins-overunders.html?showComment=1256086156476#c2896062924757905656' title=''/><author><name>Vegas Watch</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02353166004125421683</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='07772761526988251085'/></author><thr:in-reply-to xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0' href='http://vegaswatch.net/2009/10/updated-2009-nfl-wins-overunders.html' ref='tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7965585998403674176.post-4375506549154033955' source='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7965585998403674176/posts/default/4375506549154033955' type='text/html'/></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7965585998403674176.post-9091126673487280666</id><published>2009-10-20T14:04:03.700-04:00</published><updated>2009-10-20T14:04:03.700-04:00</updated><title type='text'>VW,

 How are you calculating potential spreads fr...</title><content type='html'>VW,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; How are you calculating potential spreads from the DAVE ratings? I have been messing around with the numbers and cannot replicate your results.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks.</content><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7965585998403674176/4375506549154033955/comments/default/9091126673487280666'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7965585998403674176/4375506549154033955/comments/default/9091126673487280666'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://vegaswatch.net/2009/10/updated-2009-nfl-wins-overunders.html?showComment=1256061843700#c9091126673487280666' title=''/><author><name>Matthew Peter</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09976747088139028291</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author><thr:in-reply-to xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0' href='http://vegaswatch.net/2009/10/updated-2009-nfl-wins-overunders.html' ref='tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7965585998403674176.post-4375506549154033955' source='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7965585998403674176/posts/default/4375506549154033955' type='text/html'/></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7965585998403674176.post-8415262557432394398</id><published>2009-10-16T18:47:45.715-04:00</published><updated>2009-10-16T18:47:45.715-04:00</updated><title type='text'>These numbers give the Rams a 6.1% chance of going...</title><content type='html'>These numbers give the Rams a 6.1% chance of going 0-16, and a 1 in 43,990,475 shot at winning their rest of the games.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For Tampa those figures are 8.0% and 1 in 194,923,567. If they lose this week their 0-16 % jumps up to 13.3%.</content><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7965585998403674176/4375506549154033955/comments/default/8415262557432394398'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7965585998403674176/4375506549154033955/comments/default/8415262557432394398'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://vegaswatch.net/2009/10/updated-2009-nfl-wins-overunders.html?showComment=1255733265715#c8415262557432394398' title=''/><author><name>Vegas Watch</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02353166004125421683</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='07772761526988251085'/></author><thr:in-reply-to xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0' href='http://vegaswatch.net/2009/10/updated-2009-nfl-wins-overunders.html' ref='tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7965585998403674176.post-4375506549154033955' source='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7965585998403674176/posts/default/4375506549154033955' type='text/html'/></entry></feed>