everything is pointing in my direction on this play. i dont know if everyone has been following me tonite, but the kings +5 against the pistons is a lock. my other picks for nfl are
bears over, atl under, pittsburgh, new england over and 7 pt teaser with new england and new england over
everything is pointing in my direction on this play. i dont know if everyone has been following me tonite, but the kings +5 against the pistons is a lock. my other picks for nfl are
bears over, atl under, pittsburgh, new england over and 7 pt teaser with new england and new england over
everything is pointing in my direction on this play. i dont know if everyone has been following me tonite, but the kings +5 against the pistons is a lock. my other picks for nfl are
bears over, atl under, pittsburgh, new england over and 7 pt teaser with new england and new england over
everything is pointing in my direction on this play. i dont know if everyone has been following me tonite, but the kings +5 against the pistons is a lock. my other picks for nfl are
bears over, atl under, pittsburgh, new england over and 7 pt teaser with new england and new england over
Dont fall for this dudes bullshit. If one shiity team can beat another shitty team like detroit beating sac in sac, they will certainly beat them at home.
Dont fall for this dudes bullshit. If one shiity team can beat another shitty team like detroit beating sac in sac, they will certainly beat them at home.
Knicks starters were 16-63 (25%) from the field last night and Sac blocked 13 shots. I doubt that the Sac defense will hit either of those numbers for a long time to come. Those are outrageous numbers.
Knicks starters could have made just 10 more shots and gone 26-63 (41%) from the field last night. Nobody would have blinked, and the Knicks would have had a 10-pt win and the cover.
Knicks starters were 16-63 (25%) from the field last night and Sac blocked 13 shots. I doubt that the Sac defense will hit either of those numbers for a long time to come. Those are outrageous numbers.
Knicks starters could have made just 10 more shots and gone 26-63 (41%) from the field last night. Nobody would have blinked, and the Knicks would have had a 10-pt win and the cover.
So , basically you got to check stats , write everything down , calculate them and you got result? And if game loses you can easily say that they 'should'ave' made 10 more shots ,because stats say so... sounds like you are high , not serious
So , basically you got to check stats , write everything down , calculate them and you got result? And if game loses you can easily say that they 'should'ave' made 10 more shots ,because stats say so... sounds like you are high , not serious
it is either Kings or no play for me... and waiting until the line finishes might not be a good idea.. opened at 5 1/2 and moved to some books at 6, even though mine went down to 5.... now it is at 4 1/2 on my book and it seems other ones are dropping too..
it is either Kings or no play for me... and waiting until the line finishes might not be a good idea.. opened at 5 1/2 and moved to some books at 6, even though mine went down to 5.... now it is at 4 1/2 on my book and it seems other ones are dropping too..
So , basically you got to check stats , write everything down , calculate them and you got result? And if game loses you can easily say that they 'should'ave' made 10 more shots ,because stats say so... sounds like you are high , not serious
Look, I am trying to make a point, but not for the sake of saying the Knicks should have won last night's game. If you feel very strongly that Knicks starters having a 25% shooting night is just something that has to be accepted within the framework of that game, well, fine. You win.
The point I am really trying to make is that Sacramento's performance last night doesn't make them a lock at +5 tonight. Not by a longshot. I don't think Detroit's starters will shoot under 30% from the field tonight and I don't think Sac will block 10+ shots.
I know I didn't actually say that in my first post, but the subject of this thread is about Sac +5's chances tonight. I didn't bring up the details of the Knicks game because I wanted to get into an argument about that game.
So , basically you got to check stats , write everything down , calculate them and you got result? And if game loses you can easily say that they 'should'ave' made 10 more shots ,because stats say so... sounds like you are high , not serious
Look, I am trying to make a point, but not for the sake of saying the Knicks should have won last night's game. If you feel very strongly that Knicks starters having a 25% shooting night is just something that has to be accepted within the framework of that game, well, fine. You win.
The point I am really trying to make is that Sacramento's performance last night doesn't make them a lock at +5 tonight. Not by a longshot. I don't think Detroit's starters will shoot under 30% from the field tonight and I don't think Sac will block 10+ shots.
I know I didn't actually say that in my first post, but the subject of this thread is about Sac +5's chances tonight. I didn't bring up the details of the Knicks game because I wanted to get into an argument about that game.
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.