Posted:
#651
Hey 'Scal.. .I am all for your DipSHTted , lying candidate...
Is that what you're sayin'.. 
Presidential Election
Posted:
#652
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Hillary down to -165 on 5 Dimes. I have to say, Trump backers are not only stupid on the selection of their GOP nominee, but are even more dimwitted at the betting window.
Hillary down to -165 on 5 Dimes. I have to say, Trump backers are not only stupid on the selection of their GOP nominee, but are even more dimwitted at the betting window.
I believe the stupid one would be the person who started a thread to announce that HRC at -300 was the bet of the century.
I'm not sure what is dumber, HRC at -300, or the Buff Bills season win total over 8
Keep making long winded threads, they serve two purposes.
1) great fade material
2) provide me with material for my verbal azz-raping of you
Please stay in communication with me, I thoroughly enjoy it!!!
bigreds daddy
Posted:
#653
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
I believe the stupid one would be the person who started a thread to announce that HRC at -300 was the bet of the century.
I'm not sure what is dumber, HRC at -300, or the Buff Bills season win total over 8
Keep making long winded threads, they serve two purposes.
1) great fade material
2) provide me with material for my verbal azz-raping of you
Please stay in communication with me, I thoroughly enjoy it!!!
I did not say it was the best bet of the century. I said Hillary winning was FREE MONEY at any odds.
So I guess indirectly you are spewing on Vanzack since this thread is dedicated to a -300 pick. Are you doing that too?
Like Trump, you don't even know where you are. Of course the odds can shift.
A winner at -300 or a winner at -165 is a winner. One collects less. Thanks for the newsflash. Both profit and both can profit signifcantly.
Hugh, you really need to contribute something to this forum because as I see it, as far as capping goes, you do absolutely nothing on a gambling website. Put yourself out there. Take a risk. You only live once kid. Get your head out of the sand. Or not...you self-proclaimed liberal. LOL.
Posted:
#654
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
I believe the stupid one would be the person who started a thread to announce that HRC at -300 was the bet of the century.
I'm not sure what is dumber, HRC at -300, or the Buff Bills season win total over 8
Keep making long winded threads, they serve two purposes.
1) great fade material
2) provide me with material for my verbal azz-raping of you
Please stay in communication with me, I thoroughly enjoy it!!!
So the bills bet is now toast in game TWO. What a fuc King dunce you are in a season they lost two games by a combined 12 points. Yes, bet over in game 2. What a troll
Posted:
#655
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Hillary down to -165 on 5 Dimes. I have to say, Trump backers are not only stupid on the selection of their GOP nominee, but are even more dimwitted at the betting window.
Hillary down to -165 on 5 Dimes. I have to say, Trump backers are not only stupid on the selection of their GOP nominee, but are even more dimwitted at the betting window.
I was thinking anything sub -200 was a good bet. This basic guideline worked on the last presidential thread with Obama Winning and make everyone money.
I would think at -165 it would be worth biting at that price as ive seen it above -400 less than a month ago.
Posted:
#656
Trumps ahead in Florida, Ohio, NC, and Iowa as it currently stands in several polls. Even if he wins all four its going to be irrelevant if he can't win Pennsylvania. PA hasn't voted Republican since George Bush Sr. In 2008, Obama won PA by 10% but only by 5% in 2012. Not only did republicans gain 5% in the state in 4 years, but every area of PA voted Republican except Philly and Pittsburgh. Hilary will surely be able to secure Philly, but living in the Pittsburgh area as I currently do, I wouldn't be shocked at all if Trump got a lot of blue collar support that would normally go towards the Democratic candidate. However all that being said, -165 for Hilary where she basically has to lose 4 very competitive states in Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and NC..PLUS.. lose a state Democrats have held for 3 decades seems like great odds. I'm really pulling for Trump because I hate the direction this country is headed under Obama and I know it will continue, but I just see a slim chance he can pull it off. If I had a betting interest in the election, which I don't, I'd jump on this line for Hilary right now.
Posted:
#657
Quote Originally Posted by StanThaCaddy:
Trumps ahead in Florida, Ohio, NC, and Iowa as it currently stands in several polls. Even if he wins all four its going to be irrelevant if he can't win Pennsylvania. PA hasn't voted Republican since George Bush Sr. In 2008, Obama won PA by 10% but only by 5% in 2012. Not only did republicans gain 5% in the state in 4 years, but every area of PA voted Republican except Philly and Pittsburgh. Hilary will surely be able to secure Philly, but living in the Pittsburgh area as I currently do, I wouldn't be shocked at all if Trump got a lot of blue collar support that would normally go towards the Democratic candidate. However all that being said, -165 for Hilary where she basically has to lose 4 very competitive states in Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and NC..PLUS.. lose a state Democrats have held for 3 decades seems like great odds. I'm really pulling for Trump because I hate the direction this country is headed under Obama and I know it will continue, but I just see a slim chance he can pull it off. If I had a betting interest in the election, which I don't, I'd jump on this line for Hilary right now.
Trump doesn't need Pennsylvania. He could take Colorado (as well as Florida, Ohio, NC and Nevada - all states he's currently ahead in) and win by a very narrow margin.Trumps ahead in Florida, Ohio, NC, and Iowa as it currently stands in several polls. Even if he wins all four its going to be irrelevant if he can't win Pennsylvania. PA hasn't voted Republican since George Bush Sr. In 2008, Obama won PA by 10% but only by 5% in 2012. Not only did republicans gain 5% in the state in 4 years, but every area of PA voted Republican except Philly and Pittsburgh. Hilary will surely be able to secure Philly, but living in the Pittsburgh area as I currently do, I wouldn't be shocked at all if Trump got a lot of blue collar support that would normally go towards the Democratic candidate. However all that being said, -165 for Hilary where she basically has to lose 4 very competitive states in Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and NC..PLUS.. lose a state Democrats have held for 3 decades seems like great odds. I'm really pulling for Trump because I hate the direction this country is headed under Obama and I know it will continue, but I just see a slim chance he can pull it off. If I had a betting interest in the election, which I don't, I'd jump on this line for Hilary right now.
Obviously it would be difficult to capture all those states, but by the way the recent polls are going, he's looking likely to do it.
Posted:
#658
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
I was thinking anything sub -200 was a good bet. This basic guideline worked on the last presidential thread with Obama Winning and make everyone money.
I would think at -165 it would be worth biting at that price as ive seen it above -400 less than a month ago.
DL, it is FREE MONEYand now the odds are outstanding.
These swing happen every election.
Obama had a 7 pt lead on Romney and after the first debate, the polls showed it was even.
What happened in 2012? Obama crushed.
While Hillary won't destroy Trump. She will win.
Obama has 1% support of blacks. He gift-wrapped that demographic to Hillary. 13% of the population. For nothing.
He has 22% of Hispanic support.
Neither numbers will improve. You will not win an election in 2016 with these numbers.
So let the polls show everything being close. When the election comes Hillary will win even if she has to be rolled out on a gurney to accept the nomination.
Posted:
#659
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Hillary down to -165 on 5 Dimes. I have to say, Trump backers are not only stupid on the selection of their GOP nominee, but are even more dimwitted at the betting window.
I'll pound -165 'all day long' what a drop from -320...I mean, is there actually bettors who think Trump is going to WIN the U.S. Presidency? and actually bet on him to win? (+265) then by all means, be my guest, the biggest azz wins.....Hillary down to -165 on 5 Dimes. I have to say, Trump backers are not only stupid on the selection of their GOP nominee, but are even more dimwitted at the betting window.
Posted:
#660
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
I did not say it was the best bet of the century. I said Hillary winning was FREE MONEY at any odds.
Actually what you said was "Hillary at -300 is the biggest joke of all time"
Now that you can get Hillary at half that price, the -300 was not such a funny joke was it?
You claimed you parlayed HRC at -300 into "literally every bet"
Go ahead and deflect, as you are well versed in doing so, but that does not change the fact that when you bet anything at -300, and it can be had at -165 days later, it was a terrible bet.
Once again, you made a thread where you mouthed off and stated your opinions as being irrefutable facts, and once again you have proven yourself to be a complete tool.
Scal, there was a time when you were capable of some semblance of a counter-argument.
What happened?
This has become too easy for me. It's like playing chess against a blind 3 year old with down syndrome.
Step up your game, Scal
bigreds daddy
Posted:
#662
Quote Originally Posted by sundance:
Trump cuts Hilary's lead from13 to 6 in extremely liberal MN.
Trump cuts Hilary's lead from13 to 6 in extremely liberal MN.
Mass knifings like in the Minnesota mall in St. Cloud,Minn.by a Muslim yelling “Allah Akbar” as he attacked shoppers with a knife(only to be stopped by a man with a gun)..should cut into Hillary's led in Minn.even more.....
Posted:
#664
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
Actually what you said was "Hillary at -300 is the biggest joke of all time"
Now that you can get Hillary at half that price, the -300 was not such a funny joke was it?
You claimed you parlayed HRC at -300 into "literally every bet"
Go ahead and deflect, as you are well versed in doing so, but that does not change the fact that when you bet anything at -300, and it can be had at -165 days later, it was a terrible bet.
Once again, you made a thread where you mouthed off and stated your opinions as being irrefutable facts, and once again you have proven yourself to be a complete tool.
Scal, there was a time when you were capable of some semblance of a counter-argument.
What happened?
This has become too easy for me. It's like playing chess against a blind 3 year old with down syndrome.
Step up your game, Scal
I've been saying -300/-265/-220 are jokes everywhere on this site and you know because you ARE IN THOSE OTHER THREADS: the point get in and you will win money.
I do have her parlayed all across the betting line spectrum NOT just at -300. I have her as high as -370 as Trump epically flubs his speeches and as low as -165. I will collect on ALL OF THEM. Simple enough.
It is FREE MONEY And I say that now and stick to it until November AT ANY ODDS, and if Hillary goes to -500 play that too. You will do NOTHING but profit.
Rag on me if Trump wins, not on line movement. That's amateur hour.
Posted:
#667
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
I've been saying -300/-265/-220 are jokes everywhere on this site and you know because you ARE IN THOSE OTHER THREADS: the point get in and you will win money.
I do have her parlayed all across the betting line spectrum NOT just at -300. I have her as high as -370 as Trump epically flubs his speeches and as low as -165. I will collect on ALL OF THEM. Simple enough.
I won't bother to point out the obvious difference between laying -370, and -165 in a parlay.
A bad line is a bad line.
I will attempt to start civil discourse with you, although we both know this probably won't end that way ...
I have been of the opinion from day 1 that HRC was going to win in a landslide.
This was before the GOP field narrowed.
Once it was known that Trump was her competition, I assumed we were all simply waiting until November to make it official.
Seriously, Trump just couldn't win.
Alas, a funny thing happened on the way to the voting booths ...
Trump has surprising resiliency, as well as the growing support of many voters within key swing states. I don't understand it, but it sure as hell is happening.
More importantly, the wild card in this entire sh!t show is Julian Assange.
He very well might have the ability to shine a bright light on the unconscionable corruptness which is the Clinton Machine.
(spare me any talk of HRC not being corrupt)
I would not bet against Assange, and definitely not at -300
bigreds daddy
Posted:
#669
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Hillary down to -165 on 5 Dimes. I have to say, Trump backers are not only stupid on the selection of their GOP nominee, but are even more dimwitted at the betting window.
Hillary down to -165 on 5 Dimes. I have to say, Trump backers are not only stupid on the selection of their GOP nominee, but are even more dimwitted at the betting window.
So you don't worry about your wagers, here is an article to help you sleep well ...
No matter that it comes from a site that is so far left that even Bernie questions its bias. It is still something to think about
bigreds daddy
Posted:
#671
Just wait till Hillary unloads the rest of her war chest...of the $149,912,723 million in booked TV and radio spending through
election day for these three presidential candidates,
$145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PAC's...Trump's campaign/PAC total $4,420,819 and Johnson $192,177...with that kind of spending by Hillary how can she lose?
$145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PAC's...Trump's campaign/PAC total $4,420,819 and Johnson $192,177...with that kind of spending by Hillary how can she lose?
Posted:
#672
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
I won't bother to point out the obvious difference between laying -370, and -165 in a parlay.
A bad line is a bad line.
I will attempt to start civil discourse with you, although we both know this probably won't end that way ...
I have been of the opinion from day 1 that HRC was going to win in a landslide.
This was before the GOP field narrowed.
Once it was known that Trump was her competition, I assumed we were all simply waiting until November to make it official.
Seriously, Trump just couldn't win.
Alas, a funny thing happened on the way to the voting booths ...
Trump has surprising resiliency, as well as the growing support of many voters within key swing states. I don't understand it, but it sure as hell is happening.
More importantly, the wild card in this entire sh!t show is Julian Assange.
He very well might have the ability to shine a bright light on the unconscionable corruptness which is the Clinton Machine.
(spare me any talk of HRC not being corrupt)
I would not bet against Assange, and definitely not at -300
Then you are losing money.
A bad line is not a losing line and a stock at $50 is worth money if it goes to $100 just as a stock at $20 is worth money if it goes to $100.
I will make a personal guarantee Hillary will win the election.
Again, I'm so confident of it, it is tied into 90% of my bets.
I repeat, you CANNOT win an election completely alienating blacks (and that NY Post article showing some 18% of black support has to be one of the all time great pieces of bogus new reporting), and Hispanics at 22%.
They ARE NOT coming back. The damage is done.
That leaves Trump with ONE OUT. Disenfranchised Whites vote en masse. This is the same exact thing Romney depended on and he got the doors blown off him in 2012. And worse Trump's OWN party is trying to sabotage him and with good reason.
And while this election will be closer because their is more societal angst/terrorism/shrinking economy and wage base, HRC will prevail.
And bettors should treat the ever fluctuating lines like buying a stock with dollar cost averaging.
Assange has already released his 'home runs' on HRC per se. What's to come will be notable, but not crippling in any way.
Hope this helped you make money. While I'll collect on some of my 'bad line' at -300 in November, you'll get....nothing. Gosh, I wonder who made the 'bad line' choice in that instance.
Posted:
#673
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
I repeat, you CANNOT win an election completely alienating blacks (and that NY Post article showing some 18% of black support has to be one of the all time great pieces of bogus new reporting), and Hispanics at 22%.
They ARE NOT coming back. The damage is done.
The ARTICLE was taken from the NYPost.
The POLL was done by the LA Times/USC. Not exactly a bastion of conservatism, is it?
https://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Reports on this poll can be found on many, many news sites. The fact that conservative news reported on it, while liberal news made believe it didn't exist should surprise no one. All media has an agenda, but that's a story for another thread.
You call it "bogus news reporting" because you don't care for the info it provided.
Had the poll shown that 0% of blacks supported Trump, you and all the MSM would have run with it as if you had discovered the fountain of youth
bigreds daddy
Posted:
#675
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Then you are losing money.
A bad line is not a losing line and a stock at $50 is worth money if it goes to $100 just as a stock at $20 is worth money if it goes to $100.
I will make a personal guarantee Hillary will win the election.
Again, I'm so confident of it, it is tied into 90% of my bets.
I repeat, you CANNOT win an election completely alienating blacks (and that NY Post article showing some 18% of black support has to be one of the all time great pieces of bogus new reporting), and Hispanics at 22%.
They ARE NOT coming back. The damage is done.
That leaves Trump with ONE OUT. Disenfranchised Whites vote en masse. This is the same exact thing Romney depended on and he got the doors blown off him in 2012. And worse Trump's OWN party is trying to sabotage him and with good reason.
And while this election will be closer because their is more societal angst/terrorism/shrinking economy and wage base, HRC will prevail.
And bettors should treat the ever fluctuating lines like buying a stock with dollar cost averaging.
Assange has already released his 'home runs' on HRC per se. What's to come will be notable, but not crippling in any way.
Hope this helped you make money. While I'll collect on some of my 'bad line' at -300 in November, you'll get....nothing. Gosh, I wonder who made the 'bad line' choice in that instance.
Like stocks, I personally like the fluctuation. The volitility allows for different price points. But not everyone understands stocks.
Also to think that with stocks you always need to buy at its ultimate low and sell at its ultimate high or its Failiure is ridiculous. It is often about the confidence you have the company that it will make money in the end. So trying to time the best price or thinking its failure can often result in missed opportunity. But once again not everyone understand money and investments so perhaps your analogy will go over the heads of the less knowledgable posters who will argue.
Where we differ is that while I do see the African American vote as a part of the picture I think that you can win be alienating African Americans. What you can not so is promote an emotional rhetoric that appeals to the bottom feeders and the low information voting base and alienate the educated voting base.
This idea of shooting for the lowest common denominator is a poor strategy. You can't shoot so low onthe intelligence scale with out alienating the educated white vote which is what we are seeing with trump. To go so emotional and lacking principles seems insulting to the educated white voter any this is what will lose him the election.
Well, one of the things. But this is where we disagree as I see the alienation of the African American vote is less significant than the use of such low brow emotional rhetoric that insults in the intelligence of the educated white vote and alienate them.
Hot Forum Topics
