Bears had no shot until Charles got injured. It changed the dynamic as they werent able to milk the clock.
Redskins backers please tell me how lucky you got. Falcons outgained them by 150 yards despite having a bad day. After Q3, Freeman had more yards than the Skins. Two missed field goal, missed two point, two turnovers in Skins territory. Unbelievable.
Bengals showed why they are the best team right now, rallying from 7-24 down. Seahawks were not able to march a lot while the Bengals moved the chains on a lot of drives. Push saved it at the end.
Capped those matchups right but 0-2 is the result, very frustrating.
On to next week.
What is your definition of luck? The redskins were leading the entire game, had you watched it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by suuma:
Bears had no shot until Charles got injured. It changed the dynamic as they werent able to milk the clock.
Redskins backers please tell me how lucky you got. Falcons outgained them by 150 yards despite having a bad day. After Q3, Freeman had more yards than the Skins. Two missed field goal, missed two point, two turnovers in Skins territory. Unbelievable.
Bengals showed why they are the best team right now, rallying from 7-24 down. Seahawks were not able to march a lot while the Bengals moved the chains on a lot of drives. Push saved it at the end.
Capped those matchups right but 0-2 is the result, very frustrating.
On to next week.
What is your definition of luck? The redskins were leading the entire game, had you watched it.
Yes there is a theory for how to manage a sports book, check it out from Mr. Michael "Roxy" Roxborough, focused primarily on US sports.
DrJohn and BulletBob who repeated the statement again "There is no "theory" purporting 50-50 action = profit maximization for sports books"
I never said that the theory "maximized" profits for the sports book. It is a balance of risk and profit that the above book speaks of and it lays out the basic principals.
Anyway I don't understand your discussion of this because you go on to say that the way books make their money is the commissions and by trying to get 50/50 action, or riskless action and just collect the commission.
What I'm telling you is that it is impossible for the books to get riskless action. You say that they are going to drive down the risk to zero as much as possible? How do they do that and if they are doing that then isn't that the same as saying they want 50/50 action on a game? 50/50 action = zero risk and profits = commission in that case.
That is besides my point though, the point is that they can't avoid uneven action. You have no way as the bookmaker of knowing what your bettors are going to do so there are always going to be games every week that have more money on one side.
Let's say its your own book. What are the tools available to you to even up the action and reduce your risk? You gonna move the line, with your customers it may not even make a difference cause they won't take the other side and they already bet. And if you move it to far out of whack with the other books and market your risking a middle or getting even more one sided action the other way. Are you going to gamble with it, say go place a bet with another book to offset the one sided action at your own? If you do you'll be paying juice and thus cutting into or eliminating your profit margin.
So it's easy to say, "they don't care they are just getting 50/50 action and collecting the juice and they don't want any risk" and sure they would love to have it work out that way but when you examine the reality of it you realize that this isn't how it actually works. It is not that the book maker is trying maximize profits by "winning on sides" as you say, he doesn't have any control over it. He has one sided action all the time and he is very limited what he can do with line moves or his customer base to change that.
Most still won't understand this and I think it is because people tend to think on a small scale and one game or one week. Books are able to minimize the day to day and week to week risk because of the churn. There are days or even weeks when they lose money but that money comes back in the door and its this churn that eventually evens out the risk over time.
Yes there is a theory for how to manage a sports book, check it out from Mr. Michael "Roxy" Roxborough, focused primarily on US sports.
DrJohn and BulletBob who repeated the statement again "There is no "theory" purporting 50-50 action = profit maximization for sports books"
I never said that the theory "maximized" profits for the sports book. It is a balance of risk and profit that the above book speaks of and it lays out the basic principals.
Anyway I don't understand your discussion of this because you go on to say that the way books make their money is the commissions and by trying to get 50/50 action, or riskless action and just collect the commission.
What I'm telling you is that it is impossible for the books to get riskless action. You say that they are going to drive down the risk to zero as much as possible? How do they do that and if they are doing that then isn't that the same as saying they want 50/50 action on a game? 50/50 action = zero risk and profits = commission in that case.
That is besides my point though, the point is that they can't avoid uneven action. You have no way as the bookmaker of knowing what your bettors are going to do so there are always going to be games every week that have more money on one side.
Let's say its your own book. What are the tools available to you to even up the action and reduce your risk? You gonna move the line, with your customers it may not even make a difference cause they won't take the other side and they already bet. And if you move it to far out of whack with the other books and market your risking a middle or getting even more one sided action the other way. Are you going to gamble with it, say go place a bet with another book to offset the one sided action at your own? If you do you'll be paying juice and thus cutting into or eliminating your profit margin.
So it's easy to say, "they don't care they are just getting 50/50 action and collecting the juice and they don't want any risk" and sure they would love to have it work out that way but when you examine the reality of it you realize that this isn't how it actually works. It is not that the book maker is trying maximize profits by "winning on sides" as you say, he doesn't have any control over it. He has one sided action all the time and he is very limited what he can do with line moves or his customer base to change that.
Most still won't understand this and I think it is because people tend to think on a small scale and one game or one week. Books are able to minimize the day to day and week to week risk because of the churn. There are days or even weeks when they lose money but that money comes back in the door and its this churn that eventually evens out the risk over time.
What is your definition of luck? The redskins were leading the entire game, had you watched it.
I watched it. It's about how games played out to get a clou about teams for the future. The Falcons center had some poor snaps, Ryan was inaccurate but it was still enough to own the Redskins in every facet of the game. Redskins got lucky to stay in the game because of the bad breaks the Falcons had. After three quarters Freeman had more yards than the entire Redskins team. But 12 Falcons points after four RZ attempts and two missed FGs sealed the way for the Skins.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DrJohn3719:
What is your definition of luck? The redskins were leading the entire game, had you watched it.
I watched it. It's about how games played out to get a clou about teams for the future. The Falcons center had some poor snaps, Ryan was inaccurate but it was still enough to own the Redskins in every facet of the game. Redskins got lucky to stay in the game because of the bad breaks the Falcons had. After three quarters Freeman had more yards than the entire Redskins team. But 12 Falcons points after four RZ attempts and two missed FGs sealed the way for the Skins.
Up 17-3 and driving with 9 minutes left to go in the third, Charles gets injured in the redzone @ the 9. The whole complexion of the game changed at that point.
No sense crying over it, we just move on.
We'll get them next time
Banging since 1983
0
Tough loss today with Kansas City
I feel your pain.
Up 17-3 and driving with 9 minutes left to go in the third, Charles gets injured in the redzone @ the 9. The whole complexion of the game changed at that point.
Anyway I don't understand your discussion of this because you go on to say that the way books make their money is the commissions and by trying to get 50/50 action, or riskless action and just collect the commission.
i didn't read your entire post as you were erroneous in your first 2/2 points. Maximizing profits is the goal of every person who engages in business, this is simple logic.
2ndly, I NEVER purported what you said I stated.
The simple fact is, the goal of books is to get the lopsided action on the statistically disadvantaged side. Plain and simple. Anyone who says otherwise is WRONG.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JBone_Texas:
Anyway I don't understand your discussion of this because you go on to say that the way books make their money is the commissions and by trying to get 50/50 action, or riskless action and just collect the commission.
i didn't read your entire post as you were erroneous in your first 2/2 points. Maximizing profits is the goal of every person who engages in business, this is simple logic.
2ndly, I NEVER purported what you said I stated.
The simple fact is, the goal of books is to get the lopsided action on the statistically disadvantaged side. Plain and simple. Anyone who says otherwise is WRONG.
I watched it. It's about how games played out to get a clou about teams for the future. The Falcons center had some poor snaps, Ryan was inaccurate but it was still enough to own the Redskins in every facet of the game. Redskins got lucky to stay in the game because of the bad breaks the Falcons had. After three quarters Freeman had more yards than the entire Redskins team. But 12 Falcons points after four RZ attempts and two missed FGs sealed the way for the Skins.
It's a shame I can't bet against you every week. I'd take + pts where the team leads for 95% of the game 10/10.
0
Quote Originally Posted by suuma:
I watched it. It's about how games played out to get a clou about teams for the future. The Falcons center had some poor snaps, Ryan was inaccurate but it was still enough to own the Redskins in every facet of the game. Redskins got lucky to stay in the game because of the bad breaks the Falcons had. After three quarters Freeman had more yards than the entire Redskins team. But 12 Falcons points after four RZ attempts and two missed FGs sealed the way for the Skins.
It's a shame I can't bet against you every week. I'd take + pts where the team leads for 95% of the game 10/10.
It's a shame I can't bet against you every week. I'd take + pts where the team leads for 95% of the game 10/10.
DrJohn - it is clear you are not getting the point suuma is trying to make. Yes, Redskins held the lead for a large part of the game. But the reason why that is so is due to how many random botched plays and mistakes the Falcons made. If the game were to be replayed again, would you take the Redskins +7 again? From what I saw and read, seems Falcons would have a better than 50/50 chance of covering 7. At home, they are 7 or more points better (on average) than the Redskins. At least that's my take.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DrJohn3719:
It's a shame I can't bet against you every week. I'd take + pts where the team leads for 95% of the game 10/10.
DrJohn - it is clear you are not getting the point suuma is trying to make. Yes, Redskins held the lead for a large part of the game. But the reason why that is so is due to how many random botched plays and mistakes the Falcons made. If the game were to be replayed again, would you take the Redskins +7 again? From what I saw and read, seems Falcons would have a better than 50/50 chance of covering 7. At home, they are 7 or more points better (on average) than the Redskins. At least that's my take.
wow,this dr. john character sure is one arrogant,self-important,condescending pile of shiit aint he??
comes in stating supposed "facts" about how books operate their bizness like he's sum world authority..then wen sumone calls him out and asks to cite his source of information he deflects and says "im not gonna do your homework for you"ya cant make this stuff up,folks.
so far i believe in every single post he has flat out told others that they are wrong when really wats being discussed is to sum degree a matter of conjecture and opinion...it is highly doubtful any person here is privy to the inner workings of the sports gambling industry at large so YES,when making bold,definitive statements it wud be kinda nice to hear sum sort of evidence or source of figures and/or operating procedures.
hmmmmm,now lemme guess wat kind of retort we'll get here.............okay,i think im gonna go with...."i didnt read your whole post because everything contained within the first 5 letters was completely wrong so i considered it beneath me to carry on reading"...yours truly,dr. john(M.D in c.ockology and knobbery).
0
wow,this dr. john character sure is one arrogant,self-important,condescending pile of shiit aint he??
comes in stating supposed "facts" about how books operate their bizness like he's sum world authority..then wen sumone calls him out and asks to cite his source of information he deflects and says "im not gonna do your homework for you"ya cant make this stuff up,folks.
so far i believe in every single post he has flat out told others that they are wrong when really wats being discussed is to sum degree a matter of conjecture and opinion...it is highly doubtful any person here is privy to the inner workings of the sports gambling industry at large so YES,when making bold,definitive statements it wud be kinda nice to hear sum sort of evidence or source of figures and/or operating procedures.
hmmmmm,now lemme guess wat kind of retort we'll get here.............okay,i think im gonna go with...."i didnt read your whole post because everything contained within the first 5 letters was completely wrong so i considered it beneath me to carry on reading"...yours truly,dr. john(M.D in c.ockology and knobbery).
Thanks again for your picks this week, wasn't feeling quite as strong on KC as you were so I played them as a 'normal' play for myself but I was pleasantly suprised watching the game unfold and then I watched Charles go 'SNAP' and thought uh-oh. I do think Da Bears were getting a little momentum before that but I'll have to go back and watch during the week to double check as I watch all the games at once on 2 TV's so I'm usually watching a game and the red zone all at once. Anyway with that being said I still agree that even IF I'm correct and they WERE gaining some momentum prior to the injury KC STILL covers if Charles doesn't go down. Some of these people just don't know football and/or just want to be antagonists, FEK'em.
Hey I was curious to ask but only had my phone handy and won't access this site on my phone, why didn't you like NE as a play today? That was my POD, Brady and Belicheck coming off a bye week against a banged up Dallas team seems like money in the bank, just curious what you saw that kept you away from it. I realize the game is over but still wanted to know your thought process?
Thanks for what you do and nice call on the Cards to get back to even on the day!!
0
Hey Summa,
Thanks again for your picks this week, wasn't feeling quite as strong on KC as you were so I played them as a 'normal' play for myself but I was pleasantly suprised watching the game unfold and then I watched Charles go 'SNAP' and thought uh-oh. I do think Da Bears were getting a little momentum before that but I'll have to go back and watch during the week to double check as I watch all the games at once on 2 TV's so I'm usually watching a game and the red zone all at once. Anyway with that being said I still agree that even IF I'm correct and they WERE gaining some momentum prior to the injury KC STILL covers if Charles doesn't go down. Some of these people just don't know football and/or just want to be antagonists, FEK'em.
Hey I was curious to ask but only had my phone handy and won't access this site on my phone, why didn't you like NE as a play today? That was my POD, Brady and Belicheck coming off a bye week against a banged up Dallas team seems like money in the bank, just curious what you saw that kept you away from it. I realize the game is over but still wanted to know your thought process?
Thanks for what you do and nice call on the Cards to get back to even on the day!!
Yes there is a theory for how to manage a sports book, check it out from Mr. Michael "Roxy" Roxborough, focused primarily on US sports.
DrJohn and BulletBob who repeated the statement again "There is no "theory" purporting 50-50 action = profit maximization for sports books"
I never said that the theory "maximized" profits for the sports book. It is a balance of risk and profit that the above book speaks of and it lays out the basic principals.
Anyway I don't understand your discussion of this because you go on to say that the way books make their money is the commissions and by trying to get 50/50 action, or riskless action and just collect the commission.
What I'm telling you is that it is impossible for the books to get riskless action. You say that they are going to drive down the risk to zero as much as possible? How do they do that and if they are doing that then isn't that the same as saying they want 50/50 action on a game? 50/50 action = zero risk and profits = commission in that case.
That is besides my point though, the point is that they can't avoid uneven action. You have no way as the bookmaker of knowing what your bettors are going to do so there are always going to be games every week that have more money on one side.
Let's say its your own book. What are the tools available to you to even up the action and reduce your risk? You gonna move the line, with your customers it may not even make a difference cause they won't take the other side and they already bet. And if you move it to far out of whack with the other books and market your risking a middle or getting even more one sided action the other way. Are you going to gamble with it, say go place a bet with another book to offset the one sided action at your own? If you do you'll be paying juice and thus cutting into or eliminating your profit margin.
So it's easy to say, "they don't care they are just getting 50/50 action and collecting the juice and they don't want any risk" and sure they would love to have it work out that way but when you examine the reality of it you realize that this isn't how it actually works. It is not that the book maker is trying maximize profits by "winning on sides" as you say, he doesn't have any control over it. He has one sided action all the time and he is very limited what he can do with line moves or his customer base to change that.
Most still won't understand this and I think it is because people tend to think on a small scale and one game or one week. Books are able to minimize the day to day and week to week risk because of the churn. There are days or even weeks when they lose money but that money comes back in the door and its this churn that eventually evens out the risk over time.
THIS and all of THIS.
Probably the ONLY thing I would ever disagree with suuma is that capping is all about everyday match ups. If that was the case, situational capping would never work and the best team would always win.
Personally, I do a mix of everything in capping my games. I look at matchups. I look at situations. I look at lines and try and determine what "vegas" is thinking and what the public perception is (thanks ESPN). None of these are absolute on it's own or else it'd be too easy i.e. "always bet against a 70%+ concensus".
Oddsmakers know these things and throw just enough misdirection to make it tough.
Like the above posters said, books what the constant "churn" (I like that word). Their 50/50 split is really LONG term against certain bettors and not on a single game or single week sample size. They want the sharps, public, line bettors, situational cappers to all lose 50/50 so that the money moves back and forth and they collect their vig THAT way. Same thing in poker, the house would LOVE for pots to be shipped back and forth and to continue to rake off the same money vs. having one person constantly winning and once that person has those chips, the chance to tax those are gone.
Yes there is a theory for how to manage a sports book, check it out from Mr. Michael "Roxy" Roxborough, focused primarily on US sports.
DrJohn and BulletBob who repeated the statement again "There is no "theory" purporting 50-50 action = profit maximization for sports books"
I never said that the theory "maximized" profits for the sports book. It is a balance of risk and profit that the above book speaks of and it lays out the basic principals.
Anyway I don't understand your discussion of this because you go on to say that the way books make their money is the commissions and by trying to get 50/50 action, or riskless action and just collect the commission.
What I'm telling you is that it is impossible for the books to get riskless action. You say that they are going to drive down the risk to zero as much as possible? How do they do that and if they are doing that then isn't that the same as saying they want 50/50 action on a game? 50/50 action = zero risk and profits = commission in that case.
That is besides my point though, the point is that they can't avoid uneven action. You have no way as the bookmaker of knowing what your bettors are going to do so there are always going to be games every week that have more money on one side.
Let's say its your own book. What are the tools available to you to even up the action and reduce your risk? You gonna move the line, with your customers it may not even make a difference cause they won't take the other side and they already bet. And if you move it to far out of whack with the other books and market your risking a middle or getting even more one sided action the other way. Are you going to gamble with it, say go place a bet with another book to offset the one sided action at your own? If you do you'll be paying juice and thus cutting into or eliminating your profit margin.
So it's easy to say, "they don't care they are just getting 50/50 action and collecting the juice and they don't want any risk" and sure they would love to have it work out that way but when you examine the reality of it you realize that this isn't how it actually works. It is not that the book maker is trying maximize profits by "winning on sides" as you say, he doesn't have any control over it. He has one sided action all the time and he is very limited what he can do with line moves or his customer base to change that.
Most still won't understand this and I think it is because people tend to think on a small scale and one game or one week. Books are able to minimize the day to day and week to week risk because of the churn. There are days or even weeks when they lose money but that money comes back in the door and its this churn that eventually evens out the risk over time.
THIS and all of THIS.
Probably the ONLY thing I would ever disagree with suuma is that capping is all about everyday match ups. If that was the case, situational capping would never work and the best team would always win.
Personally, I do a mix of everything in capping my games. I look at matchups. I look at situations. I look at lines and try and determine what "vegas" is thinking and what the public perception is (thanks ESPN). None of these are absolute on it's own or else it'd be too easy i.e. "always bet against a 70%+ concensus".
Oddsmakers know these things and throw just enough misdirection to make it tough.
Like the above posters said, books what the constant "churn" (I like that word). Their 50/50 split is really LONG term against certain bettors and not on a single game or single week sample size. They want the sharps, public, line bettors, situational cappers to all lose 50/50 so that the money moves back and forth and they collect their vig THAT way. Same thing in poker, the house would LOVE for pots to be shipped back and forth and to continue to rake off the same money vs. having one person constantly winning and once that person has those chips, the chance to tax those are gone.
DrJohn - it is clear you are not getting the point suuma is trying to make. Yes, Redskins held the lead for a large part of the game. But the reason why that is so is due to how many random botched plays and mistakes the Falcons made. If the game were to be replayed again, would you take the Redskins +7 again? From what I saw and read, seems Falcons would have a better than 50/50 chance of covering 7. At home, they are 7 or more points better (on average) than the Redskins. At least that's my take.
I would take Redskins +7.5 10/10 times. I'm a value better. I rely upon my advanced statistical analysis; the underlying premise being, make the correct bet enough times and you will end up in the green.
Quote Originally Posted by melossinglet:
wow,this dr. john character sure is one arrogant,self-important,condescending pile of shiit aint he??
comes in stating supposed "facts" about how books operate their bizness like he's sum world authority..then wen sumone calls him out and asks to cite his source of information he deflects and says "im not gonna do your homework for you"ya cant make this stuff up,folks.
so far i believe in every single post he has flat out told others that they are wrong when really wats being discussed is to sum degree a matter of conjecture and opinion...it is highly doubtful any person here is privy to the inner workings of the sports gambling industry at large so YES,when making bold,definitive statements it wud be kinda nice to hear sum sort of evidence or source of figures and/or operating procedures.
hmmmmm,now lemme guess wat kind of retort we'll get here.............okay,i think im gonna go with...."i didnt read your whole post because everything contained within the first 5 letters was completely wrong so i considered it beneath me to carry on reading"...yours truly,dr. john(M.D in c.ockology and knobbery).
If you can't learn to use the google search function, there's no use in me commenting in your threads. There is numerous academic literature that examines how the sports betting market oddsmakers are not aiming for 50-50 action. Examine some of it, then I'll be willing to have a discussion.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lakerz:
DrJohn - it is clear you are not getting the point suuma is trying to make. Yes, Redskins held the lead for a large part of the game. But the reason why that is so is due to how many random botched plays and mistakes the Falcons made. If the game were to be replayed again, would you take the Redskins +7 again? From what I saw and read, seems Falcons would have a better than 50/50 chance of covering 7. At home, they are 7 or more points better (on average) than the Redskins. At least that's my take.
I would take Redskins +7.5 10/10 times. I'm a value better. I rely upon my advanced statistical analysis; the underlying premise being, make the correct bet enough times and you will end up in the green.
Quote Originally Posted by melossinglet:
wow,this dr. john character sure is one arrogant,self-important,condescending pile of shiit aint he??
comes in stating supposed "facts" about how books operate their bizness like he's sum world authority..then wen sumone calls him out and asks to cite his source of information he deflects and says "im not gonna do your homework for you"ya cant make this stuff up,folks.
so far i believe in every single post he has flat out told others that they are wrong when really wats being discussed is to sum degree a matter of conjecture and opinion...it is highly doubtful any person here is privy to the inner workings of the sports gambling industry at large so YES,when making bold,definitive statements it wud be kinda nice to hear sum sort of evidence or source of figures and/or operating procedures.
hmmmmm,now lemme guess wat kind of retort we'll get here.............okay,i think im gonna go with...."i didnt read your whole post because everything contained within the first 5 letters was completely wrong so i considered it beneath me to carry on reading"...yours truly,dr. john(M.D in c.ockology and knobbery).
If you can't learn to use the google search function, there's no use in me commenting in your threads. There is numerous academic literature that examines how the sports betting market oddsmakers are not aiming for 50-50 action. Examine some of it, then I'll be willing to have a discussion.
wow,this dr. john character sure is one arrogant,self-important,condescending pile of shiit aint he??
comes in stating supposed "facts" about how books operate their bizness like he's sum world authority..then wen sumone calls him out and asks to cite his source of information he deflects and says "im not gonna do your homework for you"ya cant make this stuff up,folks.
so far i believe in every single post he has flat out told others that they are wrong when really wats being discussed is to sum degree a matter of conjecture and opinion...it is highly doubtful any person here is privy to the inner workings of the sports gambling industry at large so YES,when making bold,definitive statements it wud be kinda nice to hear sum sort of evidence or source of figures and/or operating procedures.
hmmmmm,now lemme guess wat kind of retort we'll get here.............okay,i think im gonna go with...."i didnt read your whole post because everything contained within the first 5 letters was completely wrong so i considered it beneath me to carry on reading"...yours truly,dr. john(M.D in c.ockology and knobbery).
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're the same type of person who disagrees with science.
0
Quote Originally Posted by melossinglet:
wow,this dr. john character sure is one arrogant,self-important,condescending pile of shiit aint he??
comes in stating supposed "facts" about how books operate their bizness like he's sum world authority..then wen sumone calls him out and asks to cite his source of information he deflects and says "im not gonna do your homework for you"ya cant make this stuff up,folks.
so far i believe in every single post he has flat out told others that they are wrong when really wats being discussed is to sum degree a matter of conjecture and opinion...it is highly doubtful any person here is privy to the inner workings of the sports gambling industry at large so YES,when making bold,definitive statements it wud be kinda nice to hear sum sort of evidence or source of figures and/or operating procedures.
hmmmmm,now lemme guess wat kind of retort we'll get here.............okay,i think im gonna go with...."i didnt read your whole post because everything contained within the first 5 letters was completely wrong so i considered it beneath me to carry on reading"...yours truly,dr. john(M.D in c.ockology and knobbery).
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're the same type of person who disagrees with science.
DrJohn - it is clear you are not getting the point suuma is trying to make. Yes, Redskins held the lead for a large part of the game. But the reason why that is so is due to how many random botched plays and mistakes the Falcons made. If the game were to be replayed again, would you take the Redskins +7 again? From what I saw and read, seems Falcons would have a better than 50/50 chance of covering 7. At home, they are 7 or more points better (on average) than the Redskins. At least that's my take.
Personally, I don't consider the team that lead for 90% of the time (hard fact) to be getting lucky when they cover. Perhaps I'm in the minority though.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lakerz:
DrJohn - it is clear you are not getting the point suuma is trying to make. Yes, Redskins held the lead for a large part of the game. But the reason why that is so is due to how many random botched plays and mistakes the Falcons made. If the game were to be replayed again, would you take the Redskins +7 again? From what I saw and read, seems Falcons would have a better than 50/50 chance of covering 7. At home, they are 7 or more points better (on average) than the Redskins. At least that's my take.
Personally, I don't consider the team that lead for 90% of the time (hard fact) to be getting lucky when they cover. Perhaps I'm in the minority though.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're the same type of person who disagrees with science.
science???..na,im actually a big fan of science.
you stating your opinion with zero amount of anything to back it up and then calling it fact(whilst in the process telling everyone else they are wrong) is actually the OPPOSITE of science.
how the fu.k wud you know the exact inner workings of the sports betting industry as a whole??
0
Quote Originally Posted by DrJohn3719:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're the same type of person who disagrees with science.
science???..na,im actually a big fan of science.
you stating your opinion with zero amount of anything to back it up and then calling it fact(whilst in the process telling everyone else they are wrong) is actually the OPPOSITE of science.
how the fu.k wud you know the exact inner workings of the sports betting industry as a whole??
@suuma - most of what you said is true about me. I may be delusional, crazy, moronic, mentally disabled - whatever you wish to call it. I couldn't cap a game if my life depended on it. That's why I rely on heavy fade materials like yourself. So far I'm even money. LeagueCapper has been so kind to me. I'm up about 20 units fading him.
0
@suuma - most of what you said is true about me. I may be delusional, crazy, moronic, mentally disabled - whatever you wish to call it. I couldn't cap a game if my life depended on it. That's why I rely on heavy fade materials like yourself. So far I'm even money. LeagueCapper has been so kind to me. I'm up about 20 units fading him.
Yes, the Charles injury did hurt the Chiefs in yesterday's loss but the fact remains Kansas City held an 11-point lead with under five minutes left in regulation against a team with no WRs and a banged-up offensive line. That's a game you can't lose.
I had KC as part of a ML parlay so I'm still pretty steamed. But I should blame myself because thing I learned over the years from being a diehard Eagles fan is to never trust an Andy Reid-coached team. I know his career record (blah, blah) but his in-game adjustments and clock management always have been horrible.
Kansas City has now managed one offensive touchdown the last two weeks. Quite the offensive coach Mr, Reid is there. There's a reason this man hasn't won a playoff game since 2008.
0
Yes, the Charles injury did hurt the Chiefs in yesterday's loss but the fact remains Kansas City held an 11-point lead with under five minutes left in regulation against a team with no WRs and a banged-up offensive line. That's a game you can't lose.
I had KC as part of a ML parlay so I'm still pretty steamed. But I should blame myself because thing I learned over the years from being a diehard Eagles fan is to never trust an Andy Reid-coached team. I know his career record (blah, blah) but his in-game adjustments and clock management always have been horrible.
Kansas City has now managed one offensive touchdown the last two weeks. Quite the offensive coach Mr, Reid is there. There's a reason this man hasn't won a playoff game since 2008.
i swear these trolls work for the books to piss off and drive away good cappers from this site. If u fade all these people wouldn't you not say anything at all to piss them off coz if they leave there goes your money train. Who would you fade then? I think there are numerous trolls on here paid specifically by the books
0
i swear these trolls work for the books to piss off and drive away good cappers from this site. If u fade all these people wouldn't you not say anything at all to piss them off coz if they leave there goes your money train. Who would you fade then? I think there are numerous trolls on here paid specifically by the books
i swear these trolls work for the books to piss off and drive away good cappers from this site. If u fade all these people wouldn't you not say anything at all to piss them off coz if they leave there goes your money train. Who would you fade then? I think there are numerous trolls on here paid specifically by the books
Give me a break, the "books" could care less. There's not enough dollars for them to care coming from the guys who visit these threads. WOW
The trolls are just a bunch of losers with nothing better to do.
Histrionic personality disorder. It's sad
0
Quote Originally Posted by sharkscore:
i swear these trolls work for the books to piss off and drive away good cappers from this site. If u fade all these people wouldn't you not say anything at all to piss them off coz if they leave there goes your money train. Who would you fade then? I think there are numerous trolls on here paid specifically by the books
Give me a break, the "books" could care less. There's not enough dollars for them to care coming from the guys who visit these threads. WOW
The trolls are just a bunch of losers with nothing better to do.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
ya cant make this stuff up,folks.
Hot Forum Topics
