Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hearts - Celtic X (draw) 4.50 Celtic as an away favorite at this range of odds (Hearts are 6.35 to win) are a draw machine, even if this matchup looks tough for Hearts. But then every match vs Celtic looks tough for anyone in this league. |
garbagetime | 1 |
|
|
Zlin - Slavia Prague X (draw) 6.25 1-1 FT Achnas 4.20 Omonia 2-2 FT That early red card really killed the Achnas bet. Today: 1-1, +4.25 units |
garbagetime | 4 |
|
|
Achnas 4.20 |
garbagetime | 4 |
|
|
Gonna take Achnas to beat Omonia as well, but my book is way short of the average odds. Currently offering 3.90 to an average of 4.14. Waiting to see live odds. |
garbagetime | 4 |
|
|
Starts in 10 minutes Zlin - Slavia Prague X (draw) 6.25 |
garbagetime | 4 |
|
|
replied to
Chuck Esposito told me once you have to figure the California money when deciding lines on California teams and….
in NFL Betting The thing I don't get about this take is that SF's defense hasn't been all that good in the playoffs. What makes you guys think SF will be controlling the tempo and playing with a lead? |
buffer | 13 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by IntenseOperator:
Just an fyi LOL 4-years ago today: Patrick Mahomes over/under for rush yards in Super Bowl 54 was 29.5. He had 44 yards before taking three knees to end the game of -5, -3 and -7 yards. Finished with 29 rushing yards. Coworker just mentioned that Simmons is touting total carries-over 4.5 -127 for Mahomes. Which actually sounds great, except why would you take anything that Bill Simmons has broadcast |
Indigo999 | 189 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by dubz4dummyz:
DUI throws a wrench in my KC lean....prob a no play now KC dealing with a massive distraction now...and mahomes not fully concentrated on the game.... Why, was he on the roster? The Chiefs specialize in distractions. Yet here they are. |
Indigo999 | 189 |
|
|
@Indigo999 Jowchoo probably said it more eloquently, but I think you needn't be superstitious about it. It stands to reason that with sports in general and the NFL in particular being up-and-down leagues, it is inevitable that when cappers do well enough in a season to attract fees for their picks, they inevitably do less well the following season. |
Indigo999 | 189 |
|
|
Those are dynamite, thanks. |
Indigo999 | 189 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999:
Of course the line the Vegas bookmaker puts out has a big part of how we decide we'll be betting on a particular game....if I am on the Chiefs, what line would I have considered betting on the 49ers? Some bettors make overlay betting their 100% focus....to be profitable it requires that their line is more efficient than the bookmakers' line is, a daunting task for a bettor as discussed before. I would have played the Chiefs up to -3.5...at -3.5 I would have no-played it. Using historical data is my methodology and what I am about in sports betting, and in this case, everything I use to determine who'll cover in the Super Bowl is on the Chiefs. This is my methodology as well, particularly in soccer, where I've put together databases for teams and leagues that go back 15 years. I had DMed you a while back because I wanted to have a conversation about the general strategy. I wrote a book-length manuscript that attracted an agent, but the agent has yet to attract a publisher in spite of some promising discussions. I really believe in it as a strategy. Instead of constructing a narrative of what you think is likely to happen, you ask, "How often does this actually happen, and in what circumstances?" |
Indigo999 | 189 |
|
|
I feel like it starts with the coach as well as with the QB. Harbaugh didn’t have his team ready to play, and hadn’t taught them much situational awareness either |
theclaw | 151 |
|
|
I would like to know why Tampa’s defense never, ever makes an adjustment |
theclaw | 151 |
|
|
@Erik48 The thing about any angle like the Bator rule ("Twin Peaks") is that if it doesn't fit the rule, don't play it. It's either in the angle's data set, or it isn't. |
theclaw | 151 |
|
|
@Indigo999 How is a 34-10 final score giving you a win on over 46 |
Indigo999 | 48 |
|
|
It's an open question who is better fade material, him or Ted Cruz |
vanzack | 34 |
|
|
Exactly. From Wiki: On February 3, 2022, McIngvale placed a $4.5 million wager on the Cincinnati Bengals to win Super Bowl LVI. It officially set the record for the largest mobile wager in sports betting history. As a result of the Houston Astros claiming the 2022 World Series championship, Mack was awarded $75 million in total sports betting payouts, the highest total in sports betting history. McIngvale has lost $9.2 million betting on the last two CFP National Championship games. In 2022, he bet $6.2 million on the Alabama Crimson Tide to defeat the Georgia Bulldogs; Georgia won, 33–18. A year later, he once again bet against the Bulldogs, putting $3 million on the TCU Horned Frogs to pull the upset. Georgia instead won a second straight championship, 65–7, to date the biggest blowout ever in an FBS bowl game. |
vanzack | 34 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:
Quote Originally Posted by garbagetime: Quote Originally Posted by vanzack: 20 year trends are about as useful to me as astrology. Dumb take. There are trends (Twin Peaks angle stands out) that are highly valuable in NFL betting because they hit consistently. They hit consistently because time and again the market overreacts to certain situations that happen repeatedly over the years, and even if the teams are different, the outcomes are the same.......and yet nobody has become a billionaire betting on these trends.....situations may be the same, but all the the faces change over 20 years..... Nobody has yet become a billionaire betting on the NFL at all. Twin Peaks hits at 75% or something. There are exceedingly valuable trends, so one shouldn't dismiss them all with a wave of the hand. |
vanzack | 175 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
20 year trends are about as useful to me as astrology. Dumb take. There are trends (Twin Peaks angle stands out) that are highly valuable in NFL betting because they hit consistently. They hit consistently because time and again the market overreacts to certain situations that happen repeatedly over the years, and even if the teams are different, the outcomes are the same. |
vanzack | 175 |
|
|
Rachaad *sometimes* can run. I watched two games down the stretch (Packers and Jags) where Mayfield was the story, with (GB) or without (Jax) White putting up much yardage. |
vanzack | 175 |
|
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.