Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If I didn't think the Phillies had value at the series price, I would have hedged only a portion of the future out, but since I really liked the Phillies's series price, I hedged the entire position out, leaving me monetarily ambivalent as to the result. Absent the future, I may have played the Phillies, but I am not sure. Hedging is almost always a bad idea, though.
What price did you get on the Phils? The best I saw on a site (didn't check too many places) was +130 I think. And I guess Vegas wasn't even offering that good, according to this article:http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2008...tory?id=3654004
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 603
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What price did you get on the Phils? The best I saw on a site (didn't check too many places) was +130 I think. And I guess Vegas wasn't even offering that good, according to this article:http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2008...tory?id=3654004
I got most of my Philly action picked up at matchbook at +138, and some of it at +136. I ended up having about 30x on the Phillies.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Wang. Took the Knicks tonight. I expected them to be like 5 point dogs, instead they gave 3 and covered.
Yeah, I had that game. Every square I know was lining up to take the Heat and the points, and backing the Knicks felt particularly sick, there. The NBA is soooo painful.As for tonight, the under 195.5 in the New Orleans/Phoenix tilt is a pretty good look. I don't really like New Orleans+2 as a side, but my hand might be forced with Charlotte +9.5 at Cleveland.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I had that game. Every square I know was lining up to take the Heat and the points, and backing the Knicks felt particularly sick, there. The NBA is soooo painful.As for tonight, the under 195.5 in the New Orleans/Phoenix tilt is a pretty good look. I don't really like New Orleans+2 as a side, but my hand might be forced with Charlotte +9.5 at Cleveland.
I don't bet on the NBA at all, in fact don't even look at lines, but I came across that one and had to do it. I would think there might be value playing all the unders blind involving the Suns for the first couple weeks. Most people still associate the Suns with how they played the last 4 years, so maybe the books will set the total a bit higher than they should?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I had that game. Every square I know was lining up to take the Heat and the points, and backing the Knicks felt particularly sick, there. The NBA is soooo painful.As for tonight, the under 195.5 in the New Orleans/Phoenix tilt is a pretty good look. I don't really like New Orleans+2 as a side, but my hand might be forced with Charlotte +9.5 at Cleveland.
woops
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a college football wagering question. In the NFL, contrarian theory is pretty easy. If a line looks too good to be true, it is, and you should go the other way. But in the NCAA, there can be another factor, IE The BCS vs the Non-BCS factor. For example, the Tulsa-arkansas game. Tulsa is favored by 7 points. It seems to me, that this is a joke, and the spread should be Tulsa -20. So take Arkansas. Right? But... what if the line is that small, because Tulsa is a mid major, and Arkansas is SEC, so there's going to be a huge betting bias for Arkansas no matter what. If Arkansas was named El Paso, I think this spread would be Tulsa -20.. so how do I reconcile this? When I look at the "picks" website, Tulsa is picked more, but not dramatically, like 56-44. So that leads me to like Tulsa even more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a college football wagering question. In the NFL, contrarian theory is pretty easy. If a line looks too good to be true, it is, and you should go the other way. But in the NCAA, there can be another factor, IE The BCS vs the Non-BCS factor. For example, the Tulsa-arkansas game. Tulsa is favored by 7 points. It seems to me, that this is a joke, and the spread should be Tulsa -20. So take Arkansas. Right? But... what if the line is that small, because Tulsa is a mid major, and Arkansas is SEC, so there's going to be a huge betting bias for Arkansas no matter what. If Arkansas was named El Paso, I think this spread would be Tulsa -20.. so how do I reconcile this? When I look at the "picks" website, Tulsa is picked more, but not dramatically, like 56-44. So that leads me to like Tulsa even more.
Im not sure if this will help, but my advice would be to find the depth chart for each team. Record the weights of each teams starting offensive and defensive lines. Mid majors can get skill position talent, but they usually suffer up front. If Tulsa has a small o-line, maybe Arkansas can get pressure and disrupt that high powered offense. I dont know, just a thought.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Im not sure if this will help, but my advice would be to find the depth chart for each team. Record the weights of each teams starting offensive and defensive lines. Mid majors can get skill position talent, but they usually suffer up front. If Tulsa has a small o-line, maybe Arkansas can get pressure and disrupt that high powered offense. I dont know, just a thought.
The sizes are built into the line. I don't have a helpful answer for Mac though. Wang? Help?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a college football wagering question. In the NFL, contrarian theory is pretty easy. If a line looks too good to be true, it is, and you should go the other way. But in the NCAA, there can be another factor, IE The BCS vs the Non-BCS factor. For example, the Tulsa-arkansas game. Tulsa is favored by 7 points. It seems to me, that this is a joke, and the spread should be Tulsa -20. So take Arkansas. Right? But... what if the line is that small, because Tulsa is a mid major, and Arkansas is SEC, so there's going to be a huge betting bias for Arkansas no matter what. If Arkansas was named El Paso, I think this spread would be Tulsa -20.. so how do I reconcile this? When I look at the "picks" website, Tulsa is picked more, but not dramatically, like 56-44. So that leads me to like Tulsa even more.
In this specific instance, Tulsa has been VERY popular with bettors this year, and Arkansas has easily been one of the few SEC teams that people have looked to fade on a regular basis. Tulsa has been getting plenty of love and attention from the casual gambler this year, so the books aren't going to be taking a big stand with them, hoping to pull one over on the public; they'd be more likely to do the opposite. Tulsa has to be overvalued at this point. They've been blowing teams out all year, and people have noticed. Arkansas, on the other hand, has been pretty crappy. Tulsa's ranked, Arkansas has a losing record (etc.). If anything, I lean Arkansas here. If the books have a lean, they lean Arkansas, too.On a more general level: you have the right idea. When non-BCS teams are surprisingly short dogs against BCS teams, you're probably going to have to give it a look. It's hard to know HOW popular a smaller school is, unless you're making book I guess, so you should check the consensus numbers to make sure. In this case, you're considering trying to back a ranked, well-publicized BCS-Buster mid-major against one of the two worst teams in the SEC.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Im not sure if this will help, but my advice would be to find the depth chart for each team. Record the weights of each teams starting offensive and defensive lines. Mid majors can get skill position talent, but they usually suffer up front. If Tulsa has a small o-line, maybe Arkansas can get pressure and disrupt that high powered offense. I dont know, just a thought.
This could be why the line is "only" Tulsa by 7, and it staying Tulsa -7 despite Tulsa getting most of the action all week.
Link to post
Share on other sites

New Contrarian Rule:If you weren't on at least two of: Nevada, Nebraska, and Iowa this week, you are not a Contrarian. You're a faggot. Doesn't matter that they'll go 1-2. Your job is to help cover the book's potential losses, and these are the games they need you for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
New Contrarian Rule:If you weren't on at least two of: Nevada, Nebraska, and Iowa this week, you are not a Contrarian. You're a faggot. Doesn't matter that they'll go 1-2. Your job is to help cover the book's potential losses, and these are the games they need you for.
Not so fast, my friend. They are going 3-0. Well, at least 2-1, if Iowa can hold on here.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I just had a "Contrarian moment". I was doing my picks league, and I see " Giants +2.5" and I looked again.. and I looked again, and I'm like "The Giants are DOGS?!?! What the FCK!!! SEND IT!!!!" and then I think to myself... "no.... what would Wang do" a and it's physically making me ill to pick the eagles here, it seems so counter intuitive. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I was actually wagering units on this pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a decent amount of money last night betting on the Cavs/Bulls game.Can one of you sports betting gurus tell me why Cleveland was only -1?I figured betting it was a steal when I saw the line about a minute before gametime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I made a decent amount of money last night betting on the Cavs/Bulls game.Can one of you sports betting gurus tell me why Cleveland was only -1?I figured betting it was a steal when I saw the line about a minute before gametime.
I got it at Chicago +1.5 +108 and +2 +100. But Cleveland was only a short favorite because the game was in Chicago, both teams had played on Friday night, and the Bulls aren't terrible. My handle on the NBA isn't that great yet since I'm still pretty football-centric, so I'm not totally sure if the books wanted a side there, but if they were going to have a lean at that number, it'd definitely be Chicago.(Says the guy who lost 4x on Chicago.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
So, I just had a "Contrarian moment". I was doing my picks league, and I see " Giants +2.5" and I looked again.. and I looked again, and I'm like "The Giants are DOGS?!?! What the FCK!!! SEND IT!!!!" and then I think to myself... "no.... what would Wang do" a and it's physically making me ill to pick the eagles here, it seems so counter intuitive. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I was actually wagering units on this pick.
I put $40 on the Giants at +3.
Link to post
Share on other sites
what NFL games are you on this week?
Trainwreck. Horrible Sunday for contrarians. I ended up losing boatloads on the Vikings, Texans, Chargers and Iggles. I'm going to chase with the under 47.5 tonight even though 'Rizo will probably cover that number themselves, and I'll probably end up on San Fran +9.5, too. I don't really see how San Francisco stops Arizona, or keeps this within 3 scores. 41-20 Rizo sounds about right.Lucky for me I added an extra zero to my Steve Marino top 5 bet, so even though he choked away the lead, I had a pretty big score, there. That was a nice little surprise when I signed into TheGreek this morning. Finally my stupidity pays off. Wang
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...