Panda and Pucku have similarities and differences.
The similarities...
BOTH gain a ton of attention around here.
The differences....
-Puck gains attention simply by posting his bets and winning games without the bs drama. -Never tells people to follow him, and never says shit about being the best.
-Panda gains attention by posting bonehead retarded comments on a daily basis. Clearly panda did not receive enough attention as a child, and turns to covers to get what he did not receive as a kid. -Constantly saying how good he is, and asking people to follow his picks, while being a mediocre capper AT BEST. -Ultimately gives new meaning to the word "attention person."
0
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
Panda and Pucku have similarities and differences.
The similarities...
BOTH gain a ton of attention around here.
The differences....
-Puck gains attention simply by posting his bets and winning games without the bs drama. -Never tells people to follow him, and never says shit about being the best.
-Panda gains attention by posting bonehead retarded comments on a daily basis. Clearly panda did not receive enough attention as a child, and turns to covers to get what he did not receive as a kid. -Constantly saying how good he is, and asking people to follow his picks, while being a mediocre capper AT BEST. -Ultimately gives new meaning to the word "attention person."
lol you have to be kidding. Not only was he bashing FSU backers, he was telling us that the worse team was the easy pick. But his pick was never posted before the game...
0
lol you have to be kidding. Not only was he bashing FSU backers, he was telling us that the worse team was the easy pick. But his pick was never posted before the game...
lol you have to be kidding. Not only was he bashing FSU backers, he was telling us that the worse team was the easy pick. But his pick was never posted before the game...
Yea the end of the thread pretty much sums it up. Definitely didn't sound like bashing to me
0
Quote Originally Posted by jwheels86:
lol you have to be kidding. Not only was he bashing FSU backers, he was telling us that the worse team was the easy pick. But his pick was never posted before the game...
Yea the end of the thread pretty much sums it up. Definitely didn't sound like bashing to me
rangerz just went back to that thread. that jackass was all over MSU and acted like they were an easy cover. the line opened at like 17.5 and i don't know of anyone who cashed a ticket with MSU without buying points, and 80% of covers members were on cal
0
rangerz just went back to that thread. that jackass was all over MSU and acted like they were an easy cover. the line opened at like 17.5 and i don't know of anyone who cashed a ticket with MSU without buying points, and 80% of covers members were on cal
rangerz just went back to that thread. that jackass was all over MSU and acted like they were an easy cover. the line opened at like 17.5 and i don't know of anyone who cashed a ticket with MSU without buying points, and 80% of covers members were on cal
Which thread are we talking about? The one I posted was in regards to Fsu/Wisky.
0
Quote Originally Posted by landis1717:
rangerz just went back to that thread. that jackass was all over MSU and acted like they were an easy cover. the line opened at like 17.5 and i don't know of anyone who cashed a ticket with MSU without buying points, and 80% of covers members were on cal
Which thread are we talking about? The one I posted was in regards to Fsu/Wisky.
same thread, i think he was talking about how MSU over robert morris was a square play that hit, and i don't recall seeing that line below 15 ever and don't recall anyone saying they hit with MSU
0
same thread, i think he was talking about how MSU over robert morris was a square play that hit, and i don't recall seeing that line below 15 ever and don't recall anyone saying they hit with MSU
Ohhhh ok gotcha. Yea your right but I was just talking in terms of the end of that thread where he says he didn't talk shit about FSU backers. I obviously showed proof and there isn't much he can dispute.
0
Ohhhh ok gotcha. Yea your right but I was just talking in terms of the end of that thread where he says he didn't talk shit about FSU backers. I obviously showed proof and there isn't much he can dispute.
yeah, another new member who is a complete dick, soon enough to be banned and make a new name. i only made the comment because thats the first i revisited the thread.
0
yeah, another new member who is a complete dick, soon enough to be banned and make a new name. i only made the comment because thats the first i revisited the thread.
I know this should be over and done with and I am on the side that
buying two in the long run probably isn't the best idea. I really
couldn't understand why puck bought two on a play he deemed game of the
year. I always feel that if you need to buy points you probably
shouldn't be betting the game. With that being said, I also got to
stand by Puck when he disputes the 61% because how many extra games is
Puck winning because he bought the two points? In other words, Puck
has increased his chances of winning by buying those two points, of
course if he won't collect as much dough, but he'll win more of the time. I have broken it down below estimating that a unit at $150 for the sake of easy math. Puck says he pays -150 juice when buys 2 and we'll say that if he doesn't buy 2 the juice is at -110 so when he wins by buying 2 he profits a 100 bucks and when he wins without buying two he profits 136.36.
Now Puck says he is 11-3 which means he would have won $1100 (11x100) and lost $450 (150X3) for a profit of $650. Now he says two of the games would have been losers have he bet it without buying the points. If he had bet 150 on those 14 games at -110 juice and won 9 instead of 11 here's how it would look. He would have won 1227.24 (136.36x 9) and lost 750 (150x5) for a profit of 477.24. So in buying two points with a unit estimated at $150 per game risked Puck has profited an 172.76 by buying two points......Now I'm sure he is not risking the same amount per game but I just wanted to break it down in an easy logical way. The one question remains is whether or not buying two points helps you to win an 14% of your games like it has in Puck's case, but if he can identify the right games as he has in this tourney, then the system could work in the short term as it has for him.
Did any of that just make sense?
0
I know this should be over and done with and I am on the side that
buying two in the long run probably isn't the best idea. I really
couldn't understand why puck bought two on a play he deemed game of the
year. I always feel that if you need to buy points you probably
shouldn't be betting the game. With that being said, I also got to
stand by Puck when he disputes the 61% because how many extra games is
Puck winning because he bought the two points? In other words, Puck
has increased his chances of winning by buying those two points, of
course if he won't collect as much dough, but he'll win more of the time. I have broken it down below estimating that a unit at $150 for the sake of easy math. Puck says he pays -150 juice when buys 2 and we'll say that if he doesn't buy 2 the juice is at -110 so when he wins by buying 2 he profits a 100 bucks and when he wins without buying two he profits 136.36.
Now Puck says he is 11-3 which means he would have won $1100 (11x100) and lost $450 (150X3) for a profit of $650. Now he says two of the games would have been losers have he bet it without buying the points. If he had bet 150 on those 14 games at -110 juice and won 9 instead of 11 here's how it would look. He would have won 1227.24 (136.36x 9) and lost 750 (150x5) for a profit of 477.24. So in buying two points with a unit estimated at $150 per game risked Puck has profited an 172.76 by buying two points......Now I'm sure he is not risking the same amount per game but I just wanted to break it down in an easy logical way. The one question remains is whether or not buying two points helps you to win an 14% of your games like it has in Puck's case, but if he can identify the right games as he has in this tourney, then the system could work in the short term as it has for him.
[Quote: Originally Posted by goatmc] I know this should be over and done with and I am on the side that buying two in the long run probably isn't the best idea. I really couldn't understand why puck bought two on a play he deemed game of the year. I always feel that if you need to buy points you probably shouldn't be betting the game. With that being said, I also got to stand by Puck when he disputes the 61% because how many extra games is Puck winning because he bought the two points? In other words, Puck has increased his chances of winning by buying those two points, of course if he won't collect as much dough, but he'll win more of the time. I have broken it down below estimating that a unit at $150 for the sake of easy math. Puck says he pays -150 juice when buys 2 and we'll say that if he doesn't buy 2 the juice is at -110 so when he wins by buying 2 he profits a 100 bucks and when he wins without buying two he profits 136.36.
Now Puck says he is 11-3 which means he would have won $1100 (11x100) and lost $450 (150X3) for a profit of $650. Now he says two of the games would have been losers have he bet it without buying the points. If he had bet 150 on those 14 games at -110 juice and won 9 instead of 11 here's how it would look. He would have won 1227.24 (136.36x 9) and lost 750 (150x5) for a profit of 477.24. So in buying two points with a unit estimated at $150 per game risked Puck has profited an 172.76 by buying two points......Now I'm sure he is not risking the same amount per game but I just wanted to break it down in an easy logical way. The one question remains is whether or not buying two points helps you to win an 14% of your games like it has in Puck's case, but if he can identify the right games as he has in this tourney, then the system could work in the short term as it has for him.
Did any of that just make sense?
[/Quo
yeah but i think when people buy they do it to win the same amount.
0
[Quote: Originally Posted by goatmc] I know this should be over and done with and I am on the side that buying two in the long run probably isn't the best idea. I really couldn't understand why puck bought two on a play he deemed game of the year. I always feel that if you need to buy points you probably shouldn't be betting the game. With that being said, I also got to stand by Puck when he disputes the 61% because how many extra games is Puck winning because he bought the two points? In other words, Puck has increased his chances of winning by buying those two points, of course if he won't collect as much dough, but he'll win more of the time. I have broken it down below estimating that a unit at $150 for the sake of easy math. Puck says he pays -150 juice when buys 2 and we'll say that if he doesn't buy 2 the juice is at -110 so when he wins by buying 2 he profits a 100 bucks and when he wins without buying two he profits 136.36.
Now Puck says he is 11-3 which means he would have won $1100 (11x100) and lost $450 (150X3) for a profit of $650. Now he says two of the games would have been losers have he bet it without buying the points. If he had bet 150 on those 14 games at -110 juice and won 9 instead of 11 here's how it would look. He would have won 1227.24 (136.36x 9) and lost 750 (150x5) for a profit of 477.24. So in buying two points with a unit estimated at $150 per game risked Puck has profited an 172.76 by buying two points......Now I'm sure he is not risking the same amount per game but I just wanted to break it down in an easy logical way. The one question remains is whether or not buying two points helps you to win an 14% of your games like it has in Puck's case, but if he can identify the right games as he has in this tourney, then the system could work in the short term as it has for him.
Did any of that just make sense?
[/Quo
yeah but i think when people buy they do it to win the same amount.
Let me ask this question. He throws out the side and if he chooses to buy the points who cares???? If you choose to take the side without points who cares???? I don't get it? Sometimes I feel like these are women on here???? Fuckin relax???Who cares what someone else does. This is what we hate on our women for. They have the drama meter turned waaaaay up. Well Red Panda I have respect for you but COME ON! WHO CARES and LAKERS????? COME ON DUDE! I Have followed your picks too many times to see you stoop to this??
PUCK U! Keep up the shit! Work well done and we appreciate it. Life is full of drama and we have trash cans and this is a time to dispose of theirs!
Good Luck guys.
0
Let me ask this question. He throws out the side and if he chooses to buy the points who cares???? If you choose to take the side without points who cares???? I don't get it? Sometimes I feel like these are women on here???? Fuckin relax???Who cares what someone else does. This is what we hate on our women for. They have the drama meter turned waaaaay up. Well Red Panda I have respect for you but COME ON! WHO CARES and LAKERS????? COME ON DUDE! I Have followed your picks too many times to see you stoop to this??
PUCK U! Keep up the shit! Work well done and we appreciate it. Life is full of drama and we have trash cans and this is a time to dispose of theirs!
I'm not saying he's dumb for buying 2... Its just that he'd be up more money if he didn't... Thats all.... Its simple math.... And yet, some people don't get it.... I guess I can't convince you guys... Oh well............
0
I'm not saying he's dumb for buying 2... Its just that he'd be up more money if he didn't... Thats all.... Its simple math.... And yet, some people don't get it.... I guess I can't convince you guys... Oh well............
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.
Hot Forum Topics
