Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
I'd rather see Marquez in a trilogy, and a real war. |
tOOT3r | 4 |
|
|
Mack05: I appreciate forums suchs as these that give so much information. Mack had it called Over 9.5 rounds as I did. I didn't feel Manny would be so powerful, but he brought it as usual. As much as I'd enjoy the Mayweather fight, a trilogy against Marquez would be the pick for any fight currently available. Although, after the second fight, Manny said he didn't want anymore of this guy. Freddie said after the Hatton fight, that fighting Marquez again would be a waste cause Manny would destroy him. I'd disagree, Marquez has got his number. EricLinny: I agreed with your betting them both for decisions, but this is exactly the reason most my money was on the over 9.5, although I bet maybe 10% on a few props. Like I said in another post about Zenyatta, it's always to the bettor advantage to get exoctics, and try and get the max value out of betting. This was a fight that 3.5 more rounds, was way to much to risk on what I already felt was a winner. Congrats to those who cashed in, and also those who enjoyed watching a real phenom go to work! |
SH0WNUFFF | 7 |
|
|
|
SH0WNUFFF | 7 |
|
|
OVER 9.5... like I stated to many, 3 extra rounds alot can HAPPEN!
|
SH0WNUFFF | 7 |
|
|
The real odds on a 6 team parlay are 63-1. Many sportsbooks pay 40-1 or special bonus odds at 50-1.
|
waves | 43 |
|
|
slamspurs : Naturally the favorite wins, that's why they are favorites-lol. But betting underdogs in Boxing is where the money is at. You only get a few good fights a year, but even if you win just half you should be way ahead. October 18th, 2008 - Bernard Hopkins was a minimum 4-1 underdog against Kelly Pavlik. I had Hopkins at +800 to win by Decision on 5Dimes.
|
waves | 43 |
|
|
Mack05: Your point is just as relevant as anyones... it's YOUR OPINION! There is subjective and objective handicapping. You stated just because there is value doesn't mean it's a good play. Unless it's a certainty, all things are a gamble. The better the EV, the better the play and success. {Another thing on your post "I honestly guys that literally join this website on the eve of fighnight and say pound the underdog with no explanation and/or rationale for their inspired pick are Las Vegas books in disguise! Waves FCUK OFF to where you came from you total and utter idiot.......} -- For your infomation, Las Vegas doesn't take large bets on sporting events. The only place that use to was the StarDust. Now you can bet a major $500. Also, you can't even bet a championship boxing event the his held in Atlantic City becuse Las Vegas doesn't trust the New Jersey Athletic Commission. We went to bet 78k on Cotto (Cotto was -260, and Carlos was undefeated at the time), and the teller explained we couldn't bet that fight because it wasn't in Las Vegas, and if it was the maximum was $500, even if it was held at MGM Grand (all owned by MGM Inc). Because we were listed as ranked VIP customers, they said for Las Vegas fights they would take the action and lay it off through an affiliate sportsbook. So I don't think Las Vegas sportsbooks are making fake accounts to make a few extra thousand. Gotta roll mack, my reception is going in this building, Going up to the suite, I'll post from up there. GL tonight! |
SH0WNUFFF | 1 |
|
|
Mack05: Your point is just as relevant as anyones... it's YOUR OPINION! There is subjective and objective handicapping. You stated just because there is value doesn't mean it's a good play. Unless it's a certainty, all things are a gamble. The better the EV, the better the play and success. {Another thing on your post "I honestly guys that literally join this website on the eve of fighnight and say pound the underdog with no explanation and/or rationale for their inspired pick are Las Vegas books in disguise! Waves FCUK OFF to where you came from you total and utter idiot.......} -- For your infomation, Las Vegas doesn't take large bets on sporting events. The only place that use to was the StarDust. Now you can bet a major $500. Also, you can't even bet a championship boxing event the his held in Atlantic City becuse Las Vegas doesn't trust the New Jersey Athletic Commission. We went to bet 78k on Cotto (Cotto was -260, and Carlos was undefeated at the time), and the teller explained we couldn't bet that fight because it wasn't in Las Vegas, and if it was the maximum was $500, even if it was held at MGM Grand (all owned by MGM Inc). Because we were listed as ranked VIP customers, they said for Las Vegas fights they would take the action and lay it off through an affiliate sportsbook. So I don't think Las Vegas sportsbooks are making fake accounts to make a few extra thousand. Gotta roll mack, my reception is going in this building, Going up to the suite, I'll post from up there. |
waves | 43 |
|
|
I have that (posted, didn't haved time earlier, was losing wireless coneection), but also considering the cuts or other injury, it's very rare to have a late stoppage but this could be one of them. Like my Zenyatta bet at +250, everyone I know was pounding exotics, while the winner was so simple... just pound the dough! You are correct, and I do have many different props. Considering that extra 3.5 rounds, I told players who don't bet often to play the +125, and small on the Cotto decision & Manny decision. |
SH0WNUFFF | 7 |
|
|
Think about that one. Only issue is the corruption. Is ti gets to the cards, the next big money fight would be Manny vs Floyd... so that's why I am cautious when betting a win by decision. Still roaring around getting things done. By the time I post, there will be plays on Cotto on different props, and somehow mixing in the over as well. Be back to post soon, just landed! And they're off.... |
SH0WNUFFF | 4 |
|
|
I'm going to post spme big plays before fight time. When flight lands, I'll make sure to post my analysis. For now, I want to people to consider Over 9.5 Rounds +125. Cuts or swelling could be a concern, but think about the fighters and their history. Pacquiao not hurt easily, and fights to the end, and now fights smarter (not just a ounch trader). Cotto is fairly tough himself. He took fast heavy shots from Mosley and wasn't fazed enough to go. These are two tough guys, both have experience. Although the one concern in many people' minds would be Manny overwhelming Cotto with speed, and the styles of these fighters makes this possible. Just remember, the wars they have been in , do you feel over 9.5 rounds +125 has any value? I'll be back to post plays with units and undercard plays if I can ever get landed and retrieve my notes. GL and enjoy! |
SH0WNUFFF | 7 |
|
|
Your Welcome and you are correct. People just sit around their computer waiting for someone to post something incorrect or what they feel is not ethical in their judgement, and they pounce with replies, that are meant to hurt one's feelings or make them feel better . LOL Any questions you have regarding things of these matters, I'd gladly assist you. I've worked with casinos, tout services (only small operations where I either knew the owners and we ran a square business), online poker (with sportsbooks & virtual casinos) and offshore sportsbooks doing everything from setting lines (more often prop bets because many people use specific line setters or work with the Las Vegas Consultants), to setting up an offshore online poker site (which is tricky, due to the fact if you take any ownership you or ordered to relinquish your United States citizenship), etc... Working as an independent consultant has been the best. You use all your previous experience and help out other people who want to get started either as a major owner of an offshore business or someone who just wants to bet sports and make a little cash as a secondary income, also I did a lot of poker tutoring (very advanced for people who want to learn heads-up). If you are getting heat from outside posters (or any problems), just email through covers or even better use my sh0wnufff@gmail.com email. Sound Fair-NUFFF? |
SH0WNUFFF | 8 |
|
|
-I did but I kept getting this response (below). So remember before you speculate, and implicate that I'm part of the "Didnt you know....we live in an "Attention whoring scociety" ", you might want to take a moment and to use that process called thinking before acting! After I posted a new thread, I made a link to the original thread. Wow, sorry for the big scam guys. LOL. I think you take your roles as Forum monitors a tad bit too serious. If you get some extra time, spend it posting something positive. Enjoy your time, don't be so angry.
|
SH0WNUFFF | 8 |
|
|
https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=33&sub=100581790 Runner - In sports betting circles, heavy rollers who wager more than the average Joe will use what is referred to as a " Runner" or a " beard" which is nothing more than a friend or acquaintance who is used to place bets for the high roller as a means to conceal the true identity of the real bettor. The famous Federal Wire Wager Act (called, simply, 'the Wire Act') is a 1961 law that prohibits the transmission of betting lines from state-to-state. The sports book law was partially to comply with that. (This law has had a lot to do with all the ambiguity tied to gambling on the Net, by the way.) Layoff wagering refers to illegal bookies using agents ("runners" or "messengers") to help them balance their own books by betting off excess amounts here in town. They often like to hedge their positions when they get too much money on one side. This law has always been foolish, because it didn't deter either of these things, but it did inconvenience many a good and legal customer." |
oljuice | 14 |
|
|
To oljuice: Runner - In sports betting circles, heavy rollers who wager more than the average Joe will use what is referred to as a " Runner" or a " beard" which is nothing more than a friend or acquaintance who is used to place bets for the high roller as a means to conceal the true identity of the real bettor. The famous Federal Wire Wager Act (called, simply, 'the Wire Act') is a 1961 law that prohibits the transmission of betting lines from state-to-state. The sports book law was partially to comply with that. (This law has had a lot to do with all the ambiguity tied to gambling on the Net, by the way.) Layoff wagering refers to illegal bookies using agents ("runners" or "messengers") to help them balance their own books by betting off excess amounts here in town. They often like to hedge their positions when they get too much money on one side. This law has always been foolish, because it didn't deter either of these things, but it did inconvenience many a good and legal customer." |
SH0WNUFFF | 8 |
|
|
2 Botched Field Goals, now instead on 16-0, it's only 10-0 with half a quarter left. Looks like being a minute late with a sportsbook saved me some units! |
SH0WNUFFF | 5 |
|
|
My final wagers were: (a little late on the 1st quarter post, my apologies) GL to everyone! SOUTH FLORIDA vs RUTGERS [Over 21 1st Half] (1.0 Units) RUTGERS 1st Q -0.5 +125 (2.0 Units) |
SH0WNUFFF | 5 |
|
|
I didn't even see it. Was trying to get wireless connection resolved. I actually got closed out on a wager (Over 21 1st Half) with one of my sportsbooks. It's 10-0 with 7:03 left in the 1st Quarter. It looks like that down time costed me, but you never know. Maybe it saved me a little. It was around a 6-8 [point differential. I didn't have much time to look at it. The total for 1st Half was 27 (28). I had Rutgers winning the 1st Quarter (the total was 10, so no wager on that. The total Over 42 was a possible play, but it didn't show enough. Rutgers 1st Half was a better play, but I stuck it out with 1st Quarter. Looks good as of now.
|
SH0WNUFFF | 5 |
|
|
SOUTH FLORIDA vs RUTGERS [Over 21 1st Half] (1.0 Units)
|
SH0WNUFFF | 5 |
|
|
Doyle Brunson won the WSOP main event twice in 1976 (22 entrants) & 1977 (34 entrants) in back-to-back fashion. Johnny Chan won the WSOP main event twice in 1987 (152 entrants) & 1988 (167 entrants) in back-to-back fashion as well. Johnny Chan almost made it three in a row, but got 2nd place to guy a young poker player name Phil Hellmuth. In 1980, Doyle would get 2nd place to a guy name Stu Ungar. Stu also won back-to-back WSOP main event titles in 1980 (73 entrants) & 1981 (75 entrants). While many people think that Stu was the only person to ever win the WSOP main event three times, but that is not entirely correct. There was another player who had done this before Stu, and he also was the first WSOP winner, and the first back-to-back winner as well. In 1970, the first WSOP at Binion's Horseshoe took place as a series of cash games that included five-card stud, deuce to seven low-ball draw, razz, seven-card stud, and Texas hold 'em. The format for the Main Event as a freeze-out Texas hold 'em game came the next year. The winner in 1970, Johnny Moss, was elected by his peers as the first World Champion of Poker and received a silver cup as a prize. In 1971, Johnny Moss won the first freeze-out (now the WSOP main event). Today with the enormous fields, and you have such a mix of players who barely know the rules, and many great young players. Phil Ivey is considered the best poker player not only by the media, but by his peers as well. There have been many great stories of bracelet winners, tournament streaks, but it seems that many consider the story of Dan Harrington to the best. He won the World Series of Poker (WSOP) main event in 1995 for $1,000,000 and made three other main event final tables, placing 6th in 1987 for $43,750, 3rd (out of 839 players) in 2003 for $650,000, and 4th (out of 2,576 players) in 2004 for $1,500,000. His run of back to back main event final tables has been called the greatest accomplishment in World Series history. As defending champion in 1996, Harrington made another deep run in the main event, finishing in 17th place and earning $23,400. He also cashed in the 2009 main event, finishing in 252nd place for a $32,963 payout. They are all great stories, but to me, Johnny Chan nearly winning three straight years seems to be tops in my book for now. They are all great stories and all equal of high praise.
|
SH0WNUFFF | 1 |
|
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.