Posted:
#26
0
A message to all rookies and "sharp" wanna-bes...
Posted:
#29
Best post I've read in a while. Pretty much sums up what I've been feeling over the last two weeks, but too lazy to type.
Another perfect example of this was on the college side last Thursday. Mizzou and Nebraska, game was played in horrible conditions. Game screaming under. Over was basically sitting on our faces.
1/2 the board went with the over because:
A. Too many people on the under
B. They wanted to be cute and "fade the public".
There was one genius that even said weather doesn't affect totals.
Game easily and predictably went under because of the bad conditions.
0
Posted:
#30
Quote Originally Posted by supadame:
Best post I've read in a while. Pretty much sums up what I've been feeling over the last two weeks, but too lazy to type.
Another perfect example of this was on the college side last Thursday. Mizzou and Nebraska, game was played in horrible conditions. Game screaming under. Over was basically sitting on our faces.
1/2 the board went with the over because:
A. Too many people on the under
B. They wanted to be cute and "fade the public".
There was one genius that even said weather doesn't affect totals.
Game easily and predictably went under because of the bad conditions.
thank goodness it didn't stop raining at halftime otherwise it would have gone over. fell alseep thinking neb lost it and was pleasantly surprised the under and neb covered
0
Posted:
#34
I agree in large part. That being said, as soon as you think you can be successful picking the better teams you end up on the short end also. You have to mix it up. The better team doesn't cover the spread THAT MUCH or we'd all play them every time and be winners. Sometimes you gotta take the side that's not so obvious, but again that doesn't always work either. You can't be "sharp" or "square" all the time and be successful. I had the Titans last night because it was a division game and I thought the Titans run game and home field advantage could keep them close. I was wrong. I'm riding the Dolphins for almost the same reason tonight.....if I'm wrong it'll be my first losing week of the season.
0
Posted:
#40
Thanks for the replies guys. Didn't know such an "innocent" topic would have spurred so many responses.
I know I stated the obvious with this post...but sometimes the truth is in front of us and we stubbornly refuse to see it.
If winning money with the NFL comes down to picking who's gonna win the game, well at least we don't have to worry about the spread too much. Of course, picking winners is still a tough job.
I believe the NBA offers better opportunities for those who like to fade the public due to wider spreads and the number of games played by each team, the long road trips, etc.
The NFL is just a do-or-die type of league and these guys give it all out any given sunday.
I know I stated the obvious with this post...but sometimes the truth is in front of us and we stubbornly refuse to see it.
If winning money with the NFL comes down to picking who's gonna win the game, well at least we don't have to worry about the spread too much. Of course, picking winners is still a tough job.
I believe the NBA offers better opportunities for those who like to fade the public due to wider spreads and the number of games played by each team, the long road trips, etc.
The NFL is just a do-or-die type of league and these guys give it all out any given sunday.
0
Posted:
#48
Quote Originally Posted by FrontRowCenter:
It will turn around soon, the Public will not keep winning on the obvious plays!!! Someone has to pay for the chandeliers!!!
It will turn around soon, the Public will not keep winning on the obvious plays!!! Someone has to pay for the chandeliers!!!
It's not so much about the public winning or losing here...this thread is meant to point out how the straight-up winner covers the spread most of the times.
Here is a summary of the 2009-2010 season so far:
Week 1: 12-4
Week 2: 15-1
Week 3: 15-1
Week 4: 12-2
Week 5: 11-3
The 2009-2010 season total is 65-11 or 85.5%.
Now the big question is: who is going to win in week 6? Only bet on teams you think are going to win straight up. Don't put money on Oakland +14 - just an example - only because you think laying 2 TDs on the road is too much for an NFL team. If you bet Raiders + points it's gotta be because you feel Oakland has a chance at pulling off the shocker.
In fact, those who bet Oakland should also bet them straight up IMO.
Just bother at picking winners, forget about the spread.
0
Posted:
#49
So if you expect this trend to continue, and want to put your money where your mouth is, do the following:
1. Bet on the favorite minus the spread
2. Also bet on the dog on the ML
The problem with this thread, and with this concept in general, is that you are taking a limited sample size (this season) and making a very generalized statement to "just bother picking winners and forget about the spread".
Unfortunately, a larger sample size makes this theory obsolete. You can always find trends in data that would make for patterns in the short term (10 reds in a row on a roulette table), but longterm there is ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE to the theory you suggest.
Sorry to burst your bubble, and the many responses that really think you are on to something here - but this is a classic case of being fooled by randomness.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Hot Forum Topics
