Not trying to get in the middle of this little spat, but i've been reading dl36 thread for awhile and he's right. I'm a teaser player myelf, ecpecially of the 13 pt. variety. Bodog(Newbodog) and 5dimes lines are -120(13pt) and -110-(10pt.). It been like that for years at BoDog, can't speak on 5Dimes history cuz I just opened my account 2 weeks ago, but it's the same as Bodog. I assume you've been profiled with higher lines at Bodog. Here is $ 12 teaser from Bodog on Monday Frank. I won't play these higher than $50 dollars because it's been MY experience to lose or break even with them. However, I like mixing a teaser together when I have no opinion, insight, or strong feel on a game and need the action, like the Degenerate I am. Monday's TT/SMU would be an example. Here is the teaser showing -120
Date placed: Sep 03, 2007 3:52p Date settled: Sep 03, 2007 11:48p |
4 Team Teaser # 82980005
Football - College Lines (Game)Total
(223) Texas Tech vs. (224) SMU Over48 Mon@4:00p (Teased 13.0 points)Final Scores Texas Tech49 SMU9 Football - College Lines (Game)Pointspread
(224) SMU+22½ Mon@4:00p (Teased 13.0 points)Final Scores Texas Tech49 SMU9 Football - College Lines (Game)Total
(225) Florida State vs. (226) Clemson Under58 Mon@8:00p (Teased 13.0 points)Final Scores Florida State18 Clemson24 Football - College Lines (Game)Pointspread
(226) Clemson+16½ Mon@8:00p (Teased 13.0 points)Final Scores Florida State18 Clemson24 |
Outcome:
Loss |
Risk $12.00 to win $10.00 |
Not trying to get in the middle of this little spat, but i've been reading dl36 thread for awhile and he's right. I'm a teaser player myelf, ecpecially of the 13 pt. variety. Bodog(Newbodog) and 5dimes lines are -120(13pt) and -110-(10pt.). It been like that for years at BoDog, can't speak on 5Dimes history cuz I just opened my account 2 weeks ago, but it's the same as Bodog. I assume you've been profiled with higher lines at Bodog. Here is $ 12 teaser from Bodog on Monday Frank. I won't play these higher than $50 dollars because it's been MY experience to lose or break even with them. However, I like mixing a teaser together when I have no opinion, insight, or strong feel on a game and need the action, like the Degenerate I am. Monday's TT/SMU would be an example. Here is the teaser showing -120
Date placed: Sep 03, 2007 3:52p Date settled: Sep 03, 2007 11:48p |
4 Team Teaser # 82980005
Football - College Lines (Game)Total
(223) Texas Tech vs. (224) SMU Over48 Mon@4:00p (Teased 13.0 points)Final Scores Texas Tech49 SMU9 Football - College Lines (Game)Pointspread
(224) SMU+22½ Mon@4:00p (Teased 13.0 points)Final Scores Texas Tech49 SMU9 Football - College Lines (Game)Total
(225) Florida State vs. (226) Clemson Under58 Mon@8:00p (Teased 13.0 points)Final Scores Florida State18 Clemson24 Football - College Lines (Game)Pointspread
(226) Clemson+16½ Mon@8:00p (Teased 13.0 points)Final Scores Florida State18 Clemson24 |
Outcome:
Loss |
Risk $12.00 to win $10.00 |
No matter what sportsbook you use a person is going to have to pay a higher vig for the four team 13 pt. teasers than the three point 10 point plays. A discussion which purports to explain "The math behind 4 team 13 point teasers versus 3 team 10 point teasers" that fails to discuss the vig is totally flawed. That's my point. Not sure why this is so difficult to see and why the point is being belabored.
If the four teamers and the three teamers both come it at about the same success rate as dl36 posts instructs, than having to pay the higher vig on the four teamers makes the four teamers a much worse bet. dl36 makes no mention of this as he discusses "The math behind 4 team 13 point teasers versus 3 team 10 point teasers." What needs to be said is that four teamers suck as compared to three teamers for this reason but dl36 never mentions the higher vig and leaves the impression both bets are of equal "Math" value. Pretty weak, i'd say.
No matter what sportsbook you use a person is going to have to pay a higher vig for the four team 13 pt. teasers than the three point 10 point plays. A discussion which purports to explain "The math behind 4 team 13 point teasers versus 3 team 10 point teasers" that fails to discuss the vig is totally flawed. That's my point. Not sure why this is so difficult to see and why the point is being belabored.
If the four teamers and the three teamers both come it at about the same success rate as dl36 posts instructs, than having to pay the higher vig on the four teamers makes the four teamers a much worse bet. dl36 makes no mention of this as he discusses "The math behind 4 team 13 point teasers versus 3 team 10 point teasers." What needs to be said is that four teamers suck as compared to three teamers for this reason but dl36 never mentions the higher vig and leaves the impression both bets are of equal "Math" value. Pretty weak, i'd say.
You don't have the game to run me off nor apparently the character to admit that paying double the vig for the same rate of success is something you failed to mention and isn't a very smart move.
You don't have the game to run me off nor apparently the character to admit that paying double the vig for the same rate of success is something you failed to mention and isn't a very smart move.
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.