so... are you saying you think it will change?
so... are you saying you think it will change?
so... are you saying you think it will change?
In my gambling history Ive lost more money going against a trend as opposed to going with the trend. For example I used to have a method of playing blackjack known as a negative progressive style of betting.
I used to bet 25 bucks on my first hand, if i lost i would bet 50 to make back the 25 bucks i lost and a 25 dollar profit, if i lost 2 in a row i would then double my bet to 100 dollars and keep doubling until i hit the table max or until i would win a bet and then after winning i would go back down to a 25 dollar bet again.
25-50-100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400
I thought to myself I'm gonna be rich their is no way i can lose 9 hands in a row and this is when i was 19 years old btw. So I put together a bankroll and headed out to Las Vegas, that very night i lost 9 hands in a row and later i found out what an idiot i was, i was risking 12,775 dollars to win a measley 25 dollars. We as gambling degenerates have a tendency to fight streaks/trends we are generally stubborn people thinking its due its due. I used to chart roulette tables and wait for a long streak of black or red on the board and then bet the opposite, little did i know each roll at a roulette table is independent of each other. Anyways my point is i would definately go with the streak here and say the Pistons win this game straight up.
so... are you saying you think it will change?
In my gambling history Ive lost more money going against a trend as opposed to going with the trend. For example I used to have a method of playing blackjack known as a negative progressive style of betting.
I used to bet 25 bucks on my first hand, if i lost i would bet 50 to make back the 25 bucks i lost and a 25 dollar profit, if i lost 2 in a row i would then double my bet to 100 dollars and keep doubling until i hit the table max or until i would win a bet and then after winning i would go back down to a 25 dollar bet again.
25-50-100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400
I thought to myself I'm gonna be rich their is no way i can lose 9 hands in a row and this is when i was 19 years old btw. So I put together a bankroll and headed out to Las Vegas, that very night i lost 9 hands in a row and later i found out what an idiot i was, i was risking 12,775 dollars to win a measley 25 dollars. We as gambling degenerates have a tendency to fight streaks/trends we are generally stubborn people thinking its due its due. I used to chart roulette tables and wait for a long streak of black or red on the board and then bet the opposite, little did i know each roll at a roulette table is independent of each other. Anyways my point is i would definately go with the streak here and say the Pistons win this game straight up.
| Mar | 12/31/08 | NJ | W 83-75 | W -5.5 | U 188.5 | 2.5 | 33/70 | 28/75 | 42-36 | ||
| 12/02/08 | @SA | W 89-77 | W 5.5 | U 184.5 | 17.5 | 37/74 | 28/71 | 37-41 | |||
| 05/26/08 | BOS | W 94-75 | W -6 | U 176.0 | 13.0 | 36/70 | 21/66 | 34-38 | |||
| 04/13/08 | TOR | W 91-84 | W -5.5 | U 185.5 | 1.5 | 38/78 | 36/83 | 44-33 | |||
| 04/01/08 | @MIN | W 94-90 | L -6.5 | U 186.0 | -2.5 | 32/80 | 32/75 | 45-44 | |||
| 03/14/08 | SA | W 84-80 | W -3 | U 174.5 | 1.0 | 35/86 | 35/81 | 51-39 | |||
| 02/25/08 | @DEN | W 98-93 | W 2 | U 207.0 | 7.0 | 38/88 | 32/89 | 47-46 | |||
| 02/12/08 | @ATL | W 94-90 | L -5 | O 183.5 | -1.0 | 35/76 | 35/82 | 34-47 | |||
| 01/31/08 | LAL | W 90-89 | L -8.5 | U 196.5 | -7.5 | 36/82 | 29/68 | 43-38 | |||
| 11/21/07 | NY | W 98-86 | W -11 | U 193.0 | 1.0 | 37/76 | 36/80 | 36-41 |
| Mar | 12/31/08 | NJ | W 83-75 | W -5.5 | U 188.5 | 2.5 | 33/70 | 28/75 | 42-36 | ||
| 12/02/08 | @SA | W 89-77 | W 5.5 | U 184.5 | 17.5 | 37/74 | 28/71 | 37-41 | |||
| 05/26/08 | BOS | W 94-75 | W -6 | U 176.0 | 13.0 | 36/70 | 21/66 | 34-38 | |||
| 04/13/08 | TOR | W 91-84 | W -5.5 | U 185.5 | 1.5 | 38/78 | 36/83 | 44-33 | |||
| 04/01/08 | @MIN | W 94-90 | L -6.5 | U 186.0 | -2.5 | 32/80 | 32/75 | 45-44 | |||
| 03/14/08 | SA | W 84-80 | W -3 | U 174.5 | 1.0 | 35/86 | 35/81 | 51-39 | |||
| 02/25/08 | @DEN | W 98-93 | W 2 | U 207.0 | 7.0 | 38/88 | 32/89 | 47-46 | |||
| 02/12/08 | @ATL | W 94-90 | L -5 | O 183.5 | -1.0 | 35/76 | 35/82 | 34-47 | |||
| 01/31/08 | LAL | W 90-89 | L -8.5 | U 196.5 | -7.5 | 36/82 | 29/68 | 43-38 | |||
| 11/21/07 | NY | W 98-86 | W -11 | U 193.0 | 1.0 | 37/76 | 36/80 | 36-41 |
| Mar | 12/08/08 | GS | L 102-112 | L 1 | U 219.5 | -9.0 | 41/96 | 41/81 | 48-47 | ||
| 11/15/08 | @PHI | L 85-110 | L 10.5 | O 189.0 | -14.5 | 34/86 | 45/96 | 45-58 | |||
| 03/30/08 | SAC | L 107-120 | L 6 | O 215.5 | -7.0 | 44/92 | 43/78 | 31-42 | |||
| 02/21/08 | @POR | L 88-92 | W 9 | U 191.5 | 5.0 | 31/80 | 29/76 | 51-49 | |||
| 01/21/08 | @HOU | L 89-96 | W 12 | U 195.0 | 5.0 | 39/92 | 37/87 | 46-46 | |||
| 10/31/07 | @DEN | L 103-120 | L 11 | O 217.0 | -6.0 | 40/96 | 42/91 | 52-50 | |||
| 04/14/07 | @POR | L 102-108 | L 1 | O 191.0 | -5.0 | 35/87 | 39/79 | 43-46 | |||
| 01/09/07 | @PHO | L 102-113 | W 15 | U 219.0 | 4.0 | 42/94 | 46/80 | 45-42 | |||
| 11/17/06 | UTA | L 109-118 | L -4.5 | O 209.0 | -13.5 | 37/69 | 45/89 | 27-47 | |||
| 03/08/06 | MEM | L 74-99 | L -1 | U 200.0 | -26.0 | 27/78 | 38/81 | 36-51 |
| Mar | 12/08/08 | GS | L 102-112 | L 1 | U 219.5 | -9.0 | 41/96 | 41/81 | 48-47 | ||
| 11/15/08 | @PHI | L 85-110 | L 10.5 | O 189.0 | -14.5 | 34/86 | 45/96 | 45-58 | |||
| 03/30/08 | SAC | L 107-120 | L 6 | O 215.5 | -7.0 | 44/92 | 43/78 | 31-42 | |||
| 02/21/08 | @POR | L 88-92 | W 9 | U 191.5 | 5.0 | 31/80 | 29/76 | 51-49 | |||
| 01/21/08 | @HOU | L 89-96 | W 12 | U 195.0 | 5.0 | 39/92 | 37/87 | 46-46 | |||
| 10/31/07 | @DEN | L 103-120 | L 11 | O 217.0 | -6.0 | 40/96 | 42/91 | 52-50 | |||
| 04/14/07 | @POR | L 102-108 | L 1 | O 191.0 | -5.0 | 35/87 | 39/79 | 43-46 | |||
| 01/09/07 | @PHO | L 102-113 | W 15 | U 219.0 | 4.0 | 42/94 | 46/80 | 45-42 | |||
| 11/17/06 | UTA | L 109-118 | L -4.5 | O 209.0 | -13.5 | 37/69 | 45/89 | 27-47 | |||
| 03/08/06 | MEM | L 74-99 | L -1 | U 200.0 | -26.0 | 27/78 | 38/81 | 36-51 |
In my gambling history Ive lost more money going against a trend as opposed to going with the trend. For example I used to have a method of playing blackjack known as a negative progressive style of betting.
I used to bet 25 bucks on my first hand, if i lost i would bet 50 to make back the 25 bucks i lost and a 25 dollar profit, if i lost 2 in a row i would then double my bet to 100 dollars and keep doubling until i hit the table max or until i would win a bet and then after winning i would go back down to a 25 dollar bet again.
25-50-100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400
I thought to myself I'm gonna be rich their is no way i can lose 9 hands in a row and this is when i was 19 years old btw. So I put together a bankroll and headed out to Las Vegas, that very night i lost 9 hands in a row and later i found out what an idiot i was, i was risking 12,775 dollars to win a measley 25 dollars. We as gambling degenerates have a tendency to fight streaks/trends we are generally stubborn people thinking its due its due. I used to chart roulette tables and wait for a long streak of black or red on the board and then bet the opposite, little did i know each roll at a roulette table is independent of each other. Anyways my point is i would definately go with the streak here and say the Pistons win this game straight up.
actually, this same argument can be used to argue against betting on the streak to continue... because, as you said, every "trial" is independent of all previous "trials"...
anyway, i only asked because of the way you posted a
at the end of your sentence about Detroit ML...
personally, i think Detroit is pretty easy money tonight, regardless of trends/streaks/etc.
In my gambling history Ive lost more money going against a trend as opposed to going with the trend. For example I used to have a method of playing blackjack known as a negative progressive style of betting.
I used to bet 25 bucks on my first hand, if i lost i would bet 50 to make back the 25 bucks i lost and a 25 dollar profit, if i lost 2 in a row i would then double my bet to 100 dollars and keep doubling until i hit the table max or until i would win a bet and then after winning i would go back down to a 25 dollar bet again.
25-50-100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400
I thought to myself I'm gonna be rich their is no way i can lose 9 hands in a row and this is when i was 19 years old btw. So I put together a bankroll and headed out to Las Vegas, that very night i lost 9 hands in a row and later i found out what an idiot i was, i was risking 12,775 dollars to win a measley 25 dollars. We as gambling degenerates have a tendency to fight streaks/trends we are generally stubborn people thinking its due its due. I used to chart roulette tables and wait for a long streak of black or red on the board and then bet the opposite, little did i know each roll at a roulette table is independent of each other. Anyways my point is i would definately go with the streak here and say the Pistons win this game straight up.
actually, this same argument can be used to argue against betting on the streak to continue... because, as you said, every "trial" is independent of all previous "trials"...
anyway, i only asked because of the way you posted a
at the end of your sentence about Detroit ML...
personally, i think Detroit is pretty easy money tonight, regardless of trends/streaks/etc.
hmmm![]()
so you betting heavy on pistons only -4.
seams like a fishy line to me and to tell you the truth i think okc is the play
hmmm![]()
so you betting heavy on pistons only -4.
seams like a fishy line to me and to tell you the truth i think okc is the play

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.