Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Quote Originally Posted by BallingLikeNE:
Buffalo is the 2nd most popular pick in the Westgate super contest. Good sign for MIA backers. Westgate top five 17-23 ATS through Week 8 as always, great fade material |
MrBatorVegas | 54 |
|
|
Anybody know his ATS record as a favorite of more than a TD? I wish I could find a database online of this sort of stuff, or at least, one that didn't necessitate an advanced math degree. |
garbagetime | 20 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
Quote Originally Posted by WilliamMunny: You do realize Love may not play .. I like packers in this spot but not if love dosent play I beg to differ my friend. I have watched every Packers game this year, fwiw... Dude when Malik Willis is in, the Packers offense takes on another identity, and for the good imo. I know that Malik isn't the pure passer that Love is. But they run the crap out of the ball with Malik. They run more jumbo formations, and their play action pass looks stellar. Malik has been very good this year when called upon. Just my 2 cents Also, the Lions defense is used to playing with three-TD leads. Will they generate a pass rush or not? |
theclaw | 69 |
|
|
Good luck this week claw. |
theclaw | 69 |
|
|
Steelers 32, Vegas 13 Steelers 37, Jets 15 while the Giants lost two home games, 7-17 to Cin and 3-28 to Phil... It's not quite a twin peaks play (Pittsburgh fade), but it's close. Any thoughts on this MNF non-conference game, prior to a Steelers bye and Giants +3 home to Washington? |
garbagetime | 5 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Zman55:
I am shocked that people still use these sites when there are so many regulated options Well, they're pretty much the only way I can bet Norway and Netherlands third league futbol and such. |
garbagetime | 3 |
|
|
No, this isn't about their website being shit. Prior to the season I had a losing streak that left me at almost zero there, so I took advantage of their NFL reload promotion, 100% match, with a 10x playthough. My $300, which went to them as $291 via Bitcoin, had to be wagered ten times, or $2,910, in one month. And in fact, I wagered $4,500 during that time, winning about $200, most of the bets being soccer underdogs, plus a little bit of NFL -110 bets. Yesterday was 30 days, and they zeroed my account (according to the terms of the bonus, if you don't each the 10x threshold, you lose all winnings as well as the bonus). What gives? I've been emailing them for weeks that their "Playthrough Progress" is counting wrong. I think what it is doing is counting as if I were playing the Casino, which has a 25x playthrough. Anyway, they didn't respond, finally, until last night. They've answered now three times with this: We're sorry sir, but you have no active bonuses. Well no sh*t you guys, you inactivated it! I've asked repeatedly for them to go to my account and verify that I've wagered more then $2910. Crickets |
garbagetime | 3 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo:
Quote Originally Posted by garbagetime: Here's what I don't understand. You take the regression anchor and it's paired with every other bet? So if your anchor loses, you lose every bet? Or am I reading this wrong? Yes, you are correct.
Thank you. And that's somehow better than pairing each of your other bets with each other in some fashion? |
jowchoo | 49 |
|
|
Here's what I don't understand. You take the regression anchor and it's paired with every other bet? So if your anchor loses, you lose every bet? Or am I reading this wrong? |
jowchoo | 49 |
|
|
I only wish I understood the rationale more than I do. Results looking great, though. |
jowchoo | 49 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Wow, Bears are rolling the Jags, incredible great job by Bears. If this keeps up they will be close to a fade next werk. Interesting about this game. The line after last week's games had Bears as the favorite but then the line was moved to Jags as the favorite, when this happens, the dog moving to the favorite it is bad news for that team. I saw many on you tube liking the Jags, maybe that was part of the reason people were coming in on the Jags pushing them to the favorite. Guys I've followed on you tube who have done well are not doing so well this season. Hey Claw, do you have numbers to back this up? The reason I ask is that I've noted a similar tendency in European soccer leagues, but in the other direction...when the shift in odds takes a favorite of, say, 1.96 to a dog of 2.08, crossing the threshold of even money is the sign to bet against the line move. |
theclaw | 82 |
|
|
I thought Indigo and spottie were the same person tbh |
Indigo999 | 74 |
|
|
I searched for him also, according to the search function he hasn't posted since mid-September. |
jowchoo | 14 |
|
|
Colts +2.5 shrug |
garbagetime | 8 |
|
|
@garbagetime
Quote Originally Posted by garbagetime:
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69: Winning money is cool and all.....but where can you find more trolls with nothing but time and low IQs?? Alright.....football question. Deshaun Watson a road fav? Browns with backups at RB and TE....best pass catcher can't run a route more than 7 yards downfield.....The Raiders did indeed lose to the Panthers, but also beat Baltimore on the road....the total is 36.5 which means Vegas thinks this will be a shit show....and thats hard to argue with..... Van Browns are also 2nd in the Westgate Super Contest. Top five are 3-6-1 Obviously saw an old number. Top five Westgate picks are 6-9 so far. |
vanzack | 201 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:
Winning money is cool and all.....but where can you find more trolls with nothing but time and low IQs?? Alright.....football question. Deshaun Watson a road fav? Browns with backups at RB and TE....best pass catcher can't run a route more than 7 yards downfield.....The Raiders did indeed lose to the Panthers, but also beat Baltimore on the road....the total is 36.5 which means Vegas thinks this will be a shit show....and thats hard to argue with..... Van Browns are also 2nd in the Westgate Super Contest. Top five are 3-6-1 |
vanzack | 201 |
|
|
Added, half a unit each: Arizona -3.5. Influenced by vanzack. I also don't believe the Commandos became a team by beating Cincy on the road. Cincinnati clearly are not as good as people thought. NY Jets -7, -130. Bought a point. I think the scoreline flattered Denver last week (one good drive for a TD, and the few others they sustained ended in FGs), and the Jets have a defense, too, are at home and have some weapons on offense to put some daylight between them and the Broncos. Two scores seemed a bit terrifying, though. Holy shit, that's a lot of chalk for me. |
garbagetime | 8 |
|
|
First post of the season, bounceback teams are 1-1. I've tailed some of claw's picks, so am ahead, thanks to his work. Week 4 is traditionally the bounceback angle's worst week, one of three losing weeks over the years on aggregate. Don't know why that is, but favorites do OK and dogs decidedly do not. And this year, it's the first week with multiple plays. System plays are: New England +10.5. I just can't do it. SF really need a W, and the Patriots are just not the kind of team to hang with a clearly superior outfit, their injuries and troubles be damned. My reasoning will be, Week 4 underdogs. They can't make me take this. Miami -1. I took this one, who knows what the QB situation will actually be, but fortunately they're at home and the Titans are just awful. Will cheer for every misguided Levis lateral. Jacksonville (+6) and Houston (-6) are both bounceback plays. This ordinarily makes this a "no play." At the same time, away dogs in J-ville's spot are 7-4 over the years, while Houston's home favorites are a 52% play. The mitigating factor is that Houston's play last week just doesn't match the score line. If I take either side, it'll be Jax and it will reflect a serious weakness of character. Other plays this week: Baltimore -2.5. "Twin Peaks" angle, and a fade of Buffalo. Green Bay -2.5. A claw special. I'm a Packer fan and was looking for a reason. Or rather, another reason beyond my belief that Sam Darnold ain't coming into Lambeau and staying 2024 vintage. |
garbagetime | 8 |
|
|
AP The days of rookie quarterbacks waiting their turns before taking over teams is long gone. For the third time in four years there will be three rookie quarterbacks starting the season opener. No. 1 draft pick Caleb Williams got the nod for Chicago, No. 2 pick Jayden Daniels for Washington and No. 12 pick Bo Nix for Denver, meaning half of the record-tying six QBs selected in the first round in April became immediate starters. |
jowchoo | 10 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Road dogs that didn't make the playoffs last season in week 1 hit at 60% going back many years. Another trend I saw online. Interesting, and there are nine this year. Five ATS wins is 55%, six ATS wins is 66%. You have to choose well even when playing a trend in this league. |
theclaw | 56 |
|
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.