I dislike that smartbets guy a lot he was doing well when he capped then got all big headed going tout only to fail at that as well. Hes a shame. Nobody forgot you scumbag.
you mad bro? Might wanna check the facts before you assume.
Quote Originally Posted by mikesomoney:
Don't worry Scal we win em back and then some.
I dislike that smartbets guy a lot he was doing well when he capped then got all big headed going tout only to fail at that as well. Hes a shame. Nobody forgot you scumbag.
you mad bro? Might wanna check the facts before you assume.
Actually, the price for Indy was -170 and anyone who understand perception knows this price was low. Low due to the fact that everyone loved Washington.
So I got +165 (some people got +180) and the books were offering -170. That's a lot of juice they were collecting on that series bet huh!?!
Post a single ticket where you or anyone got -170 on the pacers.
And again, only the squarest of squares base their entire cap on 'everyone loves' and 'the public is pounding' garbage. It is a part of the cap, not the entire cap and sometimes it's not even a part of it! I played the Knicks all year with the public pounding them every time and moving their lines 4 full points against me and went 8-2.
So please save it.
You don't know what the hell you are talking about.
This was a superior backcourt. This was a superior frontcourt. And many other factors including the bipolar disorder of the pacer franchise.
If Washington holds a lead in game 2 and go up 2-0 the series is likely over. They didn't and did the same thing in game 4. Again, let's not sit here and squawk with "the bet was a loser and that is all that matters." This was a dog long shot, on the road to start the series. To sit here and say the wiz bet had an advantage because of public love is buffoonish talk, typical of you and posters of your ilk.
Quote Originally Posted by smartbets:
Actually, the price for Indy was -170 and anyone who understand perception knows this price was low. Low due to the fact that everyone loved Washington.
So I got +165 (some people got +180) and the books were offering -170. That's a lot of juice they were collecting on that series bet huh!?!
Post a single ticket where you or anyone got -170 on the pacers.
And again, only the squarest of squares base their entire cap on 'everyone loves' and 'the public is pounding' garbage. It is a part of the cap, not the entire cap and sometimes it's not even a part of it! I played the Knicks all year with the public pounding them every time and moving their lines 4 full points against me and went 8-2.
So please save it.
You don't know what the hell you are talking about.
This was a superior backcourt. This was a superior frontcourt. And many other factors including the bipolar disorder of the pacer franchise.
If Washington holds a lead in game 2 and go up 2-0 the series is likely over. They didn't and did the same thing in game 4. Again, let's not sit here and squawk with "the bet was a loser and that is all that matters." This was a dog long shot, on the road to start the series. To sit here and say the wiz bet had an advantage because of public love is buffoonish talk, typical of you and posters of your ilk.
I hope you might not be referring to me Scal. I tried with reason to let you know I didn't think you wager was wise. Can I have an opinion?
No. You provided no real argumentation to counter my wiz side, a necessary requirement for a dialectic on a game, with a pacers side and if you did, I would have squashed it like an acorn under a Mac Truck tire.
Quote Originally Posted by best_bets:
I hope you might not be referring to me Scal. I tried with reason to let you know I didn't think you wager was wise. Can I have an opinion?
No. You provided no real argumentation to counter my wiz side, a necessary requirement for a dialectic on a game, with a pacers side and if you did, I would have squashed it like an acorn under a Mac Truck tire.
[Quote: Originally Posted by smartbets] The day of game 1, 5 dimes offered Indy -170, Washington +150
You can say anything you want. Woulda coulda shoulda. I don't know what I'm talking about etc. this is about winning. And I won. Large.
Go luck to you in the ecf/wcf
[/Quote
Ah, so take the line that is pounded away from min and one that makes you look the most favorable (even though I guarantee you didn't bet it!) when I went after a line that makes me the most money.
Yes, 5 dimes is the King James Bible of the betting world. Let us all no
bow and pay homage to these revered line setters at the 5 Dime palace of bet taking royals because if you didn't get the pacers at -170, you have done yourself a disservice.
[Quote: Originally Posted by smartbets] The day of game 1, 5 dimes offered Indy -170, Washington +150
You can say anything you want. Woulda coulda shoulda. I don't know what I'm talking about etc. this is about winning. And I won. Large.
Go luck to you in the ecf/wcf
[/Quote
Ah, so take the line that is pounded away from min and one that makes you look the most favorable (even though I guarantee you didn't bet it!) when I went after a line that makes me the most money.
Yes, 5 dimes is the King James Bible of the betting world. Let us all no
bow and pay homage to these revered line setters at the 5 Dime palace of bet taking royals because if you didn't get the pacers at -170, you have done yourself a disservice.
The prayer was for the pacers hawks series. Not this one. It's right in the tread title for god's sake.
You were praying that you would have a chance to bet the Wizards-Pacers series, right? "I PRAYED the Pacers would win game 7 to get my betting hands on this." Then your prayer was answered and you bet Wizards. Don't understand what you're trying to say.
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
The prayer was for the pacers hawks series. Not this one. It's right in the tread title for god's sake.
You were praying that you would have a chance to bet the Wizards-Pacers series, right? "I PRAYED the Pacers would win game 7 to get my betting hands on this." Then your prayer was answered and you bet Wizards. Don't understand what you're trying to say.
No. You provided no real argumentation to counter my wiz side, a necessary requirement for a dialectic on a game, with a pacers side and if you did, I would have squashed it like an acorn under a Mac Truck tire.
?
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
No. You provided no real argumentation to counter my wiz side, a necessary requirement for a dialectic on a game, with a pacers side and if you did, I would have squashed it like an acorn under a Mac Truck tire.
wtf. i took scal thread in consideration. i did not bet the Wiz series before Game 1 although i wish I did. instead i took them after winning game 1 when the series bet on Wiz titled to -120. I thought with Wiz win (btw 70% of game 1 winner in Round 2 advance) and with Scal post, i pounded the sh***t out of the Wiz series as I saw value even at -120..
So the Wiz lost...I am not complaining and don't blame Scal.
Grow up guys. you win some and lose some. Scal provided his reasoning which I found helpful.
wtf. i took scal thread in consideration. i did not bet the Wiz series before Game 1 although i wish I did. instead i took them after winning game 1 when the series bet on Wiz titled to -120. I thought with Wiz win (btw 70% of game 1 winner in Round 2 advance) and with Scal post, i pounded the sh***t out of the Wiz series as I saw value even at -120..
So the Wiz lost...I am not complaining and don't blame Scal.
Grow up guys. you win some and lose some. Scal provided his reasoning which I found helpful.
hello scal i been on the boards for a while its been fun watching you go from just-another-poster to someone that makes bold calls & drums up trolls. even though you lost you stick to the facts on the court & thats most important.
hello scal i been on the boards for a while its been fun watching you go from just-another-poster to someone that makes bold calls & drums up trolls. even though you lost you stick to the facts on the court & thats most important.
Lol people come in here and bash him like theyre paying for a capping service...you came here in the first place bc Scals a winner and brings great insight to games, end of story. You dont owe anybody anything on a forum Scal but thank you for taking the time to share your insight each and every time.
Lol people come in here and bash him like theyre paying for a capping service...you came here in the first place bc Scals a winner and brings great insight to games, end of story. You dont owe anybody anything on a forum Scal but thank you for taking the time to share your insight each and every time.
What's amazing is that not a single bashing poster took the pacers at nearly 1-2 on the money prior to the series. And yet they are here to bash on the wiz pick, a wiz team that dispatched of a quality bulls team in the prior round (a bulls team that could be argued is better than the pacers).
But here they are bashing
Blame it on Wall who is not mature or a leader...yet.
Blame it on 2 stretches to end games where the wiz absolutely couldn't hit a shot if their life depended on it.
Blame it on Hibbert's emergence in game 2, a game the pacers should have still lost and then they would have almost certainly lost the series.
This was a much closer series than a typical 4-2 series. A loss is a loss but at +165 you only need to win 38% of the time to be profitable.
Would the wiz win 38 out of 100 series? I think we'd all agree that would be yes. So it's actually a good bet and I'd make it again. This just didn't happen to be one of the winning samples.
To all the above.
What's amazing is that not a single bashing poster took the pacers at nearly 1-2 on the money prior to the series. And yet they are here to bash on the wiz pick, a wiz team that dispatched of a quality bulls team in the prior round (a bulls team that could be argued is better than the pacers).
But here they are bashing
Blame it on Wall who is not mature or a leader...yet.
Blame it on 2 stretches to end games where the wiz absolutely couldn't hit a shot if their life depended on it.
Blame it on Hibbert's emergence in game 2, a game the pacers should have still lost and then they would have almost certainly lost the series.
This was a much closer series than a typical 4-2 series. A loss is a loss but at +165 you only need to win 38% of the time to be profitable.
Would the wiz win 38 out of 100 series? I think we'd all agree that would be yes. So it's actually a good bet and I'd make it again. This just didn't happen to be one of the winning samples.
You talk too much scalabrine....well maybe you got nothing to do but go post on covers. At the end of the day, you lost. You dont need all the analysis that you did. Pacers is the much dominant team and yes they are struggling. If you are experienced enough....its pacers or no bet at all. You kept on saying that wiz defeated bulls. Its also very clear that matchup wise, wiz has the edge. There is nothing special about wiz winning that series.
Move on and just shut up.
You talk too much scalabrine....well maybe you got nothing to do but go post on covers. At the end of the day, you lost. You dont need all the analysis that you did. Pacers is the much dominant team and yes they are struggling. If you are experienced enough....its pacers or no bet at all. You kept on saying that wiz defeated bulls. Its also very clear that matchup wise, wiz has the edge. There is nothing special about wiz winning that series.
Hot Forum Topics
