Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Quote Originally Posted by OmahaStylee: Do not bet UK -6, because if they win by less than 6 points, you will lose both bets, which is a disaster. UK moneyline is -300, if you hedge, you need to bet the Kentucky moneyline. The reality is when you have the underdog in a prop like yours, it is not a great hedge opportunity. I would bet 600 on the Kentucky moneyline and lock up a profit. If Kansas wins, you would clear 1000 bucks, if Kentucky wins you score 100 profit. Good luck my friend. Completely agree...only way to hedge is Kentucky ML. Since you are only looking for $500, I would Put $900 on Kentucky ML and cash the $300. If KU miracle comes in, you score twice that. |
Shawdog1984 | 4 |
|
|
Never mind! Just finished reading your post! LOL
|
nropp11 | 25 |
|
|
Agree on analysis, especially on Tubby's use of guard pressure. I like overs a little more than the side, but on same page. Curious as to why the Umass total is only a lean. Loved Riccio's analysis (specifically that MSG won't affect Stanford as much since they've played twice and shown they can score >= their average) ...I'm wondering what kept you from playing it?
|
nropp11 | 25 |
|
|
I agree that Withey and Robinson could give Sullinger fits down low. To me, the matchup will be won with the Point Guards. One team has a solid although unspectacular PG in Craft. The other team has a sometimes spectacular, but rarely solid PG in Taylor. It was interesting that Taylor's "breakout" game was against 3rd string PG of UNC. hmmmm....
I will take the quick hands of Craft (although overdone by the CBS crew) to force the turnover-prone Taylor into some critical mistakes at crunch time. OSU -2.5 for this newbie... |
Crashdavis565 | 46 |
|
|
Although Creighton can score on anyone, they have struggled against teams that play very physical. McDermott will get his, but the spot up shooters will get much fewer clean looks in the flow of their offense because they won't be able to rely on penetration/kick.
Don't minimize how much of an impact Creighton's lack of physicality will help Alabama score. Haven't seen bama play much, but if they don't settle for jump shots, they will be able to get to the rim consistently. (see Wichita St. @ Creighton). |
jwheels86 | 40 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by PokerProErik: Cant be the worst when there is still someone that actually suggested taking the Under in this VMI/CC game. That guy is the worst. February: 58-42, +55.60 February Leans: 55-45 Yep...+55 units this month. Good call. |
nropp11 | 79 |
|
|
Kine,
Add me to the legions of folks thanking you for the system errrrrr.....PRINCIPLES. One thing about these plays that I find especially entertaining: Because it is predicated on playing the turd teams, the ones that don't come in are usually over at half. Anybody else love being busy, then checking your plays and seeing the 9 point dog up by 6 early in the second half and then find another play down by 28 in the first half? (Not saying I like losing, but also understand it's part of this gig and I generally laugh on these losses as opposed to swearing about a missed FT, etc.) Thanks again for your thoughts...sad to see the thread clogged by posts not worth the time it takes to scroll over them. |
KineProfessor | 1966 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by KineProfessor: Not only is this value when you look at the matchups and recent play, there is also value in the "situational" aspect as well as its Greensboro's last home game of the season (senior night) and they can clinch the number seed with a win AND they are fighting for the coach that turned their season around and trying to get him the head coaching job for the future. Putting all those aspects together makes nice value on Greensboro to be sure. First let me say, I'm new to covers but was lurking for a few weeks and I appreciate your insight. When you were recapping your reasons to value, the biggest angle that points to Greensboro is the news (to me) about their coach not getting the interim tag lifted. Couple that with final home game and you are likely to get a rallying of the troops that will bode well for Greensboro. Only thing that makes me a bit leery is the contrasting styles of the two teams and that it turns into a slow-paced slugfest. Thanks for your insight and am very intrigued by your system. I really like that it's a system predicated on some logic (along with data) rather than SOLELY based on data centered around random factors in which correlation often gets misinterpreted for causation. |
KineProfessor | 1966 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by nropp11: I will start this by saying that if there is one spot that Illinois gets up for a game the rest of the year, this is probably it. But, I’m going the other way based on a few things. For one, Bruce has lost the players, I’m fairly confident of that. For reference, check out the halftime lead at Nebraska that quickly turned into a 43-7 second half run they allowed to…Nebraska of all teams. Illinois just couldn’t defend, and didn’t look like they cared to do so, either. And, it actually led to tears on the bench and in the locker-room. First meeting this year was the Brandon Paul show, couldn’t miss, and he was the sole reason they were even in the game. I assume Bruce changes the lineup tonight for some odd reason, and if that happens, the offense takes a huge hit regardless of who see’s time on the floor and the defense doesn’t get any better, either. Thad hates Illinois. No reason he takes it easy off a loss, tonight. Thad off a loss last couple years: Win by 24, Win by 31, Win by 17, Win by 10, Win by 10, Win by 19. Again, just a lean. Scared of Illini going in with the motto of doing whatever they want, whenever they want, and I think that’s possibly a good thing if Bruce just lets the talent play without any awkward direction. Lean: Ohio State -15 I was already on Creighton for similar reasoning and your lean on OSU is enough to make me pull the trigger...didn't know Thad was anti-Illini moreso than the rest of the conference. Seeing Nebraska pull away from Illinois was evidence enough that Weber was indeed dead-man walking. Looking ahead tomorrow to Purdue/Nebraska and think they Hummel/pummel NU by DD. |
nropp11 | 35 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by JFen31: Duly noted. I've just joined covers but have been a big fan of your thread...not just for the sound reasoning you consistently provide, but also for the class you show when jack-ball's come into your thread. Loved this response even more than the NW play. Love the spot NW is in and that they will be able to get the shots they want against Michigan. Always a little leary of backing teams that rely on the 3-ball as much as NW does, but I'm on this play with you, purely from the situational perspective. |
JFen31 | 81 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by nropp11: I'm not going to talk you out of your play, go with your gut. Why do I like Evansville? Well, if you've followed my Creighton analysis all year, their offense is good and the defense is so-so. Evansville is probably in the same boat, and I'd tab them a "mini" Creighton. Offense is really, really good at times, and they can't guard all that well. I'm OK with that here. The pace in this one should be pretty fast. If you follow me on twitterverse, this is pretty much an identical spot to what Illinois went into on Sunday. Coming off a dragging physical game and going into a finesse offense. Illinois lost that game, and while the defense looked pitiful, the offense did, too. Pretty similar here. Creighton's coming off a physical UNI defense, and going to be forced into an up and down style and an offense that I would consider very finesse. Not only that, this Creighton team has the MVC title game with Wichita State on deck Saturday which will be nationally televised. Concerns? Yah, Creighton's offense scares me against the Evansville defense, but I should see a bump in efficiency on the second roady after the physical game with UNI. I should also see a far worse Creighton defense, which should lead to some additional Evansville offense. I'm not a big believer in "must-wins" or teams bouncing back after a loss. If every team bounced back after a loss, then the NCAA Tournament bubble would be 345 teams deep. Just not prevalent in my mind, until you get to conference tourney time. Should be a good game, but I think the value is on the home pup here. GL Neil...great analysis in CBB. Your research is unmatched and I've lurked for awhile. Don't always tail, but your posts are must-read. Couldn't agree more with your thoughts on Florida but the Creighton play I find a bit intriguing. FWIW I think the number is pretty tight. The comparison to Illinois in going from physical to finesse is a little different because Creighton offensively is more impressive than Illinois IMO. Thus, Creighton won't be as affected as much as Illinois in the move to finesse. Agree that defensively Creighton will be affected a bit on defense on B2B roadies, but like them to outscore any team that doesn't play physical defense, which Evansville doesn't. Thanks again for all of the great insight...actually the reason I registered...to participate in the discussion! |
nropp11 | 118 |
|
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.