Posted:
#51
ty
but i am a 
not a 
not a 0
Congratulations Squares...
ratherBcrying 
Posted:
#53
Squares....Sharps....blah, blah, blah....there is a right side and a not so right side......You either pay or get paid.......
Over-analyze the already over-analyzed.....................
For the record, I was on BAL and PHI and PHI OVER.....
I guess I was a square by betting on the PHI OVER, right.....like THAT wasn't a pimp job....
Over-analyze the already over-analyzed.....................
For the record, I was on BAL and PHI and PHI OVER.....
I guess I was a square by betting on the PHI OVER, right.....like THAT wasn't a pimp job....
0
Posted:
#54
Quote Originally Posted by BJ_Penn1:
makes no fucking sense. why dont you take away the 40 yd Peterson td? or wait, why stop there? take away the david akers fg's, mcnabb fumble inside scoring territory, desean jackson punt returns too
then us philly backers would be all fucked right???
get a life bro and quit being a bitch
0
Posted:
#59
Quote Originally Posted by ratherBgambling:
Lol you Philly backers...Take away one Westbrook run and the Eagles win by 2 and you people are scratching your head wondering why your bet didn't hit and checking to see who the Lakers are playing next so you can lay 10+ points worth of road chalk 
I just put in a bet on Lakers -11 tonight...keep talking....more babbling from you is more money in my pocket
0
Posted:
#60
Quote Originally Posted by jkochvar:
Squares? or just knowing the better team? Vegas would to have moved this to 6 from their original 3 with all the money on Philly, but they can't always do that. Sometimes it creates too much exposure for them, but they don't care. They'll get the money eventually.
Squares? or just knowing the better team? Vegas would to have moved this to 6 from their original 3 with all the money on Philly, but they can't always do that. Sometimes it creates too much exposure for them, but they don't care. They'll get the money eventually.
you are incorrect sir. There was sharp money on Minn which equaled out the square Eagle money. Sharps lost this one but they hit their other 3 plays this weekend so they made out
0
Posted:
#66
I just do not see how minny would have been a good pick??? You apparenly consider your self an inteligent capper but to lay money on Minny and Jackson against mcnabb and philly post season and to come on here and say it was a square pick doesn't make since. Please advise as to why minny was such a "wise" pick?
0
Posted:
#67
Squares?
There is a winning side and apparently you weren't on it. After both dogs came in and the line movement today. This was set up for two dogs to win then to favorites to cover today.
But it sounds like you were on the wrong side both days. Just because you post on covers doesn't make you a non-public pick.
But it sounds like you were on the wrong side both days. Just because you post on covers doesn't make you a non-public pick.
0
Posted:
#68
Yes because anyone laying points on the road is a square. Anyone betting a favorite is a square. Square picks therefore hit about half the time then but that does not matter because it is dirty money.
Got to love this place. I will repeat it one more time: The only sharp pick is the one that wins!
Betting on Tavaris Jackson beating this secondary just because it was a "home dog" in the playoffs is the epitome of overlooking matchups and just trend betting. People here really think that underdog/home team formula is the key to everything but it is just one factor among many, something I would expect a sharp to realize.
Got to love all the obvious idiots on this forum who think of themselves as sharp for blindly following the sharp rules even as it bankrupts them, which is of course why so many come on talking smack on "those useless squares."
0
Posted:
#69
No need to hate/bash/gloote..you won.... have a good day... but
.... have a good day... butwhat the man is trying to say ( if you don't already know ) is the VALUE play is against the squares/Pub/Covers/whoever..yes zona won, yes balt won and yes igles won but if it is played smart you can cover the azz by laying plays against the favs for GREAT VALUE and cover the ass by equal to even on the "squares" Hope this is what he meant, this is how I play it anyway..gotta love the value plays that stand a chance...exp Vikings/Atl...Balt was a given which is easy to say now but cmon it really was..other 3 games could've swong either way...correct me if im wrong
0
Posted:
#70
Quote Originally Posted by ratherBgambling:
Slugur I believe you did this to me one other time I posted something like this and I wound up being correct. I will eat my words if I'm wrong here but what kind of odds do you give T. Jackson to score a TD here. Be HONEST.
Squares and sharps aside if you feel like this about the game its a good indication you shouldnt have made your bet.
0
Posted:
#71
Quote Originally Posted by ratherBgambling:
I bet Philly today and SD last night and don't give a rats's ass what anybody else is betting....I think anybody that defines a "square" is the "square" ! GEEK ! Square = one who doesn't go beyond the 1st level of thinking while gambling...for example Peyton Manning is really good so I should bet on the Colts every game. Or The Cowboys have good offensive players so I will take the over. Squares are constantly on the side that has 70% of the bets. They bet on huge road ravorites constantly. Shall I continue?
0
Posted:
#73
report posted here at covers showed the sharps were on Balt.......sharps don't always play just dogs...............
also consider Vegas doesn't have to win every game.........if 100 k were wagered on phl minn and 70 k was on minn and 30k on phil the book pays out 30 k to phl bettors and collects 77 on minn...net profit 47k....if wnet the other way then payout 70k to minn winners and collect 33k from phl losers.....net loss 37k...book risk is they lose 37k but can win 47k, one o fthe two will happen.....the book is basically risking 37 to win 47 (dog odds) this is why the books will come out ahead in long run , they dont have to hit the 52.45 % to break even at 11-10 like the bettor does, they dont really care what side u r on........every game will not be 100% on one side.......so these splits over time make the book profitable.......they can take hits when they are basically getting dog odds on every game
also consider Vegas doesn't have to win every game.........if 100 k were wagered on phl minn and 70 k was on minn and 30k on phil the book pays out 30 k to phl bettors and collects 77 on minn...net profit 47k....if wnet the other way then payout 70k to minn winners and collect 33k from phl losers.....net loss 37k...book risk is they lose 37k but can win 47k, one o fthe two will happen.....the book is basically risking 37 to win 47 (dog odds) this is why the books will come out ahead in long run , they dont have to hit the 52.45 % to break even at 11-10 like the bettor does, they dont really care what side u r on........every game will not be 100% on one side.......so these splits over time make the book profitable.......they can take hits when they are basically getting dog odds on every game
0
Hot Forum Topics
