fluffybucker69

Gulbis is currently ranked around 190 in the world.  So my question is why is this line -160 only?  What am I missing?

And the sooner everyone realizes this, the sooner you'll all make a lot of money.  Right now, these point spreads are underestimating the home court advantage.  I mean I'll be honest I am amazed at how atrocious teams are on the road right now.  It's embarrassing for the sport in my opinion and shows how immature these kids are.  Just because you go into another arena and people are cheering for the other team doesn't mean you should forget how to play the game of basketball.  But the fact of the matter is right now you can make a lot of money just pounding the home teams.  We'll see when Vegas makes line adjustments. 

Few games that stand out -

Clemson beating Duke at home.  They would lose 100 out of 100 times at Duke.  But at home?  They win outright.

Oklahoma State would lose 100 times out of 100 at Baylor.  But at home?  They're up 9 at half and Baylor has to hold on for dear life for the outright win.

Depaul would lose 90% of the time at Butler.  But at home?  They win by 15-20.

Kansas State would lose 98 out of 100 times at West Virginia.  But at home?  They're up 17 at half ROFL.  They're 7-9 guys! 

Miami would probably lose 98-99 times out of 100 at FSU.  But at home?  Well they're in OT currently. 

Texas hasn't won at Kansas since the ice age.  But at home?  Up 5 at half.  It'll probably be a one possession game at the end we'll see.

How about good ol Purdue?  Wins at home by Msu by 30.  Go on the road and get fapped by Maryland.  16 point deficit at halftime.

Auburn?  Off to a perfect undefeated start!  Then they go to Alabama and get bent over.  Then bent over again at Florida.

I also don't think Saint Louis would win more than one out of 50 games at Dayton and last night at home they choke up a massive lead late and get beat by a buzzer beating 3 in OT.

Clemson, Oklahoma State, Depaul, Purdue, and K State aren't even gonna come close to making the tournament. Texas may sneak in?  Yet these teams are all beating "top 10" teams in the country at home and not just winning, but jumping off to big leads in the first half in almost every game.  

Start taking advantage of this.  First off, there should be almost no road favs in college.  This -6 and -7 crap with top 15 teams on the road has to stop.  It doesn't matter who they play.  They're inept on the road.  Those lines should be like -2.5 at most.  And when you have a better team at home, the line should be closer to -9.5 and not -6 like you got in the Maryland game today.  It's just the reality.  In the Big Ten road teams have are like a combined 10 -110 or something crazy like that. 

I rarely post here.  But let me tell you something.  There is one really bad play you can make this week.  You know what that is?  Taking Seattle to cover this spread.  That's a total fish pick. 

Seattle is HORRENDOUS on defense guys.  Have you seen this unit play?  They give up 23-30 to every team in the league.  I think everyone is overlooking this.  I think if you asked most people they might say "Eh they're alright on defense."  Um, no they aren't, they suck.  The Bengals nearly went in and upset them the first week at Seattle.  This is one of the worst 7-2 teams I've actually ever seen.  They've won every game by 1-4 points and their 2 losses they got smoked.  They had no business beating the Browns.  Should have lost to the Rams on the Zuerlein fg.  They probably lose last week if TB goes for 2 after the TD.  They're not good on defense.  And this week they're going up against a strong offensive team.  Contrary to what people think, Garappolo has like a 74 QBR.  He's playing fine, even though a lot of people are giving him overly harsh criticism for some lower point totals vs the Rams and Redskins (in a monsoon).  They got a great offensive line and solid receiving core with Sanders.  I have no reason to expect them to put up less than 30 here.

Will Seattle put up 27-28 in this game?  That's what you gonna need for a good shot at a cover.  And quite frankly SF ought to put up like 38 on this joke of a defense.  I don't see it.  Wilson was bad vs New Orleans.  He was bad vs Baltimore.  And those are the 2 best teams they played.  Yeah he's played well this year, but they've had a lot of soft defenses.  This is such a step up.  When Seattle doesn't run the ball well, and I doubt they will this game, they can get into trouble if they're playing against an above average secondary.  SF is great vs the run and the pass.  Last week Seattle took advantage of a terrible TB pass defense.  This will be a diff story.  Another big flaw in Seattle traditionally is they run the ball too much the first half to try and establish the ground game.  They'll struggle on offense if that doesn't work and then they air it out in the second half trying to catch up.  This isn't a game where you can fall behind.  Their best chance is to go shotgun almost every play from the start and play really aggressively, but I just think this SF defense is too good (especially with Bosa on the edge) to give up more than 23ish points to hardly anyone at home - especially in a prime time game.   Seattle has such little margin for error. 

Correct play is SF.  You know Seattle is terrible on defense.  You know SF is a pretty good offensive team.  You know SF is a very good defensive team.  The unknown is how much damage can Seattle do on offense here.  It's gonna have to be a lot, and I think that's unlikely.  It's hard to go from playing TB where there is such little resistance to SF (best defense in the NFL) in a night game in their house.  This could easily be a 34-13 type game.  SF has a chip and they want to bury this overrated Seattle team who is feeling good about themselves after another fluky win.  People are putting too much stock in the Arizona game (which was a road game guys - this is home BIG DIFF) where honestly SF probably didn't respect them as an opponent and Zona had a lucky 90 yard pass play at the end to make it close.  This is a diff week and every week is its own entity.  Hell, the Ravens beat the Pats at home last week.  But you know what?  They'll get beat up in Gilette in the playoffs when everyone hops on Baltimore thinking they're better than they are.  Either bet SF here or don't play the game. 

I actually just saw that home runs are up 12% from last year.  And in the minor leagues - get this - they're up 47% in the Pacific Coast league and this is the first year they've implemented using major league baseballs.  Pretty much 100% evidence right there that the ball is juiced.  But the comical part is that it was juiced last year.  Apparently that wasn't enough?  The home run rate was like 0.85 4 years ago and 1.15 last year and 1.30 this year.  It's overall a joke.  I think what's probably happening is that not only is it way easier to hit home runs, but that psychologically it's getting in the heads of a lot of pitchers and they tighten up and make more mistakes.  Because all this launch angle stuff came into play a few years ago and the home run rate was around 1 or lower and now it's at 1.30.  In order for there to be that big a difference when stylistically things haven't changed the last 2-3 years there basically has to be a juiced ball.

I'm starting to think MLB panicked when all these guys came in throwing 97 98 mph and they thought they have to mess with the ball to make it easier to score.  Batting averages are down, but more runs are being scored because any time it's put in play now it seems to go over the fence.  Personally, I think it's a shame.  And I find that many of these pitchers have control issues.  I don't think you need to juice the balls to get runs.  Look at Odorizzi, Ryu, even Morton.  None of those guys throw hard.  Morton can get up around 96, but that's nothing crazy.  They just have good offspeed stuff and command. 

Guess I just have to adjust as a bettor.  It used to be easy to pinpoint low scoring games and that was something I always looked to do when looking at an MLB card.  But for the time being it's pretty much you bet the over whether it's a team total or or both teams, the side, or not at all.  I'm retiring from betting unders

First of all, you have no sense of humor.  I was making a joke.  Like you can know nothing about MLB and bet the over every game this year and win. I'm being sarcastic.  Well partly sarcastic.  You'd be 17-5 the last few days.  And you know what, I don't think I can ever recall a time this year with that type of a stretch for unders.  There are just a lot more runs in these games.

For what it's worth though, I know a lot more about MLB than you probably do.  No offense.  I've watched this stuff for a long time.  And there are tons of fine details I think about when picking games that most people don't think about like the reversion to the mean, knowing when guys are due to get rocked or due for a good outing, knowing the makeup of a lineup and the size of the ballpark versus the type of pitcher they're up against (like the Dodgers have 4 lefties in their lineup and they are much more potent against right handed pitchers than left handed pitchers), understanding who has the better bullpen, understanding how to implement bet types like whether you should just bet a side or if it's smarter to bet over a team total or if it's smarter to go run line for the first 5 innings.  I could go on and on.

But this post isn't about that.  The question is there inferior pitching or superior hitting.  I really have no idea.  I will say this.  I think the command from a lot of pitchers is just awful.  They'll get strikeouts, but their misses are turning into homers way too often.  Look at Gerrit Cole.  On pace to break the strikeout record.  Why the hell is his ERA at 3.60?  It should be 2.00.  Because when guys actually make contact it's very solid contact and often home runs. 

Statistically everyone else other than the Dodgers and Cubs has either garbage starting pitching or garbage relievers or both.  The Giants comically have 5 of the better relievers in that entire division but the rest of the team is so bad it doesn't matter because they never have a lead to hold.

If you're betting an under, you have to do it for the first 5 innings.  I don't hardly ever see a total go over for the first 5 and under for the game, but vice versa happens routinely.

Thought I posted this, but I don't see it on the forum.

For those of you who know nothing about MLB, it's fine.  You know why?  You can just bet the over in every single game.  I can remember in years past where there were plenty of 3-1, 3-2, 4-2 games.  Those are few and far between this year.  The over yesterday was 6-3.  Two of the unders barely went under.  Every over went over by like 5-8 runs.  Tonight?  Overall are 11-2.  And most aren't even close.

I think a couple things are in play.  The balls are juiced.  I also think the pitching is just terrible.  The starters are bad.  And the middle relief is even worse.  Most teams can't throw 3 guys in a row without one of them getting hammered.  Every game there's at least one team that seems to put up 6+ runs.

I'd like to hear the thoughts of some of the other cappers on this.  Maybe just go over on the entire board every night.  I'm bewildered by why I see Mets and Nats totals at 8.5 routinely.  They should be at 10 or 10.5  I mean it's a joke.  Even when the first 5 goes under, there will be a 7 run inning later in the game. 

SF was another one I liked.  They are god awful and give up 5+ runs every single game.  Samardjia ... don't think I spelled that right but whatever . . . has actually been decent this year and the SF pen isn't that bad even though their starters overall suck.  Good price at -110.  Probably the only time I'd recommend taking SF this year

Anyone know what the Brewer line was?  Woulda taken them at -140 or less.  Pirates are losers.  But they didn't post the line last night and I can't see what it was today.  I woke up very late today haha.  So if anyone knows thanks.

Dumbest line imo is the Cubs line.  Wainright is trash and vs a good hitting team and very good team in general with Hamels as the opponent it's an even line?  Situation where playing on the road gives you a great price.  But I'm weighting all those games the same.

Gonna create my own post but short on time before games starts so I'll put my picks here and do it later.

Indians +100

Cubs -110

Stros/A's under 7.5 -110

Dodgers first 5 -0.5 -130

Marlins/Padres under 8 -115

Yankees +110

Yeah, hitting the ball harder in tennis is huge dude.  Come on lol.  The harder you hit it, the more control you have over points.  This is why Federer is declining.  He doesn't have the ball pressure he used to.  His returns are softer and they're getting teed up for his opponents.  And obviously he doesn't move as well as he used to so that's not the only thing.  I didn't say accuracy wasn't important.  But if you give me two guys who have relatively similar accuracy and one hits the ball harder, you take the guy who hits the ball harder.  The guy who hits it with less velocity gets pushed back to the baseline and has to do all the defending and that equals losing.

Tennis is brutal, but in these tourneys don't be afraid to bet the dogs.  It looks to me like the favs only go about 75% effort.  How else do you explain Agut beating Joker twice in a few months?  I only think you lay juice in these matches if you think someone has a clear tactical advantage or is just has more momentum.  I saw a couple dogs today like Coric and Tiafoe who were both like +140.  Why?  None of their opponents are better than them.  Kygrios is way too lose to be a favorite over a top 15 player and Goffin doesn't really do anything that much better than Tiafoe to warrant being a favorite.  Tiafoe hits the ball harder.

I was on Hsieh also and got hosed in that one.  I like Tsitsipas later since Shapalov really didn't play that well last night despite winning.  I think that might carry over. 

The WORST THING you can do when betting is back a team that plays the same way as the opponent, except at a second or third rate level.  That's the case here.  I was Oregon in both games so far.  But how are they gonna score vs Virginia?  They don't have explosive offensive play makers.  They got athletic guys who can make plays, but I don't think they're skilled to the point where they can take it to a defense like Virginia.  Oregon has been up and down on offense all year.   Also, their point guard is a White guy who shoots well, but will have trouble getting his own shot in this game.

On the flip side, Virginia has a ton of guys that can shoot.  They got playmakers.  Oregon is very solid on D, but that zone always gets neutralized when you play a team that can shoot it from the outside. 

Good as Oregon is on defense, Virginia is better.  And they're better on offense.  Better on both sides of the ball.  I think this line is very fair.  But I'd take Virginia as I would expect them to lead for most of this game, and if they're not covering at the end the fouling could get the cover.  At 6.5, you definitely take Virginia.  But the couple extra points make it a little harder. 

First off, for those of you struggling in the NBA, if you do nothing but fade a team on the second end of a back to back you'll make money.  I find that the oddsmakers don't adjust these lines enough.  They'll move em by like 3 points.  In reality, teams are performing 10-15 points worse on these back to backs on a regular basis.  GS would have won tonight on extra rest.  They just ran out of gas.

Also, focus on fading teams with injuries who haven't had many games to adjust.  Okc is playing its first game without George.  Line moved 4 points.  Sorry that's not enough!  They haven't played without him all year and are gonna be lost playing without him the first game at least.  Tonight you had Eric Gordon also out for Houston along with Faried.  That line was 9.5 earlier today.  Second end of a back to back.  Yes Miami played last night, but so did Houston and they were never gonna be motivated enough to blow the doors off them tonight. 

We'll see about Utah later tonight.  Second end of a back to back only getting 7.  Denver had a day off.  I don't understand that one personally.  Denver has won 20 of 21 at home or something crazy like that and it seems a bit odd that this would be the second one they lose.  Utah battled last night to win.  They've been awful on back to backs for the most part.

What I'm illustrating is this isn't all about x's and o's.  It's about situations.  I've just come to realize on back to backs and teams with guys sitting out are underperforming the odds adjustment.  Eric Gordon to me sitting out tonight was worth more than just a couple points.  Close to about 7 or 8 honestly because they simply have no perimeter players to really replace him tonight.  You can't win in the NBA without a third scorer who's reliable. 

BTW, love Utah this weekend at home vs Milwaukee on Saturday.  Milwaukee plays on Friday night.  I can almost guarantee you they get fapped on Saturday if they win that one.  And I love Milwaukee.  And no doubt Milwaukee is a far superior team to Utah.  It's just about situations.  Teams on the second half of back to backs tend to just give up.  I don't believe enough bettors are taking advantage of this.  You don't have to know anything!  Just fade teams on the second ends of back to backs.  The lines aren't adjusted enough.  They had GSW -4 at Portland on the second leg a few weeks ago.  That's completely moronic.  Denver would be -5.5 tonight vs Utah normally and it's only at 7 with the back to back . . instead of like 10.

I've withdrawn a solid 20-30k through coinbase the past year.  I wasn't aware it gets reported until later last year.  The thing is though they can't track how much you're losing.  Bitcoin got raped last year.  If you're purchasing bitcoin through other mediums of exchange and losing there and withdrawing some via coinbase they can't tell what you're actually profiting which makes taxes complicated.  It's like if you play poker and all they see is the cashouts, but not the deposits.   What if I withdrew 20k to my bank, but bought in with 70k and blew that off?  Obviously I wouldn't have to pay taxes.  That's the grey area.

Indiana could easily beat Boston or Philly with Oladipo.  They are also underrated.  At least they have a winning road record.

Bucks are 3-1 vs Toronto, 2-1 vs Boston (2 games were in Boston), 2-1 vs Indiana (2 games were in Indiana), and 1-0 vs Philly.

Golden State feels like a lesser team this year.  Green isn't the same player he was.  Iguadola not the monster off the bench he was.  Lack of chemistry with Durant who isn't returning.  Durant has looked off in a lot of games. Question is this how good GS actually is on defense or do they not care at all?  Last year they were 11th and this year they are 16th in defensive rating.  First year with Durant?  2nd in defensive rating.  I honestly think Green and Iguadola carried this team on defense and they are losing a step and that's partly responsible for this. 

I agree the Bucks can improve in the half court, but I think they're better than people realize in that area.  I mean they score 120+ every game.  You don't do that by being ineffective in the half court.  Middleton and Brogdon are very underrated players.  Bledsoe penetrates the paint really well.  He has a little Westbrook in him.  And every big man on the floor can shoot 3s.  You got 3 creators on offense in Middleton, Bledsoe, Giannis.  An extremely dominant post player.  And 4-5 guys who perimeter shooters always on the floor at a time.  BTW, Giannis has been shooting 3s better.

You look at the other teams.  Neither Boston or Toronto has a dominant player in the paint like Giannis.  Philly has Embiid but they don't utilize him as well in the paint imo.  All these other teams get a bit jump shot happy.  The Bucks drive to the basket on every possession and it works well. 

Also - Bucks are #1 in defensive rating.  They got good defensive players.  They got length.  They got a coach who actually knows something about defense.  That's what gives them an edge over Toronto and Philly.  And the edge over Boston is that they are just a bit more efficient on both sides of the ball.

What makes you clowns not understand that the Bucks are better, at least right now, than all these overrated teams?  You think the Bucks would EVER get fapped by a 15 win college level Bulls team on the second night of their back to back when you were on regular rest?  You think the Bucks aren't better than a team like Philly who plays no defense and is a .500 team (like Boston) on the road?  You think the Bucks aren't a little better than a team that was lucky to beat the Spurs by 3 points, a team that's been pretty bad on the road this year and has been terrible on defense for all intents and purposes, at home and follows up that performance by getting trampled at home vs Orlando?  And by the way they also barely beat Brooklyn a couple games before that at home by 2 points.  Championship teams win at least 2 of those 3 by double digits.  We're talking borderline playoff teams at home and you labor in all 3 games.

Granted, I may be a little hard on the Raptors here as they've won a lot of games, but they've been in a lot more closer games than Milwaukee has and has a worse point differential than Boston despite being up 6 games in the loss column on them which means they have a number of close wins and fair amount of 9-10+ point losses.

Just don't think the Bucks get any respect from all the morons on espn and other networks.  They're better on defense than all those teams with the exception of maybe Boston where it's a wash possibly (although I think they are better in defensive effiency) and I think they are the number one team on offense in effiency.  And they're point differential is +10 which is 4 points higher than the next best team in the east and the highest in the NBA.  They are yet to lose back to back games this season.

Think ESPN just loves to take a shit on the Bucks because they aren't a name brand big market like Boston or Philly.  Not saying those teams are bad or anything, but right now Milwaukee is playing much better and retards like Barkley on TNT say he doesn't know who is the best.  Michael Wilbon says the same shit. 

Only question is if the Bucks are playing above their heads because they're a good regular season team which may not translate to the playoffs as well as people think and teams like Boston are underachieving because they're bored with the regular season.  However, I think even if you do get bored by the regular season a championship level team would be doing better than Boston or Philly.  I mean look at Golden State who doesn't give a shit at all (although I do think they're much more beatable this year so there is something to their struggles) and is still projected to win 60 games whereas Boston is in the very low fifties.  Boston and Philly have the same record as Portland and no one takes Portland seriously so why do they take Boston and Philly like they're world beaters?  Hell Portland has a tougher schedule in the west as teams 5-10 are much better. 

Not saying the Bucks are a lock to win the East.  Who knows.  But don't tell me you can't separate these teams when one is 8 games better in the loss column.  They deserve a little more respect than that for completely dominating up to this point.  They should be treated as the favorite to win the conference and possibly beat GS when they have homecourt throughout the playoffs.

With all that being said, they probably lose 3 of the next 5 and make me look bad after posting this.  They do have some challenging road games coming up.

You made a bad play that got there and you end up looking like a genius.  I doubt you were aware of the home/road split with Michigan where they are 20 points better at home, similar to Purdue.  There wasn't anything to suggest Mich St would have the type of offensive success they had tonight with their injuries.  They labored for 30 min vs Rutgers.  More often than not that carries over, but it didn't today and that's why there is no such thing as a lock or certainty in betting.  When you have a home team laying low chalk in a game the crowd is super pumped up for and they're at least equal to on paper they usually win that game.  This Michigan State team lost at home to Indiana and at Illinois btw - 2 teams you should def handle - so randomly winning this game the way they did was somewhat out of nowhere.  Maybe they just improved on a lot of things in practice.  These things do happen.  Look at how Penn State plays now versus a month ago.  That's what makes betting tough.

With that being said, Michigan got exposed for just not being that good.  They've looked bad in a couple games before this, however those were all on the road so I didn't think that would matter here.  The reason they lost this game was because of two reasons.  One, nerves with the rivalry.  Michigan State in football and basketball is always the looser team in this matchup for whatever reason.  Michigan State had nothing to lose coming in.  Michigan had hammered everyone at home so winning would just be a big bonus.  The second reason they lost is just because it's a bad matchup.  Michigan State is the far more athletic team and when they actually prepare before the game and give good effort, which they clearly don't always do but did today, they can be very tough to score on.  Michigan has no guards that penetrate the paint well and draw fouls, etc.  They're like Wisky and rely a lot on ball movement and finding some holes in the defense and open threes.  But Michigan State didn't make mental errors  like the lesser teams in the conference usually do and protected the paint and forced them to the 3 point line where almost all the shots were contested.  They got more length than the other teams in the Big Ten so if you don't have shot creators or guys with real athleticism and they don't make mental mistakes on top of that you get locked down.  This is just flat out a bad matchup for Michigan as they aren't a great offensive team and jack up too many 3 pointers.  You need easy points in the paint to be a real contender and they don't do that.  Yeah, they got guys like Teske who have some skills.  But they don't have a premier post player and they don't have explosive guards who can get to the rim and draw fouls, create their own offense, etc.  Poole is a good player, but not quite at that level and he doesn't have other guards to supplement him. 

But hey, congrats.  Moral of the story though is none of the teams in the Big Ten are that good. They're all flawed.  Michigan State does have the highest ceiling, but their floor may also be lower than Purdue or Michigan when they're off.  My prediction is only 2 teams from the Big Ten make the Sweet 16, possibly only 1 depending on the matchups.  You get an overseeded team like VA Tech at a 6 and it'll obviously be easier for a Purdue or Michigan to advance. 

This is a more profitable way to bet than randomly moneylining a team.  I never bet the spread.  I just moneyline teams together.  And overall it's worked.  It's more common for teams to win and not cover than in football even where when the favorite doesn't show up they often just lose outright.

Those were the four games I liked the most.  I like Arizona State and Seton Hall a fair amount too, but those are more vulnerable.  But both need them to get off the bubble and are playing teams that are terrible on the road.

Rhode Island just lost at home to a 1-10 Fordham team.  This line I think is just off.  They're 5-7 in conference.  Vs the top 3 teams in the conference other than VCU - 30 point home loss to Dayton, 17 point home loss to Mason, 15 point road loss at Davidson.  They've been annihilated by the top teams in conference.  They did beat VCU at home.  But teams win in upsets at home all the time.  Vandy nearly bet Tennessee for what that's worth.  Not sure you can put a ton into that.  VCU will take them seriously in this game and they're clearly much better than this garbage Rhode Island team that's .500 on the year.  Even last couple years when they were much better they played not so well on the road.  VCU also needs this game to keep a firm ground in the tournament.  I think taking Rhode Island is way overthinking this one and VCU is the right play.  I believe they'll win this by double digits.  No lock, but RI is a limited team coming in with no confence vs a much better team who will want to beat the shit out of them.

Haven't seen a scalabrine post on here the last month and here it comes for this game.  There are a lot of games you could post on here and I'd probably be whatever, but you seem to always post one where I actually like the other team - which is a bad sign in this spot because I've overall been on fire in CB and have a great understanding of this sport in the second half of the season at this point in my betting career.  College basketball second half of January through the first round of March Madness may be the most profitable time to bet any time of the year.  But that's my opinion -

Indiana may cover.  I'm not gonna pretend I know everything.  But your reasoning is really flawed and here's why -

Saturday Minnesota was only -2.5.  Was that a trap?  I thought that line was a total joke and embarrassment for oddsmakers.  That line could have been 6.5 and I'd still have picked Minnesota.  Minnesota is a good team (compared to the overall college basketball landscape) and at this point is solidly in the tournament although I think they have a tough schedule coming up.  They wanted to win that game after blowing one at Nebraska on some bad calls late.  They beat the shit out of this lifeless Indiana team.  That game was in Minny and should have been -6.5 to -7.5 in a game I couldn't see them winning.  Minny was -7 at home vs Illinois a few weeks ago - a team playing much better than Indiana so it made no sense.

HENCE, the oddsmakers didn't adjust last Saturday, so why would they adjust for this game?  They haven't adjusted all year!  The line being a couple points less than what you expect doesn't mean anything other than they get lines wrong.  They aren't right all the time.  If they were, no one would bet.  They simply have a RAGING HARD ON FOR INDIANA.

Indiana is a very, VERY soft team that plays no defense.  That's why they win no games.  If they were like Penn State, a team that play good defense but limited on offense, they'd be way more dangerous.  But they're soft on defense and offensively they aren't playing well.  They've shot the ball horribly this year and don't have any individual stars you're afraid of that will take over.  It's a trash team.  And this is a rivalry game.  Purdue would love to beat the shit out of them again.   Indiana probably won't sneak up on them.  I also question how much home court will matter.  Their season is over.  What does their fan base have to get excited about?

Purdue hasn't been great on the road.  But they've been great in the first half in a number of games.  They're obviously much better than Indiana overall.  They score a lot of points and are competent on defense.  Could Indiana possibly win this game?  Sure.  They won at MSU randomly.  Random shit happens.  Syracuse won at Duke rofl.  Arkansas won at LSU?  TCU goes 0-5 on the road, blows out ISU at ISU, then gets fapped at home by Kansas and Oklahoma who is awful and gets smashed by a 9-14 Ok St team.  Tons of 1 game anomalies that are hard to believe.  I just think this bet is getting too cute.

Don't put good money on bad teams.  There are better spots.  Again, maybe they randomly win here, but do you want to lose money on this shitfuck Indiana team?  I think Tennessee, VCU, Clemson, and perhaps Penn State in a low line at home vs a bad Nebraska team they outta win are all better plays tonight.  We'll see.  If you bet Indiana I guess might as well moneyline it.