Also by my count, since the 2002/03 NFL season - which is the starting point of my stats research - small ROAD FAVS (1 - 4.5) are 11 - 3 su in the wildcards. Chargers and Cowboys are in that category this weekend.
🏈🏈🏈 “To BEt, or not to BEt, that is the question” ...Fubah2's risky bets
Also by my count, since the 2002/03 NFL season - which is the starting point of my stats research - small HOME FAVS (1 - 4.5) are just 12 - 17 ATS in the wildcards.
Vikings in that category this year.
Also by my count, since the 2002/03 NFL season - which is the starting point of my stats research - small HOME FAVS (1 - 4.5) are just 12 - 17 ATS in the wildcards.
Vikings in that category this year.
Dogs are 13-6-1 ats in last 20 years in Wild Card.
An interesting caveat though with wildcard DOGS doing well ATS, is
when they are underdogs of +9 or higher, they are only 1 - 8 ATS.
Dogs are 13-6-1 ats in last 20 years in Wild Card.
An interesting caveat though with wildcard DOGS doing well ATS, is
when they are underdogs of +9 or higher, they are only 1 - 8 ATS.
My regular season, started Oct. 10:
Week 05: 1 - 1 (1 - 0 *Best Bets)
Week 06: 1 - 1 (1 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 07: 4 - 3 (3 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 08: 7 - 2 (4 - 2 *Best Bets)
Week 09: 9 - 1 (5 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 10: 6 - 5* (6 - 4 *Best Bets)
Week 11: 7 - 3~ (5 - 3 *Best Bets)
Week 12: 9 - 1 (3 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 13: 9 - 1* (5 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 14: 3 - 1** (2 - 0 *Best Bets)
Week 15: 3 - 3** (2 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 16: 11 - 5~ (4 - 3 *Best Bets)
Week 17: 3 - 4 (2 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 18: 11 - 7 (7 - 4 *Best Bets)
YTD: 84 - 38 (50 - 23 *Best Bets)
*Reduced my bet sizes to 75% anticipating correction to HOT Streak
**Reducing my bet sizes again, now to 66% usual size.
~ resumed normal bet sizes
My regular season, started Oct. 10:
Week 05: 1 - 1 (1 - 0 *Best Bets)
Week 06: 1 - 1 (1 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 07: 4 - 3 (3 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 08: 7 - 2 (4 - 2 *Best Bets)
Week 09: 9 - 1 (5 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 10: 6 - 5* (6 - 4 *Best Bets)
Week 11: 7 - 3~ (5 - 3 *Best Bets)
Week 12: 9 - 1 (3 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 13: 9 - 1* (5 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 14: 3 - 1** (2 - 0 *Best Bets)
Week 15: 3 - 3** (2 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 16: 11 - 5~ (4 - 3 *Best Bets)
Week 17: 3 - 4 (2 - 1 *Best Bets)
Week 18: 11 - 7 (7 - 4 *Best Bets)
YTD: 84 - 38 (50 - 23 *Best Bets)
*Reduced my bet sizes to 75% anticipating correction to HOT Streak
**Reducing my bet sizes again, now to 66% usual size.
~ resumed normal bet sizes
The largest point spreads on NFL Wild Card weekend aren't deterring bettors
Three NFL teams are favored by more than one score on Wild Card Weekend.
Bettors apparently agree, with an overwhelming majority picking those teams to cover their large spreads, based on DraftKings data from VSiN.
The largest point spreads on NFL Wild Card weekend aren't deterring bettors
Three NFL teams are favored by more than one score on Wild Card Weekend.
Bettors apparently agree, with an overwhelming majority picking those teams to cover their large spreads, based on DraftKings data from VSiN.
The largest point spreads on NFL Wild Card weekend aren't deterring bettors Three NFL teams are favored by more than one score on Wild Card Weekend. Bettors apparently agree, with an overwhelming majority picking those teams to cover their large spreads, based on DraftKings data from VSiN.
The 49ers are 9.5-point favorites over the Seattle Seahawks, and 68% of betslips picked them to cover.
The Bills have the largest spread of the weekend, giving 13 points to the Miami Dolphins. Yet 79% of betslips have them covering as well.
The Bengals, currently favored by 8.5 points over the Baltimore Ravens, have the largest percentage of bets at 83%.
Bettors might be on to something!
Double-digit favorites in the playoffs are 11-3 ATS since 2010,
according to BetMGM’s John Ewing.
The largest point spreads on NFL Wild Card weekend aren't deterring bettors Three NFL teams are favored by more than one score on Wild Card Weekend. Bettors apparently agree, with an overwhelming majority picking those teams to cover their large spreads, based on DraftKings data from VSiN.
The 49ers are 9.5-point favorites over the Seattle Seahawks, and 68% of betslips picked them to cover.
The Bills have the largest spread of the weekend, giving 13 points to the Miami Dolphins. Yet 79% of betslips have them covering as well.
The Bengals, currently favored by 8.5 points over the Baltimore Ravens, have the largest percentage of bets at 83%.
Bettors might be on to something!
Double-digit favorites in the playoffs are 11-3 ATS since 2010,
according to BetMGM’s John Ewing.
Yes.
I have posted here 84 bets that won and 38 that lost (all in this single thread for convenient review by anyone)
My bets are a variety of ATS, moneylines, and the hybrid known as "alternate lines" (buy pts, but heavy juice)
Thankfully, I am doing well this season for profit.
A few additional interesting facts upon review of my notes:
• 50 - 23 with my best bets (which I bet significantly higher $$$)
• I have only posted 4 bets using Vegas lines (ATS), going 2 - 2
• Moneylines, I am 38 - 18 for a modest/small profit overall
• This means I am 44 - 18 on all the bets where I am buying pts, but laying heavy chalk!
The latter is where I am making my money.
While it might be tempting to assume heavy chalk bets are a bad idea, this is not the case in my handicapping style (including baseball)...
• All bets where my juice is -270 and higher (moneylines and/or Alt lines) I am having a terrific season 29 - 3 ![]()
Of those, a nice 21 - 3 on designated *BestBets (when the juice is -270 and up)
good info thx ![]()
Yes.
I have posted here 84 bets that won and 38 that lost (all in this single thread for convenient review by anyone)
My bets are a variety of ATS, moneylines, and the hybrid known as "alternate lines" (buy pts, but heavy juice)
Thankfully, I am doing well this season for profit.
A few additional interesting facts upon review of my notes:
• 50 - 23 with my best bets (which I bet significantly higher $$$)
• I have only posted 4 bets using Vegas lines (ATS), going 2 - 2
• Moneylines, I am 38 - 18 for a modest/small profit overall
• This means I am 44 - 18 on all the bets where I am buying pts, but laying heavy chalk!
The latter is where I am making my money.
While it might be tempting to assume heavy chalk bets are a bad idea, this is not the case in my handicapping style (including baseball)...
• All bets where my juice is -270 and higher (moneylines and/or Alt lines) I am having a terrific season 29 - 3 ![]()
Of those, a nice 21 - 3 on designated *BestBets (when the juice is -270 and up)
good info thx ![]()
Ravens improved?
3rd string QB Anthony Brown, in his first start, threw for 286 yards last week against the Bengals. My guess is he will be tapped to get his second start with Huntley as backup. Except this time Ravens won't be sitting key players like Dobbins and Edwards and important TE Andrews. Despite his first start and missing those players he still got the Ravens to a respectable 16 - 27 score even with tossing 2 INTS.
Logically we might expect the Raven's offense to perform better than last week.
A couple net breaks and they can upset the home team BENGALS!
Ravens improved?
3rd string QB Anthony Brown, in his first start, threw for 286 yards last week against the Bengals. My guess is he will be tapped to get his second start with Huntley as backup. Except this time Ravens won't be sitting key players like Dobbins and Edwards and important TE Andrews. Despite his first start and missing those players he still got the Ravens to a respectable 16 - 27 score even with tossing 2 INTS.
Logically we might expect the Raven's offense to perform better than last week.
A couple net breaks and they can upset the home team BENGALS!
Giants @ Vikings with a line of 3 looks like a coinflipper to me.
In my capping I don't dwell on records but rather net performance.
Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year.
Somehow, with an otherwise impressive 13 - 4 record, they managed only a bewilderingly mediocre -3 pts pt differential.
Giants have a -6 pt differential
Toss up?
Giants @ Vikings with a line of 3 looks like a coinflipper to me.
In my capping I don't dwell on records but rather net performance.
Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year.
Somehow, with an otherwise impressive 13 - 4 record, they managed only a bewilderingly mediocre -3 pts pt differential.
Giants have a -6 pt differential
Toss up?
Giants @ Vikings with a line of 3 looks like a coinflipper to me. In my capping I don't dwell on records but rather net performance. Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year. Somehow, with an otherwise impressive 13 - 4 record, they managed only a bewilderingly mediocre -3 pts pt differential. Giants have a -6 pt differential Toss up?
When Vikings were playing at home:
1. handily whupped Packers 23 - 7
2. struggled to edge weakass Lions 28-24
3. *on a neutral field struggled to defeat weakass Saints by 3
Giants @ Vikings with a line of 3 looks like a coinflipper to me. In my capping I don't dwell on records but rather net performance. Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year. Somehow, with an otherwise impressive 13 - 4 record, they managed only a bewilderingly mediocre -3 pts pt differential. Giants have a -6 pt differential Toss up?
When Vikings were playing at home:
1. handily whupped Packers 23 - 7
2. struggled to edge weakass Lions 28-24
3. *on a neutral field struggled to defeat weakass Saints by 3
Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year. Somehow, with an otherwise impressive 13 - 4 record, they managed only a bewilderingly mediocre -3 pts pt differential. Giants have a -6 pt differential Toss up?
When Vikings were playing at home:
1. handily whupped Packers 23 - 7
2. struggled to edge weakass Lions 28-24
3. *on a neutral field struggled to defeat weakass Saints by 3
4. struggled to defeat worst team in the league (Bears) by 7
5. needed a muffed punt recovery for a quick TD to win 34 - 26 over weakass Cards
6. got mauled by Dallas!!
Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year. Somehow, with an otherwise impressive 13 - 4 record, they managed only a bewilderingly mediocre -3 pts pt differential. Giants have a -6 pt differential Toss up?
When Vikings were playing at home:
1. handily whupped Packers 23 - 7
2. struggled to edge weakass Lions 28-24
3. *on a neutral field struggled to defeat weakass Saints by 3
4. struggled to defeat worst team in the league (Bears) by 7
5. needed a muffed punt recovery for a quick TD to win 34 - 26 over weakass Cards
6. got mauled by Dallas!!
Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year.
When Vikings were playing at home:
1. handily whupped Packers 23 - 7
2. struggled to edge weakass Lions 28-24
3. *on a neutral field struggled to defeat weakass Saints by 3
4. struggled to defeat worst team in the league (Bears) by 7
5. needed a muffed punt recovery for a quick TD to win 34 - 26 over weakass Cards
6. got mauled by Dallas!!
7. needed a lucky KO return TD vs Pats to edge them by that score
8. were outplayed by Jets, but luckily gained 2 net turnovers to win by 5
9. down 0 - 33, record-setting FLUKE comeback to edge Colts by 3
Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year.
When Vikings were playing at home:
1. handily whupped Packers 23 - 7
2. struggled to edge weakass Lions 28-24
3. *on a neutral field struggled to defeat weakass Saints by 3
4. struggled to defeat worst team in the league (Bears) by 7
5. needed a muffed punt recovery for a quick TD to win 34 - 26 over weakass Cards
6. got mauled by Dallas!!
7. needed a lucky KO return TD vs Pats to edge them by that score
8. were outplayed by Jets, but luckily gained 2 net turnovers to win by 5
9. down 0 - 33, record-setting FLUKE comeback to edge Colts by 3
Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year.
When Vikings were playing at home:
1. handily whupped Packers 23 - 7
2. struggled to edge weakass Lions 28-24
3. *on a neutral field struggled to defeat weakass Saints by 3
4. struggled to defeat worst team in the league (Bears) by 7
5. needed a muffed punt recovery for a quick TD to win 34 - 26 over weakass Cards
6. got mauled by Dallas!!
7. needed a lucky KO return TD vs Pats to edge them by that score
8. were outplayed by Jets, but luckily gained 2 net turnovers to win by 5
9. down 0 - 33, record-setting FLUKE comeback to edge Colts by 3
10. needed TWO net turnovers *PLUS* a rare blocked punt at the 29 to set up a TD just to luckily edge these same GIANTS by only 3.
Payback time for the Giants??
Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year.
When Vikings were playing at home:
1. handily whupped Packers 23 - 7
2. struggled to edge weakass Lions 28-24
3. *on a neutral field struggled to defeat weakass Saints by 3
4. struggled to defeat worst team in the league (Bears) by 7
5. needed a muffed punt recovery for a quick TD to win 34 - 26 over weakass Cards
6. got mauled by Dallas!!
7. needed a lucky KO return TD vs Pats to edge them by that score
8. were outplayed by Jets, but luckily gained 2 net turnovers to win by 5
9. down 0 - 33, record-setting FLUKE comeback to edge Colts by 3
10. needed TWO net turnovers *PLUS* a rare blocked punt at the 29 to set up a TD just to luckily edge these same GIANTS by only 3.
Payback time for the Giants??
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year. When Vikings were playing at home: 1. handily whupped Packers 23 - 72. struggled to edge weakass Lions 28-243. *on a neutral field struggled to defeat weakass Saints by 3 4. struggled to defeat worst team in the league (Bears) by 75. needed a muffed punt recovery for a quick TD to win 34 - 26 over weakass Cards6. got mauled by Dallas!! 7. needed a lucky KO return TD vs Pats to edge them by that score8. were outplayed by Jets, but luckily gained 2 net turnovers to win by 59. down 0 - 33, record-setting FLUKE comeback to edge Colts by 3 10. needed TWO net turnovers *PLUS* a rare blocked punt at the 29 to set up a TD just to luckily edge these same GIANTS by only 3. Payback time for the Giants??
Good stuff Fubah! ![]()
Your thoughts on Baltimore/Cincinnati ??
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: Vikings, *OBVIOUSLY* have been blessed with an abundance of good fortune this year. When Vikings were playing at home: 1. handily whupped Packers 23 - 72. struggled to edge weakass Lions 28-243. *on a neutral field struggled to defeat weakass Saints by 3 4. struggled to defeat worst team in the league (Bears) by 75. needed a muffed punt recovery for a quick TD to win 34 - 26 over weakass Cards6. got mauled by Dallas!! 7. needed a lucky KO return TD vs Pats to edge them by that score8. were outplayed by Jets, but luckily gained 2 net turnovers to win by 59. down 0 - 33, record-setting FLUKE comeback to edge Colts by 3 10. needed TWO net turnovers *PLUS* a rare blocked punt at the 29 to set up a TD just to luckily edge these same GIANTS by only 3. Payback time for the Giants??
Good stuff Fubah! ![]()
Your thoughts on Baltimore/Cincinnati ??
Reviewing my notes further, this could potentially help some, or not . . .
I am 29 - 3 when the juice I am staking is -270 and higher,
but specifically for moneyline bets of -270 and higher I went 13 - 1
In a related matter, I was looking at the *HOME* FAVS of -7.5 and higher which I chose to bet, but made those bets buying pts on an "Alternate Line" with heavy juice. Here are my results when I bought pts to improve a "select" HEAVY *HOME* FAV's chances of covering at a significantly lower number:
bought pts down to -6.5 .... 0 - 1 -332 (Eagles fail cover by 1 pt)
bought pts down to -6.0 .... 1 - 0
bought pts down to -3.5 .... 1 - 0
bought pts down to -3.0 .... 2 - 0
bought pts down to -2.5 .... 8 - 0 (mean avg stake is -315)
= 12 - 1 when buy pts despite heavy juice ![]()
Reviewing my notes further, this could potentially help some, or not . . .
I am 29 - 3 when the juice I am staking is -270 and higher,
but specifically for moneyline bets of -270 and higher I went 13 - 1
In a related matter, I was looking at the *HOME* FAVS of -7.5 and higher which I chose to bet, but made those bets buying pts on an "Alternate Line" with heavy juice. Here are my results when I bought pts to improve a "select" HEAVY *HOME* FAV's chances of covering at a significantly lower number:
bought pts down to -6.5 .... 0 - 1 -332 (Eagles fail cover by 1 pt)
bought pts down to -6.0 .... 1 - 0
bought pts down to -3.5 .... 1 - 0
bought pts down to -3.0 .... 2 - 0
bought pts down to -2.5 .... 8 - 0 (mean avg stake is -315)
= 12 - 1 when buy pts despite heavy juice ![]()
Reviewing my notes further, this could potentially help some, or not . . . I am 29 - 3 when the juice I am staking is -270 and higher, but specifically for moneyline bets of -270 and higher I went 13 - 1 In a related matter, I was looking at the *HOME* FAVS of -7.5 and higher which I chose to bet, but made those bets buying pts on an "Alternate Line" with heavy juice. Here are my results when I bought pts to improve a "select" HEAVY *HOME* FAV's chances of covering at a significantly lower number: bought pts down to -6.5 .... 0 - 1 -332 (Eagles fail cover by 1 pt)bought pts down to -6.0 .... 1 - 0bought pts down to -3.5 .... 1 - 0bought pts down to -3.0 .... 2 - 0bought pts down to -2.5 .... 8 - 0 (mean avg stake is -315) = 12 - 1 when buy pts despite heavy juice
![]()
Reviewing my notes further, this could potentially help some, or not . . . I am 29 - 3 when the juice I am staking is -270 and higher, but specifically for moneyline bets of -270 and higher I went 13 - 1 In a related matter, I was looking at the *HOME* FAVS of -7.5 and higher which I chose to bet, but made those bets buying pts on an "Alternate Line" with heavy juice. Here are my results when I bought pts to improve a "select" HEAVY *HOME* FAV's chances of covering at a significantly lower number: bought pts down to -6.5 .... 0 - 1 -332 (Eagles fail cover by 1 pt)bought pts down to -6.0 .... 1 - 0bought pts down to -3.5 .... 1 - 0bought pts down to -3.0 .... 2 - 0bought pts down to -2.5 .... 8 - 0 (mean avg stake is -315) = 12 - 1 when buy pts despite heavy juice
![]()
My Week 18 "disaster" Loss Raiders +16.5 -222 W Jaguars -270 *Best Bet W LiveBet #2, Jaguars -145 *Best Bet Loss COLTS -1.5-124 *BBLoss COLTS -140 *BBW BENGALS -3.5-350 *Best Bet W BENGALS -395 1stH *Best Bet W BENGALS -5 -256W DOLPHINS -198W BILLS -2.5-315 *Best Bet W BILLS -370 *Best Bet W HOUSTON -102 (hedge bet)W NINERS -4.5 -363 *Best Bet W SEAHAWKS -230Loss EAGLES -6.5 -332 *BBLoss RAMS -170 (hedge bet)Loss PACKERS -3 -153Loss PACKERS -260 *BB------------------------------------------= 11 - 7 (losing on juice) (7 - 4 *Best Bets) YTD 84 - 38 to end regular season <--
![]()
My Week 18 "disaster" Loss Raiders +16.5 -222 W Jaguars -270 *Best Bet W LiveBet #2, Jaguars -145 *Best Bet Loss COLTS -1.5-124 *BBLoss COLTS -140 *BBW BENGALS -3.5-350 *Best Bet W BENGALS -395 1stH *Best Bet W BENGALS -5 -256W DOLPHINS -198W BILLS -2.5-315 *Best Bet W BILLS -370 *Best Bet W HOUSTON -102 (hedge bet)W NINERS -4.5 -363 *Best Bet W SEAHAWKS -230Loss EAGLES -6.5 -332 *BBLoss RAMS -170 (hedge bet)Loss PACKERS -3 -153Loss PACKERS -260 *BB------------------------------------------= 11 - 7 (losing on juice) (7 - 4 *Best Bets) YTD 84 - 38 to end regular season <--
![]()
10. needed TWO net turnovers *PLUS* a rare blocked punt at the 29 to set up a TD just to luckily edge these same GIANTS by only 3. Payback time for the Giants??
This one is the most concerning for Vikings backers
10. needed TWO net turnovers *PLUS* a rare blocked punt at the 29 to set up a TD just to luckily edge these same GIANTS by only 3. Payback time for the Giants??
This one is the most concerning for Vikings backers
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: 10. needed TWO net turnovers *PLUS* a rare blocked punt at the 29 to set up a TD just to luckily edge these same GIANTS by only 3. Payback time for the Giants?? This one is the most concerning for Vikings backers
Probably stands out as the most concerning yes. Just on that alone I would not back the Vikings here.
Did you already make a bet??
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: 10. needed TWO net turnovers *PLUS* a rare blocked punt at the 29 to set up a TD just to luckily edge these same GIANTS by only 3. Payback time for the Giants?? This one is the most concerning for Vikings backers
Probably stands out as the most concerning yes. Just on that alone I would not back the Vikings here.
Did you already make a bet??
Quote Originally Posted by Zeus4par: Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: 10. needed TWO net turnovers *PLUS* a rare blocked punt at the 29 to set up a TD just to luckily edge these same GIANTS by only 3. Payback time for the Giants?? This one is the most concerning for Vikings backers Probably stands out as the most concerning yes. Just on that alone I would not back the Vikings here. Did you already make a bet??
Not yet but now considering NYG ![]()
Ravens??
Quote Originally Posted by Zeus4par: Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: 10. needed TWO net turnovers *PLUS* a rare blocked punt at the 29 to set up a TD just to luckily edge these same GIANTS by only 3. Payback time for the Giants?? This one is the most concerning for Vikings backers Probably stands out as the most concerning yes. Just on that alone I would not back the Vikings here. Did you already make a bet??
Not yet but now considering NYG ![]()
Ravens??
Hot Forum Topics
-
🤢🥴💩_ Fubah's risky baseball bets _🥶😲🥵
448,683
-
🏈🏈🏈 “To BEt, or not to BEt, that is the question” ...Fubah2's risky bets
302,165
-
Thursday 09/17/2026
732
-
🏈🏈🏈 Fubah2's risky CFB bets
257,774
-
Couple Beers
4,996
-
I'm embarrassed for Trump supporters
58,314
-
PART DEUX
164
-
NFL LOCKED IN!
97,680
-
DET@BUFF Under 55 Small Write up
3,143
-
***Macwesties * Thur. Sept. 17, 2026 * NFL * TNF * Football Plays***
3,868
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
