Seems like a 3-2 type game to me.
This has to be a low scoring game, right?
Seems like a 3-2 type game to me.
Seems like a 3-2 type game to me.
I don't care who is up there batting against guys like Jimenez, Hudson, Johnson, Halladay, Wainright and Carpenter. These guys are too good and when someone different is pitching each inning it's almost impossible to adjust.
Seems like a 3-2 type game to me.
This is exactly what the books want you to think!!! I will be on the OVER!!!![]()
I don't care who is up there batting against guys like Jimenez, Hudson, Johnson, Halladay, Wainright and Carpenter. These guys are too good and when someone different is pitching each inning it's almost impossible to adjust.
Seems like a 3-2 type game to me.
This is exactly what the books want you to think!!! I will be on the OVER!!!![]()
This is exactly what the books want you to think!!! I will be on the OVER!!!![]()
I am totally confused on this one. I was leaning UNDER, which I assumed would be the consensus pick. Then I thought OVER, think that it really doesn't take much to get the job done. But I looked at the recent All Star game results, and it appears that the total may be right, after all.
This is exactly what the books want you to think!!! I will be on the OVER!!!![]()
I am totally confused on this one. I was leaning UNDER, which I assumed would be the consensus pick. Then I thought OVER, think that it really doesn't take much to get the job done. But I looked at the recent All Star game results, and it appears that the total may be right, after all.
I am totally confused on this one. I was leaning UNDER, which I assumed would be the consensus pick. Then I thought OVER, think that it really doesn't take much to get the job done. But I looked at the recent All Star game results, and it appears that the total may be right, after all.
I am totally confused on this one. I was leaning UNDER, which I assumed would be the consensus pick. Then I thought OVER, think that it really doesn't take much to get the job done. But I looked at the recent All Star game results, and it appears that the total may be right, after all.
Seems to me the public will be on the over in an all-star game
Seems to me the public will be on the over in an all-star game
nobody looking for walks, pitchers challenging great hitters with no let up, no 7-9 hitters to coast thru. i see runs scored. im on nl and over
nobody looking for walks, pitchers challenging great hitters with no let up, no 7-9 hitters to coast thru. i see runs scored. im on nl and over
badgers gonna b good this year humble
badgers gonna b good this year humble
Look at this way: The game total being OVER this year's number is 6-4 since 2000...The pitching is more dominant than in the past...The under will catch up and probably take the lead....I expect the Under to be 7-6 after 2012....
Dont know where you're getting your lines from, but since 2001 its U/O 5-4, and from '95-'99 is was U/O 4-1 (I can't find a line for 2000's game, but rarely in the last decade or so has a game total been lined 8.5, and for 2000's 6-3 game to have paid out on Over that's what it would've needed to be). So since '95 its U/O 9-5 excluding 1 year that suspiciously looks like another Under result (that obviously would make for U/O 10-4). From '84-'94 its either U/O 7-4 or 8-3 (depending on '89's line for an 8 run game, another likely Under), meaning from '84 it's either 16-9 or (more likely) 17-8, excluding the likely Under from 2000.
If any correction is coming, it's back to Overs, since Unders have clearly dominated since 1984.![]()
Look at this way: The game total being OVER this year's number is 6-4 since 2000...The pitching is more dominant than in the past...The under will catch up and probably take the lead....I expect the Under to be 7-6 after 2012....
Dont know where you're getting your lines from, but since 2001 its U/O 5-4, and from '95-'99 is was U/O 4-1 (I can't find a line for 2000's game, but rarely in the last decade or so has a game total been lined 8.5, and for 2000's 6-3 game to have paid out on Over that's what it would've needed to be). So since '95 its U/O 9-5 excluding 1 year that suspiciously looks like another Under result (that obviously would make for U/O 10-4). From '84-'94 its either U/O 7-4 or 8-3 (depending on '89's line for an 8 run game, another likely Under), meaning from '84 it's either 16-9 or (more likely) 17-8, excluding the likely Under from 2000.
If any correction is coming, it's back to Overs, since Unders have clearly dominated since 1984.![]()
Also factor in the shadows the angel stadium of anaheim has...it is one of the toughest stadiums with shadows around the league and with the game time set where it is the shadows should play a factor!! I lean under 1st 5 with the starters of both teams...
The game time of 5:00pm is actually good for the OVER, because it's still warm at that time, which means the ball travels farther
Also factor in the shadows the angel stadium of anaheim has...it is one of the toughest stadiums with shadows around the league and with the game time set where it is the shadows should play a factor!! I lean under 1st 5 with the starters of both teams...
The game time of 5:00pm is actually good for the OVER, because it's still warm at that time, which means the ball travels farther
Dont know where you're getting your lines from, but since 2001 its U/O 5-4, and from '95-'99 is was U/O 4-1 (I can't find a line for 2000's game, but rarely in the last decade or so has a game total been lined 8.5, and for 2000's 6-3 game to have paid out on Over that's what it would've needed to be). So since '95 its U/O 9-5 excluding 1 year that suspiciously looks like another Under result (that obviously would make for U/O 10-4). From '84-'94 its either U/O 7-4 or 8-3 (depending on '89's line for an 8 run game, another likely Under), meaning from '84 it's either 16-9 or (more likely) 17-8, excluding the likely Under from 2000.
If any correction is coming, it's back to Overs, since Unders have clearly dominated since 1984.![]()
Nothing like FACTS to screw up a thread
Thanks for the info, BC.
Dont know where you're getting your lines from, but since 2001 its U/O 5-4, and from '95-'99 is was U/O 4-1 (I can't find a line for 2000's game, but rarely in the last decade or so has a game total been lined 8.5, and for 2000's 6-3 game to have paid out on Over that's what it would've needed to be). So since '95 its U/O 9-5 excluding 1 year that suspiciously looks like another Under result (that obviously would make for U/O 10-4). From '84-'94 its either U/O 7-4 or 8-3 (depending on '89's line for an 8 run game, another likely Under), meaning from '84 it's either 16-9 or (more likely) 17-8, excluding the likely Under from 2000.
If any correction is coming, it's back to Overs, since Unders have clearly dominated since 1984.![]()
Nothing like FACTS to screw up a thread
Thanks for the info, BC.
my book moved the line from
8.5 -100
to 8.5 +105
to 9
hmmm
If this line movement is true, take the UNDER, cause it's a "head-fake". Vegas is trying to get you to bet the OVER.
my book moved the line from
8.5 -100
to 8.5 +105
to 9
hmmm
If this line movement is true, take the UNDER, cause it's a "head-fake". Vegas is trying to get you to bet the OVER.
If this line movement is true, take the UNDER, cause it's a "head-fake". Vegas is trying to get you to bet the OVER.
If this line movement is true, take the UNDER, cause it's a "head-fake". Vegas is trying to get you to bet the OVER.
Hot Forum Topics
-
🤢🥴💩_ Fubah's risky baseball bets _🥶😲🥵
447,694
-
🏈🏈🏈 Fubah2's risky CFB bets
257,374
-
Couple Beers
3,935
-
PART DEUX
289
-
Tuesday 09/15/2026
648
-
Tuesday
3,185
-
Wednesday 09/16/2026
360
-
Trump lies so much.
20,693
-
What damage to America does the traitor and his party plan for the rest of the year.?
25,639
-
Another looney Trump comment today.
11,557
Warning - External Link
Report User
This post is spam
Delete Post
Remove Thread
Scan Results
Login/Register
Accounts are free and easy to create.
Search
