WMI799 
It's impossible to know what anyone actually wagers, but I know boomersooner played USF last night, and I think he played them with the ML as well, as is my suggestion this time of the year at times. To win 12K with 2-3K wagers per game is not an usual event at all, and in fact is a normal type result.
TCUFROGS
I personally hate this wager, but it satisfies my criteria for a play. I played them last time out (they covered easily), and I hated that one too.
What we will definitely do for this game is to WAIT before placing any wager. If the game line is dropping, my wagering savant partner will bet it before it goes down everywhere. If the line is moving up, he will wait till post time.
More importantly, we are waiting for the results of the Texas, Michigan, Ohio State games, and a peek at the Purdue game. Why? So we can make our conference adjustments with more information available prior to our potential play. If we like what we see, we'll bet it fast, as the line will certainly go down. If we don't like the earlier results, we have the option of not plaing the game at all. This is an unlikely event, but it could happen (maybe 1 chance in 4 or 5).
So now you are probably sorry about asking where I stand on the game. You received the long winded detailed response, sorry.
Shirley
Paullywallnuts
My record of 10-3 is for the tourney of 64, and there have been that many plays. Day 1 was 6-3, and day 2 was 4-0.
I personally am 5-0 omitting a few of the games. Remember what qualifies as a play. In order to jog your memory, I am enclosing the lines I posted. Additionally, I had OVER 1H UNC-LIU, my personal best play of the tourney so far. My last 4 plays covered the spread by an average of over 20 points. You can look it up, as Casey would say.
Technically, I'm 11-3, but I didn't count the Pitt winner, because we missed the -17 line, but you should have had it, as a few others on this site did. Supertechnically, I'm really 11-2, because Mizz was tossed because of conference adjustments, but since you didn't know this, I counted it as a loser. I'm counting the extra loser, and not the extra winner. My lines are there for all to see, you know this. Additionally, I am separating the NCAA tourney of 64 form the regular season. I just remembered, based on my raw numbers USF +6 or +6.5 was a winner yesterday, but I didn't count it, because of the later conference adjustments. It was still an edge, but not enough for me, although many in this room played the game and won.
I hope my quick attention to this matter has refreshed your memory. If anyhing, my record is better than I state it to be. 
My Lines:
West Virginia 2.00
Butler 0.40
Loisville 10.80
Penn State 1.80 ** Winner
Ky 17.40 Loser
Pitt 21.20 Winner (didnt count it)
Vandy 1.40
SDS 20.10 Winner
Fla 17.10 Winner
BYU 7.10
UCONN 16.90 Winner
Wisc 8.80 Winner
Mich St 2.20
SJ 5.60 Loser
Mizz 2.70 ** Loser
K St 6.40 Winner
Tex 12.60
Mich 1.70 ** Winner
N D 16.40
Vill 0.90
Az 7.20
Duke 27.00 Winner
T AM 1.50
N C 20.40 Winner 1H OVER
Xavier 2.00
Ill 1.60 ** WINNER
Wash 3.20
Syr 11.90
BOL
Shirley
PLAYAAAA1969
HEATFORMER
Your comments are very nice, but I'm a half naked lady with a dunce cap. Really, how smart could I be? My daughter gets the best of me every day, further validating my statement.
JONESIN
Yes, there are +9's out there. We are still in WAITING MODE on this game.
BOL
Shirley
Megatron27
Illinois and UNC were the obvious plays. After the result of the NC game, a new conference median was immediately established, warranting a -1.40 adjustment in the line for the ACC. Although not posted on this site because of obvious time constraints, this was a logical selection that at least 3 astute people in this room wagered on, Michigan +12.5, by DOING THEIR OWN CONFERENCE ADJUSTMENTS IN REAL TIME. This game is not counted in my tournament selections.
Similarly, Illinois was an even better play, after earlier results came in. So to completely answer your question, if you had played UNC and ILL, you would have been wagering on the "type" of team, that in the past has hit at a 58+% in the past, in the tourney of 64.
Tomsan73761
TDHCentral
Basketsformoney
Yes, Illinois was a play, and after conference adjustments, was a very large play for me. It was my kind of play (although I'm not as fan of the team in general), a dog, underrated vs a "public team. I made a large losing wager on this game.
USC1977
Yes, UNC was a play. I personally do not wager on favorites in this tourney (as I have stated many times), however for record keeping purposes for the tourney of 64 my selections were 0-2 on Sunday.
Fishscale
My lines yesterday were not that great, but if you had done a little bit of work on your own during the day, and made a conference adjustment (like a few others on this site have been doing), you would have come up with Michigan play as a dog with a sufficient delta. Remember, my lines should be used as a supplement to your own handicapping abilities
I don't have the time nor the commitment to list every adjustment after every game, as they are done by hand, and hence this leaves little time to shop the lines and to make wagers, let alone post on websites. I always suggest to use my lines as a supplement to your own handicapping abilities. Therefore, YOU must have like these ganes as well, or you would not have wagered on them, correct?
For record keeping purposes, I was 0-2 yesterday on this site. However, and luckily for me, since you know I will not play a favorite in the tourney, my partner and myself did not wager on UNC (no surprise there) , and ended up making a medium size wager on Mich, and a HUGE losing wager on Illinois. I had a big losing day yesterday. However, I would make that Illinois wager a thousand times, if the opportunity presented itself.
Additionally, we ended up loving Illinois even more, after the results of the earlier games had come in. I personally lost a lot of money yesterday, even going 1-1. That's gambling, and I've learned to take the swings. Incidentally, there were a number of very sharp people on Illinois yesterday, all of them ended up losing, like me.
I'm really not sure what your complaint is, my numbers are still a respectable10-5 in the tourney of 64, and my overall record, and my basketball sides etc, are amongst the best on this site, or any other site for that matter. If you have been following and wagering on all of my plays on, your bankroll should be growing.
If you want to hit a home run, then take a flyer on some low priced issue on the pink sheets. There are no home runs in college BB this time of the year, because there is nobody ever on base. It's ever more difficult to string together a series of winning plays.
If you are wagering more this time of the year, and more than my recommended 1% of gambling bankroll suggestion, then shame on you. My method has only hit 58+% in the tourney of 64 in the past, and I have alerted all to this fact. These are the official plays which are 4 points from my line. I have warned everyone that the lines (at least for me, and it is a mathematical fact) are tighter, where eventually you will be holding your breath on every possession. I have warned all of the dangers of playing favorites using my method in the tourney.
Now is not the best time to make $, that time has come and gone. Now is the best time for excitement.
As far as working for a book, that statement is hilarious. I have actually declined dozens and dozens of requests from people willing to pay for my lines on a daily basis in basketball and baseball. I have declined every request. I must be doing something right.
If you don't like my lines, don't wager on them. Personally, I'm 6-1 in the tourney being super selective and NEVER wagering on a favorite, period. I try to maintain the highest level of discipline this time of the year, all the while being a fan of the tournament, just not a fan of wagering this time of the year. BOL.
Shirley
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
