garbagetime

Because the lines reflect public opinion and are set to split the market. As we all know, a large class of bettors have a bias toward some teams (Cowboys, Packers) and some cities (NY) and some players (Rodgers). It takes a long time for them to realize what reality-based people have seen for a while now.

It has been a very unusual season for my favorite strategy (backing teams to bounce back the week after getting trounced on the road). The situation, which could usually be counted on to occur a couple of times a week (last season it went 18-15), has barely occurred this season. All those away wins; but also, so many close games.

On the season, the strategy has gone just 1-5. I've gone 1-3 playing it, one of the few times I can remember not getting burned when I skip plays.

Anyway, this week I actually like both plays, which doesn't bode well:

Chicago -6 v New England

Denver +9 at Kansas City

Situationally, Denver is the better bet, which sounds wrong, but there it is. I ain't skipping them, now that I've waited a month to play 'em.

Westgate top five 17-23 ATS through Week 8

as always, great fade material

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.

Also, the Lions defense is used to playing with three-TD leads. Will they generate a pass rush or not?

Good luck this week claw.

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?

Well, they're pretty much the only way I can bet Norway and Netherlands third league futbol and such.

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

Thank you. And that's somehow better than pairing each of your other bets with each other in some fashion?

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?

I only wish I understood the rationale more than I do. Results looking great, though.

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.

I thought Indigo and spottie were the same person tbh

I searched for him also, according to the search function he hasn't posted since mid-September.

Colts +2.5

shrug

@garbagetime

Obviously saw an old number. Top five Westgate picks are 6-9 so far.

Browns are also 2nd in the Westgate Super Contest. Top five are 3-6-1 

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.

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.