NYR -1 ½ +105 I’ll simply be damned if we don’t smack this morose franchise through the ice in this game. The Rangers have dominated 6 of their last 8 games overall by every measurable possession metric other than final score lol. They’re playing too well lately to lose to this type of team, especially on home ice with some fans in attendance. I’m not a big Kinkaid fan but he’s played well so good for him. Rangers forwards are fully healthy and Buffalo is in a free-fall. Outside of a letdown which this team has no right to have the rest of the way, they should win by multiple scores.
CAR -164 Bluejackets have taken the first two games of this series by 3-2 scores. They haven’t been the better team, but they’ve found a way to win each game. Carolina has had the edge in possession metrics and both scoring chances and high-danger chances. They have also had the better xGF numbers so the chances have been there. Give Columbus credit for hanging in and taking both games. I think the Canes will look to really assert themselves here to end their losing streak and not be swept. Nedelkjovic has been very good for Carolina and he’ll be in net tonight. He allowed the game winning third goal but it took OT to get that by him and prior to that game he had not allowed more than 2 goals in a game since early last month.
CGY -1/2 -115
WIN TT U3.5 -150 *two units* This is a big line, but a surprising number here given the roll that Thatcher Demko has been on. Since the middle of February and starting with a shut-out win against these Jets, Demko is 8-1 and has had a .950 Save % and 1.74 GAA. He has only allowed more than TWO goals in a start in one of those games. Even prior to this run when he had been playing at a lower level, two of his better starts of the young season both came against Winnipeg. On the season against them in three appearances he has a .975 Save% and 0.68 GAA only allowing two goals combined over three starts.
NYR -1 ½ +105 I’ll simply be damned if we don’t smack this morose franchise through the ice in this game. The Rangers have dominated 6 of their last 8 games overall by every measurable possession metric other than final score lol. They’re playing too well lately to lose to this type of team, especially on home ice with some fans in attendance. I’m not a big Kinkaid fan but he’s played well so good for him. Rangers forwards are fully healthy and Buffalo is in a free-fall. Outside of a letdown which this team has no right to have the rest of the way, they should win by multiple scores.
CAR -164 Bluejackets have taken the first two games of this series by 3-2 scores. They haven’t been the better team, but they’ve found a way to win each game. Carolina has had the edge in possession metrics and both scoring chances and high-danger chances. They have also had the better xGF numbers so the chances have been there. Give Columbus credit for hanging in and taking both games. I think the Canes will look to really assert themselves here to end their losing streak and not be swept. Nedelkjovic has been very good for Carolina and he’ll be in net tonight. He allowed the game winning third goal but it took OT to get that by him and prior to that game he had not allowed more than 2 goals in a game since early last month.
CGY -1/2 -115
WIN TT U3.5 -150 *two units* This is a big line, but a surprising number here given the roll that Thatcher Demko has been on. Since the middle of February and starting with a shut-out win against these Jets, Demko is 8-1 and has had a .950 Save % and 1.74 GAA. He has only allowed more than TWO goals in a start in one of those games. Even prior to this run when he had been playing at a lower level, two of his better starts of the young season both came against Winnipeg. On the season against them in three appearances he has a .975 Save% and 0.68 GAA only allowing two goals combined over three starts.
3/24 PIT -1 ½ -115 VAN +125 WIN TT U3.5 -160 Disgusting line. Five years ago you’d never see this bullshit on totals. LAK TT O2.5 -140 or this dog shit
the line is set a 3.5 for a reason... you may want to dig a big deeper into this... ticket windows have people lined up to donate on the under...
Jets are 14-2 su in L16 vs Vancouver.
jets have how many wins with 4 or more goals this year...
3/24 PIT -1 ½ -115 VAN +125 WIN TT U3.5 -160 Disgusting line. Five years ago you’d never see this bullshit on totals. LAK TT O2.5 -140 or this dog shit
the line is set a 3.5 for a reason... you may want to dig a big deeper into this... ticket windows have people lined up to donate on the under...
Jets are 14-2 su in L16 vs Vancouver.
jets have how many wins with 4 or more goals this year...
Quote Originally Posted by NYBartender: 3/24 PIT -1 ½ -115 VAN +125 WIN TT U3.5 -160 Disgusting line. Five years ago you’d never see this bullshit on totals. LAK TT O2.5 -140 or this dog shit the line is set a 3.5 for a reason... you may want to dig a big deeper into this... ticket windows have people lined up to donate on the under... Jets are 14-2 su in L16 vs Vancouver. jets have how many wins with 4 or more goals this year...
What the Jets have done against Vancouver outside of this current season is pointless to me, no offense. It has zero bearing on the two teams playing this season. That said, I've been betting for 20 years and up until just a few years back you would never see these types of juiced lines.
Also what does the Jets record against Vancouver dating back multiple season have to do with the juiced TT line?
Quote Originally Posted by NYBartender: 3/24 PIT -1 ½ -115 VAN +125 WIN TT U3.5 -160 Disgusting line. Five years ago you’d never see this bullshit on totals. LAK TT O2.5 -140 or this dog shit the line is set a 3.5 for a reason... you may want to dig a big deeper into this... ticket windows have people lined up to donate on the under... Jets are 14-2 su in L16 vs Vancouver. jets have how many wins with 4 or more goals this year...
What the Jets have done against Vancouver outside of this current season is pointless to me, no offense. It has zero bearing on the two teams playing this season. That said, I've been betting for 20 years and up until just a few years back you would never see these types of juiced lines.
Also what does the Jets record against Vancouver dating back multiple season have to do with the juiced TT line?
Quote Originally Posted by NYBartender: 3/24 PIT -1 ½ -115 VAN +125 WIN TT U3.5 -160 Disgusting line. Five years ago you’d never see this bullshit on totals. LAK TT O2.5 -140 or this dog shit the line is set a 3.5 for a reason... you may want to dig a big deeper into this... ticket windows have people lined up to donate on the under... Jets are 14-2 su in L16 vs Vancouver. jets have how many wins with 4 or more goals this year...
Just because you asked...16
Although I'm unsure of the point of that question.
Now that said, 16 of 32 games played they've scored 4 or more but to bet under that 50% it costs -160
Again, I like the under, loved it last time out also and lost but liking it or hating it isn't my point. All sports-wide, lines have been pumped up moreso than years past. Its very obvious in certain spots.
Quote Originally Posted by NYBartender: 3/24 PIT -1 ½ -115 VAN +125 WIN TT U3.5 -160 Disgusting line. Five years ago you’d never see this bullshit on totals. LAK TT O2.5 -140 or this dog shit the line is set a 3.5 for a reason... you may want to dig a big deeper into this... ticket windows have people lined up to donate on the under... Jets are 14-2 su in L16 vs Vancouver. jets have how many wins with 4 or more goals this year...
Just because you asked...16
Although I'm unsure of the point of that question.
Now that said, 16 of 32 games played they've scored 4 or more but to bet under that 50% it costs -160
Again, I like the under, loved it last time out also and lost but liking it or hating it isn't my point. All sports-wide, lines have been pumped up moreso than years past. Its very obvious in certain spots.
Point is you’d have to be high and have 0 knowledge to think laying -160 on the under 3.5 was even a remotely good idea. As I said, Vegas got them donations lined up tonight.
also, I said how many 4+ game in their wins lol. Not total games, indicating the Canucks had 0 chance. And that means 4+ goals... is that more clear
Point is you’d have to be high and have 0 knowledge to think laying -160 on the under 3.5 was even a remotely good idea. As I said, Vegas got them donations lined up tonight.
also, I said how many 4+ game in their wins lol. Not total games, indicating the Canucks had 0 chance. And that means 4+ goals... is that more clear
Quote Originally Posted by HockeyNight11: 3-2 game, you might have to survive the empty netter Not if its 3-2 Vancouver
haha true but the Canucks just don’t win against Winnipeg. Domination. Hope it ends 3-0 for ya... hellebuyck has one heck of a shut out streak going vs Vancouver maybe they’ll be playing safe defensively in the 3rd to keep that goin!
Quote Originally Posted by HockeyNight11: 3-2 game, you might have to survive the empty netter Not if its 3-2 Vancouver
haha true but the Canucks just don’t win against Winnipeg. Domination. Hope it ends 3-0 for ya... hellebuyck has one heck of a shut out streak going vs Vancouver maybe they’ll be playing safe defensively in the 3rd to keep that goin!
@NYBartender Point is you’d have to be high and have 0 knowledge to think laying -160 on the under 3.5 was even a remotely good idea. As I said, Vegas got them donations lined up tonight. also, I said how many 4+ game in their wins lol. Not total games, indicating the Canucks had 0 chance. And that means 4+ goals... is that more clear
Well, I might win, I might lose--looks like a loss which is fine. I had my reasoning and it had nothing to do with what happened between the Jets and Canucks four seasons ago. But, get back to me when you post some picks, noob.
@NYBartender Point is you’d have to be high and have 0 knowledge to think laying -160 on the under 3.5 was even a remotely good idea. As I said, Vegas got them donations lined up tonight. also, I said how many 4+ game in their wins lol. Not total games, indicating the Canucks had 0 chance. And that means 4+ goals... is that more clear
Well, I might win, I might lose--looks like a loss which is fine. I had my reasoning and it had nothing to do with what happened between the Jets and Canucks four seasons ago. But, get back to me when you post some picks, noob.
Quote Originally Posted by NYBartender: Quote Originally Posted by HockeyNight11: 3-2 game, you might have to survive the empty netter Not if its 3-2 Vancouver haha true but the Canucks just don’t win against Winnipeg. Domination. Hope it ends 3-0 for ya... hellebuyck has one heck of a shut out streak going vs Vancouver maybe they’ll be playing safe defensively in the 3rd to keep that goin!
2-3 this year isn't all that bad--and this is the only year that matters-- and with the run Thatcher Demko has been on it was worth a shot.
Is what it is. Maybe I get lucky with a scoreless third. Probably not, though.
Quote Originally Posted by NYBartender: Quote Originally Posted by HockeyNight11: 3-2 game, you might have to survive the empty netter Not if its 3-2 Vancouver haha true but the Canucks just don’t win against Winnipeg. Domination. Hope it ends 3-0 for ya... hellebuyck has one heck of a shut out streak going vs Vancouver maybe they’ll be playing safe defensively in the 3rd to keep that goin!
2-3 this year isn't all that bad--and this is the only year that matters-- and with the run Thatcher Demko has been on it was worth a shot.
Is what it is. Maybe I get lucky with a scoreless third. Probably not, though.
Quote Originally Posted by BigTimeHooks: @NYBartender Point is you’d have to be high and have 0 knowledge to think laying -160 on the under 3.5 was even a remotely good idea. As I said, Vegas got them donations lined up tonight. also, I said how many 4+ game in their wins lol. Not total games, indicating the Canucks had 0 chance. And that means 4+ goals... is that more clear Well, I might win, I might lose--looks like a loss which is fine. I had my reasoning and it had nothing to do with what happened between the Jets and Canucks four seasons ago. But, get back to me when you post some picks, noob.
haha 20 years of betting don’t mean 20 years of winning. You laid -160 on this. Even if the jets don’t score again.
get back behind the counter. Pour me a drink.
oh and mix it with whatever JUICE you’re drinking daily
Quote Originally Posted by BigTimeHooks: @NYBartender Point is you’d have to be high and have 0 knowledge to think laying -160 on the under 3.5 was even a remotely good idea. As I said, Vegas got them donations lined up tonight. also, I said how many 4+ game in their wins lol. Not total games, indicating the Canucks had 0 chance. And that means 4+ goals... is that more clear Well, I might win, I might lose--looks like a loss which is fine. I had my reasoning and it had nothing to do with what happened between the Jets and Canucks four seasons ago. But, get back to me when you post some picks, noob.
haha 20 years of betting don’t mean 20 years of winning. You laid -160 on this. Even if the jets don’t score again.
get back behind the counter. Pour me a drink.
oh and mix it with whatever JUICE you’re drinking daily
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.