If u could suck your own cawk I bet u would. Lol attention person. Woooo I called a game lets make an EXTRA thread about it while Im at it in the first half !
I love cock.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Es-P:
If u could suck your own cawk I bet u would. Lol attention person. Woooo I called a game lets make an EXTRA thread about it while Im at it in the first half !
Whoever has been watching sports for years and has not gleaned by now that games are MANIPULATED to acheive certain outcomes----------just has no hope, and definitely should not be gambling. This RACKET is NOT for the faint of heart, and even less for the GULLIBLE.
STFU, clown.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DRIBBLE4LIFE:
Whoever has been watching sports for years and has not gleaned by now that games are MANIPULATED to acheive certain outcomes----------just has no hope, and definitely should not be gambling. This RACKET is NOT for the faint of heart, and even less for the GULLIBLE.
Sure, the book and the sharps don't always win. But they did well SEA. The week before they won with PHI. Overall short home dogs with little public support and reverse line movement is more likely to win than lose.
But they still are going to lose about 40 percent of the time or more. OVer time betting against reverse line movement is smart. Choosing a random outlier like NE yesterday, doesn't make this untrue.
But it isn't as simple as OP makes it. If betting against the public was always the play, we would all be rich. But, by in large, I don't want to be on a team that has 80 percent of the tickets and reverse line movement. Sometimes I make exceptions, but it isn't a position you want to be in often
"If betting against the public was always the play, we would all be
rich." I love this statement. It's absurd. I think we know what
you're trying to say, but it's logically...odd. "We" and "the Public"
are, unfortunately for "us," usually the same thing..
I like this thread. Good stuff and hilarious stuff..
Bob
Scucci, manager of many vegas sportsbooks said last Wednesday, "we will
need the bears more than any other team this week." (Behind the Bets
with Chad Millman). That means more than NE, more than Dal, etc.. FYI..
Of course the books really make their money on the ~10% vig, but they are also perfectly comfortable with occasionally "needing" a side. Tonight's as good an example as any..
If you suspect the books "need" a side. It seems stupid to go against it. But you have to be able to let go of your ego and accept that maybe "the professionals" know more than we do. And you have to accept the ugly side, win or lose. Taking losses on the ugly side, Buf vs NE this week for instance, takes more discipline than most of us have..
0
Quote Originally Posted by mcorcoran3:
Sure, the book and the sharps don't always win. But they did well SEA. The week before they won with PHI. Overall short home dogs with little public support and reverse line movement is more likely to win than lose.
But they still are going to lose about 40 percent of the time or more. OVer time betting against reverse line movement is smart. Choosing a random outlier like NE yesterday, doesn't make this untrue.
But it isn't as simple as OP makes it. If betting against the public was always the play, we would all be rich. But, by in large, I don't want to be on a team that has 80 percent of the tickets and reverse line movement. Sometimes I make exceptions, but it isn't a position you want to be in often
"If betting against the public was always the play, we would all be
rich." I love this statement. It's absurd. I think we know what
you're trying to say, but it's logically...odd. "We" and "the Public"
are, unfortunately for "us," usually the same thing..
I like this thread. Good stuff and hilarious stuff..
Bob
Scucci, manager of many vegas sportsbooks said last Wednesday, "we will
need the bears more than any other team this week." (Behind the Bets
with Chad Millman). That means more than NE, more than Dal, etc.. FYI..
Of course the books really make their money on the ~10% vig, but they are also perfectly comfortable with occasionally "needing" a side. Tonight's as good an example as any..
If you suspect the books "need" a side. It seems stupid to go against it. But you have to be able to let go of your ego and accept that maybe "the professionals" know more than we do. And you have to accept the ugly side, win or lose. Taking losses on the ugly side, Buf vs NE this week for instance, takes more discipline than most of us have..
Why do you guys think MInn is the play? 75% of the public is on the Vikings. LIne opened at -5.5 and is now at 4.
VEGAS is begging you guys to take The Vikings. Why is this so difficult to understand? Games are NOT fixed. Plain and simple...."Vegas has a 70% idea on what team will cover a particular spread. Why would you bet with the public when Vegas is obviously trying to get you to take the Vikings? Do you think, "The House" doesn't know that +4 is a stupid LOW line for a shitty bears team??? My God.
Give me the Bears +4. Love betting WITH Vegas.
Week 9, who do you like? What is you favorite play?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Thechad10:
Why do you guys think MInn is the play? 75% of the public is on the Vikings. LIne opened at -5.5 and is now at 4.
VEGAS is begging you guys to take The Vikings. Why is this so difficult to understand? Games are NOT fixed. Plain and simple...."Vegas has a 70% idea on what team will cover a particular spread. Why would you bet with the public when Vegas is obviously trying to get you to take the Vikings? Do you think, "The House" doesn't know that +4 is a stupid LOW line for a shitty bears team??? My God.
Give me the Bears +4. Love betting WITH Vegas.
Week 9, who do you like? What is you favorite play?
"If betting against the public was always the play, we would all be
rich." I love this statement. It's absurd. I think we know what
you're trying to say, but it's logically...odd. "We" and "the Public"
are, unfortunately for "us," usually the same thing..
I like this thread. Good stuff and hilarious stuff..
Bob
Scucci, manager of many vegas sportsbooks said last Wednesday, "we will
need the bears more than any other team this week." (Behind the Bets
with Chad Millman). That means more than NE, more than Dal, etc.. FYI..
Of course the books really make their money on the ~10% vig, but they are also perfectly comfortable with occasionally "needing" a side. Tonight's as good an example as any..
If you suspect the books "need" a side. It seems stupid to go against it. But you have to be able to let go of your ego and accept that maybe "the professionals" know more than we do. And you have to accept the ugly side, win or lose. Taking losses on the ugly side, Buf vs NE this week for instance, takes more discipline than most of us have..
I appreciate the reply. However, it has nothing to do with betting "underdogs" or "favorites"......It only deals with "where the money moves". Nothing is 100%, obviously...but, from time-to-time, Vegas has a strong read on a game(60% or better projected winner)......Last night was a prime example of this....I was going to hammer Minnesota. In fact, I had the Vikings Defense in my fantasy league. But, when I saw how Vegas wanted the public to lean(75% or greater lean on Minnesota)...I knew the Vikings had a 60%+ chance of losing. There are no fixes and The Vikings could have won. However, if Vegas has an edge on a game and then exploits the public to lean/bet a particular way, I will bet with Vegas ALL DAY LONG.
0
Quote Originally Posted by YouWish:
"If betting against the public was always the play, we would all be
rich." I love this statement. It's absurd. I think we know what
you're trying to say, but it's logically...odd. "We" and "the Public"
are, unfortunately for "us," usually the same thing..
I like this thread. Good stuff and hilarious stuff..
Bob
Scucci, manager of many vegas sportsbooks said last Wednesday, "we will
need the bears more than any other team this week." (Behind the Bets
with Chad Millman). That means more than NE, more than Dal, etc.. FYI..
Of course the books really make their money on the ~10% vig, but they are also perfectly comfortable with occasionally "needing" a side. Tonight's as good an example as any..
If you suspect the books "need" a side. It seems stupid to go against it. But you have to be able to let go of your ego and accept that maybe "the professionals" know more than we do. And you have to accept the ugly side, win or lose. Taking losses on the ugly side, Buf vs NE this week for instance, takes more discipline than most of us have..
I appreciate the reply. However, it has nothing to do with betting "underdogs" or "favorites"......It only deals with "where the money moves". Nothing is 100%, obviously...but, from time-to-time, Vegas has a strong read on a game(60% or better projected winner)......Last night was a prime example of this....I was going to hammer Minnesota. In fact, I had the Vikings Defense in my fantasy league. But, when I saw how Vegas wanted the public to lean(75% or greater lean on Minnesota)...I knew the Vikings had a 60%+ chance of losing. There are no fixes and The Vikings could have won. However, if Vegas has an edge on a game and then exploits the public to lean/bet a particular way, I will bet with Vegas ALL DAY LONG.
Whoever has been watching sports for years and has not gleaned by now that games are MANIPULATED to acheive certain outcomes----------just has no hope, and definitely should not be gambling. This RACKET is NOT for the faint of heart, and even less for the GULLIBLE.
The 'fixed' Crusader has spoken....fixed, rigged, and now 'manipulated' may I ask; "by who" talking shitt is one thing, backing it up with facts is another, so answer the question which has been put to you many times, by many different members, either put up, or simply STFU,
0
Quote Originally Posted by DRIBBLE4LIFE:
Whoever has been watching sports for years and has not gleaned by now that games are MANIPULATED to acheive certain outcomes----------just has no hope, and definitely should not be gambling. This RACKET is NOT for the faint of heart, and even less for the GULLIBLE.
The 'fixed' Crusader has spoken....fixed, rigged, and now 'manipulated' may I ask; "by who" talking shitt is one thing, backing it up with facts is another, so answer the question which has been put to you many times, by many different members, either put up, or simply STFU,
Hot Forum Topics
