Posted:
#51
damn the totals dont look good. Sides look good though. Too bad i only followed on total cuz i had insufficient funds in my account.
0
2H betting system - 10/12/2008
Posted:
#56
Quote Originally Posted by bigirondawg:
Actually, I'm looking through the thread again, and those numbers don't include the Oregon/UCLA game, which was a 2H under play that went about as wrong Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day.
So the totals from yesterday should be 8-9-1
Sides 3-6-1
Totals 5-3
Actually, I'm looking through the thread again, and those numbers don't include the Oregon/UCLA game, which was a 2H under play that went about as wrong Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day.
So the totals from yesterday should be 8-9-1
Sides 3-6-1
Totals 5-3
Now that's a sight!
0
Posted:
#60
Then it would be as if we were playing as the book instead of the flow of the game. You figure after the 1st quarter in MIN/DET it was only 5 points. Most bettors would say that there will not be 21 points scored which is 3 td's when they could barely get FG's in the 1st. The spread are hitting very well for the most part. College had a bad day but a few were just flat out the teams that were playing and not the play. KSTATE is a prime example of that.
0
Posted:
#63
Quote Originally Posted by HeaVin-Cent:
Then it would be as if we were playing as the book instead of the flow of the game. You figure after the 1st quarter in MIN/DET it was only 5 points. Most bettors would say that there will not be 21 points scored which is 3 td's when they could barely get FG's in the 1st. The spread are hitting very well for the most part. College had a bad day but a few were just flat out the teams that were playing and not the play. KSTATE is a prime example of that.
Then it would be as if we were playing as the book instead of the flow of the game. You figure after the 1st quarter in MIN/DET it was only 5 points. Most bettors would say that there will not be 21 points scored which is 3 td's when they could barely get FG's in the 1st. The spread are hitting very well for the most part. College had a bad day but a few were just flat out the teams that were playing and not the play. KSTATE is a prime example of that.
That's true, but it's easy to do Monday-morning Quarterbacking.
Really, the purpose here is to track the system plays. You should always give plays the "eyeball test" before playing them yourself. Some certainly don't make intuitive sense... but then again, those are also some of the plays that tend to hit.
Totals have outperformed Sides YTD on the college side, it looks like, and they blew them away yesterday.
It's hard to draw any conclusions from one or two weeks of data. You really need 7 or 8 weeks to get a good sample size.
0
Posted:
#64
sorry, kangy, I don't... NJP should have it, since he ran the thread. I tried to find the plays by skimming the thread, but I didn't see it. Some trolls got into that thread and starting pissing NJP off, though, so that cluttered things up. 
This is the first week I've been watching the NFL lines.
This is the first week I've been watching the NFL lines.
0
Posted:
#68
Quote Originally Posted by bigirondawg:
That's true, but it's easy to do Monday-morning Quarterbacking.
Really, the purpose here is to track the system plays. You should always give plays the "eyeball test" before playing them yourself. Some certainly don't make intuitive sense... but then again, those are also some of the plays that tend to hit.
Totals have outperformed Sides YTD on the college side, it looks like, and they blew them away yesterday.
It's hard to draw any conclusions from one or two weeks of data. You really need 7 or 8 weeks to get a good sample size.
That's true, but it's easy to do Monday-morning Quarterbacking.
Really, the purpose here is to track the system plays. You should always give plays the "eyeball test" before playing them yourself. Some certainly don't make intuitive sense... but then again, those are also some of the plays that tend to hit.
Totals have outperformed Sides YTD on the college side, it looks like, and they blew them away yesterday.
It's hard to draw any conclusions from one or two weeks of data. You really need 7 or 8 weeks to get a good sample size.
I agree with you but playing a Monday morning QB is part of adjusting the system. Obviously we all believe that there is something to this system but we have to continue to make a better. There is always room for corrections for this to hit at a higher rate.
0
Hot Forum Topics
