Nfl Wk.2

[Tactical Bear 3]

Okay, so some of these lines are ****ing laughable, man. The public reactions to week one are killing me. Initial leans:Oakland +4 (or whatever it closes at ) at KCNo results yet, but I'm pretty sure KC's going to get like 68% of the action, here. Whatever, I'll take Jamarcus ******* and the points.New England +1 (or whatever it closes at) at JetsI don't know if I'll actually be able to play this, but if you'd told me two weeks ago that I'd be giving New England a look in week two, my first thought would have been, "So who gets hurt? Brady and who else? Moss? The entire D-line?" Miami +7 at RizoPennington actually played okay last week. There was some ugliness in that Miami/NYJ game. I'll probably be leaning Miami every week until they cover. Auto-public fade, here. Washington -1 vs. New OrleansI like this game a lot. I don't get it, but I like it. Washington played bad against New York, and New Orleans played well against Tampa. I'll play "Regression to the mean -1 -104 (4x)"Tampa Bay -9 vs. ATLIf you'd told me two weeks ago that I would be fading Atlanta week 2, my first thought would have been, "So Matt Ryan is John Elway against the Lions." Shocking that everyone really saw that game and thought "ATL is good" and not "OMG Detroit is terrible." Tampa's good, and they lost a "meh" game to New Orleans. I'll lay the pointsCleveland +6 vs. PittThankfully I passed Cleveland week one. Hopefully their value has dropped enough so that I'm getting a good price here. I don't imagine the books will be giving value on a Pitt team that won by 30+ vs. Houston, and a Browns team that got killed by Dallas. Cleveland sucks, though, so this won't be any fun.First impressions. I've got a big NCAA card coming up on Thursday-Saturday, so I might be too broke to play these by then.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

First impressions. I've got a big NCAA card coming up on Thursday-Saturday, so I might be too broke to play these by then.

Take Iowa State and 13-14 points. No way Iowa covers, if they even win outright.And Tenn's a 34 point favorite over UAB right now, when they couldn't beat Southeast Polk High School by 20.I'd also take Michigan State to cover 14.5 over Florida Atlantic.

[powerpoker 0]

Take Iowa State and 13-14 points. No way Iowa covers, if they even win outright.And Tenn's a 34 point favorite over UAB right now, when they couldn't beat Southeast Polk High School by 20.I'd also take Michigan State to cover 14.5 over Florida Atlantic.

Why?...any reasoning to back this up, just curious. I doubt ill play the game, just tryin to pick your brain.

[Tactical Bear 3]

Take Iowa State and 13-14 points. No way Iowa covers, if they even win outright.And Tenn's a 34 point favorite over UAB right now, when they couldn't beat Southeast Polk High School by 20.I'd also take Michigan State to cover 14.5 over Florida Atlantic.

Why?...any reasoning to back this up, just curious. I doubt ill play the game, just tryin to pick your brain.

If I play the Iowa/Iowa State game, it would be ISU. Iowa blew FIU off the field last week, so their side probably has less value than Iowa State's. I don't like MSU over FAU. If anything, I lean FAU there. I am considering playing UAB, but I've had my fill of heavy dogs this year, so I don't think I want to sweat a 55-20 outcome this week. All that being said, none of those games really made my already-oversized list of leans, so I doubt they'll find their way onto my card. My "analysis" (aka, your fade material) can be found in the NCAA wk.3 thread. I am falling in love with Washington, Tampa, and New England way too easily. I am going to get burned on those games pretty bad. I can actually envision the last two covering, which might be a cue to stay away. No idea how Washington is going to beat New Orleans, so that'll be an 8-banger, methinks.

[powerpoker 0]

If I play the Iowa/Iowa State game, it would be ISU. Iowa blew FIU off the field last week, so their side probably has less value than Iowa State's.

Just playin devils advocate here, ISU blew Kent St. off the field and FIU is one of the bottom 5 teams in the country....this should be all in the NCAA thread not the NFL...lol..just sayin

[Tactical Bear 3]

Just playin devils advocate here, ISU blew Kent St. off the field and FIU is one of the bottom 5 teams in the country....this should be all in the NCAA thread not the NFL...lol..just sayin

Final word: Iowa is getting all the action. Therefore: no play on Iowa no matter what unless you're bad at being a Sports Gambler, or hang out with the Ultimate Cappers down at Beta Theta Pi.

[YourDaddy 0]

Why?...any reasoning to back this up, just curious. I doubt ill play the game, just tryin to pick your brain.

your a fraud mr powerpoker

[powerpoker 0]

Final word: Iowa is getting all the action. Therefore: no play on Iowa no matter what unless you're bad at being a Sports Gambler, or hang out with the Ultimate Cappers down at Beta Theta Pi.

I agree, if i would play the game i would be on ISU, most like will be a pass though.

your a fraud mr powerpoker

um ok

[CBass1724 1]

If I play the Iowa/Iowa State game, it would be ISU. Iowa blew FIU off the field last week, so their side probably has less value than Iowa State's. I don't like MSU over FAU. If anything, I lean FAU there. I am considering playing UAB, but I've had my fill of heavy dogs this year, so I don't think I want to sweat a 55-20 outcome this week. All that being said, none of those games really made my already-oversized list of leans, so I doubt they'll find their way onto my card. My "analysis" (aka, your fade material) can be found in the NCAA wk.3 thread. I am falling in love with Washington, Tampa, and New England way too easily. I am going to get burned on those games pretty bad. I can actually envision the last two covering, which might be a cue to stay away. No idea how Washington is going to beat New Orleans, so that'll be an 8-banger, methinks.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I don't even know what this icon means. Is it a symbol of solidarity? Agreement? Mocking humor? Whatever, I should get faded for at least the next month.

[Sam Donaldson 0]

Early possibilities.Pats +1Redskins +1Seattle -7Bucs -9Jags -5.5No idea what's going on with the Skins game either. I like the Pats line the moment it was posted, and I'm a little iffy on the Jags and Seahawks right now, might change those.

[tskillz187 0]

Any opinion on the Phi @ Dal game? Dal laying 7 and the over/under is 47.I want to bet on Eagles and the under. I'm thinking thats contrarian? But would like opinion.

[DinkDonk 1]

Any opinion on the Phi @ Dal game? Dal laying 7 and the over/under is 47.I want to bet on Eagles and the under. I'm thinking thats contrarian? But would like opinion.

I love this under, but I don't think there's significant value in either Dallas or Philly. The news has been filled with aural fellatio for Donovan McNabb nonstop since the Eagles blowout and I think that this action should be fairly well split. You should probably get a second opinion though.

[CaneBrain 95]

Solid week one. I am only down 400 bucks.Onto week two:(1 unit = 100 dollars)Cincy (-1) (2 units)New Orleans (PK) (1 unit)Green Bay (-3) (1 unit)Atlanta (-8.5) (2 units)Miami (+7) (1 unit)

[Tactical Bear 3]

Early possibilities.Pats +1Redskins +1Seattle -7Bucs -9Jags -5.5No idea what's going on with the Skins game either. I like the Pats line the moment it was posted, and I'm a little iffy on the Jags and Seahawks right now, might change those.

I don't know who you are, but your list of leans gets the Wang seal of approval. (The Wang seal of approval is just my avatar, except without the mustache disguise that's drawn in on this account.)

Any opinion on the Phi @ Dal game? Dal laying 7 and the over/under is 47.I want to bet on Eagles and the under. I'm thinking thats contrarian? But would like opinion.

That's never a good sign. Be sure to keep that in check.If you would like opinion, I will give opinion, but first let's check the other opinion:

I love this under, but I don't think there's significant value in either Dallas or Philly. The news has been filled with aural fellatio for Donovan McNabb nonstop since the Eagles blowout and I think that this action should be fairly well split. You should probably get a second opinion though.

Pretty solid analysis. McNabb is down to 5-1 to win the MVP at Olympic, which is kinda laughable. My thoughts, for what they're worth:The wagerline numbers show Philly getting slightly more than half the action catching 7 at Dallas. Further investigation reveals that number is probably closer to 60-40 in favor of Philly, which is significant for a road dog. Philly blew out a solid Houston team, and Dallas took care of business against a supposedly solid Browns team.My initial reaction upon seeing the line, before seeing any consensus data, was: "Wow, that's a lot of points. Going to look like too many to most people. Philly's going to get some action there. Gun to my head, I'm leaning Dallas on that number. 7 looks like Iggle bait." I will not be playing Dallas as a side, but the game might still get a play. Nationally televised football games are over magnets. Nobody likes rooting for turnovers, stalled red-zone drives, and punts. I read a study once, years ago, that NFL gamblers prefer significantly playing overs to unders. This effect is, probably, magnified for nationally televised Monday Night Football games, featuring two strong offenses. The over will get doinked pretty hard, here, so there is probably going to be value in the under. WangEDIT- I should note that I really like this Eagles team. I played the over for their regular season wins for a small amount, as Football Prospectus loves them (like they do every year), and considered playing them as a SuperBowl future, but eventually passed.

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

Philly blew out a solid Houston team, and Dallas took care of business against a supposedly solid Browns team.

They beat St. Louis, and as a Rams fan and the only team I watch and follow every year, they are far from solid. That was the most disgraceful game I've ever seen from them and that's going back to all those ugly years in the 90's. They had no fight and basically gave up by the 2nd half. What I'm trying to say is the Eagles may very well be a great team, but don't put any stock in the team they beat last week.

[Tactical Bear 3]

They beat St. Louis, and as a Rams fan and the only team I watch and follow every year, they are far from solid. That was the most disgraceful game I've ever seen from them and that's going back to all those ugly years in the 90's. They had no fight and basically gave up by the 2nd half. What I'm trying to say is the Eagles may very well be a great team, but don't put any stock in the team they beat last week.

Yeah, you're right. Pitt smoked Houston. Considering I had Houston, I probably shouldn't have made that mistake. I was even looking at the Houston/Pittsburgh play-by-play earlier today. Even less of a reason to play Philly. Still can't find a play on Dallas.

[CBass1724 1]

I don't even know what this icon means. Is it a symbol of solidarity? Agreement? Mocking humor? Whatever, I should get faded for at least the next month.

I don't know what it means either but I just hope you are correct and win lots of mobnies betting on Washington.

[Sam Donaldson 0]

I don't know who you are, but your list of leans gets the Wang seal of approval. (The Wang seal of approval is just my avatar, except without the mustache disguise that's drawn in on this account.)

I'm Sam Donaldson! Going against the public is always the best approach to sports betting. I mean just look at people, they're idiots. Btw nice contrarian investing thread, I never knew there was a term for it (apparently the spell check doesn't either), but now I do.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I'm officially removing New England from the leans list. The consensus data is muddled, and everyone I talk to is taking New England.

[tskillz187 0]

Thanks for the replies. I guess I'll stay away from the Eagles with those points. Anyo9ne know what a good over/under for sacks in a game is? My roomie and I are betting whenever we can agree on some of the games. He's a Bills fan and I accepted a bet of 5 sacks on the Jags for over/under. 5 is push. I have the under.

[powerpoker 0]

Thanks for the replies. I guess I'll stay away from the Eagles with those points. Anyo9ne know what a good over/under for sacks in a game is? My roomie and I are betting whenever we can agree on some of the games. He's a Bills fan and I accepted a bet of 5 sacks on the Jags for over/under. 5 is push. I have the under.

Your betting with a friend, you should take all the pushes out of the equation and make it 4.5 or 5.5, a push with a friend results in 0 money or bragging rights for either person.

[showstopper24 0]

Good news-Josh Cribbs is probably going to play against the Steelers. It's no secret that I have a huge man crush on JC and I will say that the Browns have very little chance of winning any game with out him. With out him last year, I think the Browns are easily a 7-9 team instead of 10-6. We had not chance against the Cowboys with out him and we have little chance against the Steelers with out him...so hopefully he's going to play.And don't get me started on Derek Anderson. DA sucks and is the most over-rated/over-paid person in professional sports. Can you imagne his stats last year if JC didn't give the Browns good field position every time or if Braylon Edwards/Kellen Winslow didn't make sweet catches on his bad throws? I know its easy to say that for every QB-that they would suck with out their best players...but can you imagine if Tom Brady was the QB of the Browns last year? 19-0 for sure.

[powerpoker 0]

Good news-Josh Cribbs is probably going to play against the Steelers. It's no secret that I have a huge man crush on JC and I will say that the Browns have very little chance of winning any game with out him. With out him last year, I think the Browns are easily a 7-9 team instead of 10-6. We had not chance against the Cowboys with out him and we have little chance against the Steelers with out him...so hopefully he's going to play.And don't get me started on Derek Anderson. DA sucks and is the most over-rated/over-paid person in professional sports. Can you imagne his stats last year if JC didn't give the Browns good field position every time or if Braylon Edwards/Kellen Winslow didn't make sweet catches on his bad throws? I know its easy to say that for every QB-that they would suck with out their best players...but can you imagine if Tom Brady was the QB of the Browns last year? 19-0 for sure.

Without a cake schedule last year they would have been a 7-9 team. They should be around that this year being that their schedule is much more difficult than last year.

[powerpoker 0]

Good news-Josh Cribbs is probably going to play against the Steelers. It's no secret that I have a huge man crush on JC and I will say that the Browns have very little chance of winning any game with out him. With out him last year, I think the Browns are easily a 7-9 team instead of 10-6. We had not chance against the Cowboys with out him and we have little chance against the Steelers with out him...so hopefully he's going to play.And don't get me started on Derek Anderson. DA sucks and is the most over-rated/over-paid person in professional sports. Can you imagne his stats last year if JC didn't give the Browns good field position every time or if Braylon Edwards/Kellen Winslow didn't make sweet catches on his bad throws? I know its easy to say that for every QB-that they would suck with out their best players...but can you imagine if Tom Brady was the QB of the Browns last year? 19-0 for sure.

Without a cake schedule last year they would have been a 7-9 team. They should be around that this year being that their schedule is much more difficult than last year.