I was overseas at the time....I was using an offshore bookmaker called Aces Gold.....Aces Gold had a Friday night promotion "juice free"...which means you could bet any game on the point spread in the NFL at -100 instead of -110. Just goes to show those people that theorize that bookies could still make money without a vigorish in the NFL are true. It obviously attracted the smartest bettors on earth, as well as a slew of dumb ones.
I had returned to the USA the previous year, and Aces Gold continued on....the betting line on the Super Bowl that year was +13.5 Patriots versus the Rams at many sportsbooks if I recall correctly.
Except Aces Gold offered +14 juice free, and attracted a plethora of Patriots' money.....this proprietor of Aces Gold had made a ton of money, as bookmakers commonly do.
Now he was betting everything on the Rams covering....all he had to do was play it safe....he could have lowered his price to attract more Rams' money, or layed off his unbalanced action to another offshore bookmaker, but he took a stand on the Rams, which made himself a gambler as well.
Most of us know what happened as the Patriots won and covered 20-17 as double digit dogs in BB and Brady's first of many super bowl victories.
The owner of Aces Gold disappeared without paying off the winning Patriots bets to the tune of about 8 million dollars. Aces Gold as a betting entity from that moment ceased to exist.
Fortunately, I had gotten my money out, around a quarter of a million dollars, a year before the debacle.
What makes betting such an interesting pastime is the effect of greed and fear that can warp our perception and rationality.....bettors and bookmakers can do things they would not do in any other part of their lives.....
most bettors have seen it first hand.
1
And this is a true story....
I was overseas at the time....I was using an offshore bookmaker called Aces Gold.....Aces Gold had a Friday night promotion "juice free"...which means you could bet any game on the point spread in the NFL at -100 instead of -110. Just goes to show those people that theorize that bookies could still make money without a vigorish in the NFL are true. It obviously attracted the smartest bettors on earth, as well as a slew of dumb ones.
I had returned to the USA the previous year, and Aces Gold continued on....the betting line on the Super Bowl that year was +13.5 Patriots versus the Rams at many sportsbooks if I recall correctly.
Except Aces Gold offered +14 juice free, and attracted a plethora of Patriots' money.....this proprietor of Aces Gold had made a ton of money, as bookmakers commonly do.
Now he was betting everything on the Rams covering....all he had to do was play it safe....he could have lowered his price to attract more Rams' money, or layed off his unbalanced action to another offshore bookmaker, but he took a stand on the Rams, which made himself a gambler as well.
Most of us know what happened as the Patriots won and covered 20-17 as double digit dogs in BB and Brady's first of many super bowl victories.
The owner of Aces Gold disappeared without paying off the winning Patriots bets to the tune of about 8 million dollars. Aces Gold as a betting entity from that moment ceased to exist.
Fortunately, I had gotten my money out, around a quarter of a million dollars, a year before the debacle.
What makes betting such an interesting pastime is the effect of greed and fear that can warp our perception and rationality.....bettors and bookmakers can do things they would not do in any other part of their lives.....
Ooof was my worst loss of all Super Bowls. I was all over the Falcons including having them on nearly every alternate spread as favorites and was watching at the Caesars Sportsbook. My buddy was up high fiving everyone and was elated at half, I kept my cool knowing who they were up against and have seen plenty in my 20 plus years of betting.
1
@Indigo999
Ooof was my worst loss of all Super Bowls. I was all over the Falcons including having them on nearly every alternate spread as favorites and was watching at the Caesars Sportsbook. My buddy was up high fiving everyone and was elated at half, I kept my cool knowing who they were up against and have seen plenty in my 20 plus years of betting.
@Indigo999 Ooof was my worst loss of all Super Bowls. I was all over the Falcons including having them on nearly every alternate spread as favorites and was watching at the Caesars Sportsbook. My buddy was up high fiving everyone and was elated at half, I kept my cool knowing who they were up against and have seen plenty in my 20 plus years of betting.
A terrible game and a terrible experience.....sickening.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DJNY:
@Indigo999 Ooof was my worst loss of all Super Bowls. I was all over the Falcons including having them on nearly every alternate spread as favorites and was watching at the Caesars Sportsbook. My buddy was up high fiving everyone and was elated at half, I kept my cool knowing who they were up against and have seen plenty in my 20 plus years of betting.
A terrible game and a terrible experience.....sickening.
Just an fyi LOL 4-years ago today: Patrick Mahomes over/under for rush yards in Super Bowl 54 was 29.5. He had 44 yards before taking three knees to end the game of -5, -3 and -7 yards. Finished with 29 rushing yards.
If they had a Hall of Fame (or Shame) for bad beats, this would be in there.....lol!
2
Quote Originally Posted by IntenseOperator:
Just an fyi LOL 4-years ago today: Patrick Mahomes over/under for rush yards in Super Bowl 54 was 29.5. He had 44 yards before taking three knees to end the game of -5, -3 and -7 yards. Finished with 29 rushing yards.
If they had a Hall of Fame (or Shame) for bad beats, this would be in there.....lol!
Mercy, if your a trends player. KC is your fantasy. I have never seen more lopsided trends on 1 team. Atleast he didn't post any of them. Well stick to numbers if you like San Fran cause the trends belong to KC
1
Mercy, if your a trends player. KC is your fantasy. I have never seen more lopsided trends on 1 team. Atleast he didn't post any of them. Well stick to numbers if you like San Fran cause the trends belong to KC
… Bill Vinovich will officiate #SuperBowlLVIII If you bet $100 on every underdog on the moneyline in games reffed by Vinovich since 2017, you'd be up $3,609
Sip on that plus money honey!
2
Quote Originally Posted by IntenseOperator:
… Bill Vinovich will officiate #SuperBowlLVIII If you bet $100 on every underdog on the moneyline in games reffed by Vinovich since 2017, you'd be up $3,609
... In the 22 #SuperBowl?? since the 2001 season, how many #1 seeds won when playing a lesser seed? It has occurred 11 times #1 seeds are 2-9 when facing a lower seed
Yes, the lesser regular season team most commonly covers.
A super bowl favorite with the better average against the spread margin has been 2-7 ATS.
A super bowl favorite that has per game average of between zero and 5 points per game against the spread has gone 2-11 ATS.....if they also have the stronger average line per game this moves to 1-10 ATS (-8.91), 4-7 straight up (-3.41)
playoffs=1 and not C and F and 0<tA(ats margin)<5 and tA(line)<oA(line)
Remember from math class that the bigger negative number is actually the less strong number.
0
Quote Originally Posted by IntenseOperator:
... In the 22 #SuperBowl?? since the 2001 season, how many #1 seeds won when playing a lesser seed? It has occurred 11 times #1 seeds are 2-9 when facing a lower seed
Yes, the lesser regular season team most commonly covers.
A super bowl favorite with the better average against the spread margin has been 2-7 ATS.
A super bowl favorite that has per game average of between zero and 5 points per game against the spread has gone 2-11 ATS.....if they also have the stronger average line per game this moves to 1-10 ATS (-8.91), 4-7 straight up (-3.41)
playoffs=1 and not C and F and 0<tA(ats margin)<5 and tA(line)<oA(line)
Remember from math class that the bigger negative number is actually the less strong number.
Are there too many pointers …. pointing k city way. I had San Fran in a teaser last time they played… plus 7.5 I think… and frisco let them score with 1:43 left to get ball back and cost my teaser. That was for a large wager for me.
1
Are there too many pointers …. pointing k city way. I had San Fran in a teaser last time they played… plus 7.5 I think… and frisco let them score with 1:43 left to get ball back and cost my teaser. That was for a large wager for me.
Yes, every angle is on the Chiefs.....if the line was moving towards the Chiefs I would be more concerned.....those using power ratings or DVOA are all on the 49ers......which went down in flames with the Ravens and the last two games the 49ers have played.
I have discussed "value" before....I don't think it is valid in the NFL....typically the undervalued team covers more often than not.
2
Yes, every angle is on the Chiefs.....if the line was moving towards the Chiefs I would be more concerned.....those using power ratings or DVOA are all on the 49ers......which went down in flames with the Ravens and the last two games the 49ers have played.
I have discussed "value" before....I don't think it is valid in the NFL....typically the undervalued team covers more often than not.
This query is based on both teams' last games' DEF efforts and it says fade SF and take KC: PO = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 SU: 15-27-0 (-4.64, 35.7%) ATS: 13-29-0 (-4.94, 31.0%) Z = 2.31 so the sample size is fairly reliable. Good luck everybody.
Thank you DBW for that query.
If you add D to that query you flip the result.
PO = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 and D
6-15-0 (-6.64, 28.6%)
PLAY FAV. SF?
1
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
This query is based on both teams' last games' DEF efforts and it says fade SF and take KC: PO = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 SU: 15-27-0 (-4.64, 35.7%) ATS: 13-29-0 (-4.94, 31.0%) Z = 2.31 so the sample size is fairly reliable. Good luck everybody.
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: This query is based on both teams' last games' DEF efforts and it says fade SF and take KC: PO = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 SU: 15-27-0 (-4.64, 35.7%) ATS: 13-29-0 (-4.94, 31.0%) Z = 2.31 so the sample size is fairly reliable. Good luck everybody. Thank you DBW for that query. If you add D to that query you flip the result. PO = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 and D 6-15-0 (-6.64, 28.6%) PLAY FAV. SF?
I prefer not to query SF as a F or KC as a dog; the spread is too small.
Any playoff specific query as a F will include teams favored by 6, 7 or even 10 or more. I don't want those query results (QRs) polluted by big favorites. I do just the opposite for KC since it is just a small dog. Having said that, I forgot to do what I just mentioned.
For this specific matchup I made a mistake by neglecting to add what I view as an appropriate pointspread ban for a 2-point favorite; this is a better query:
playoffs = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 and -4.7 < line < 2.7 ----- This reveals how deceptively favorable that query was.
SU: 6-5
ATS: 5-6 I should NOT have posted that query without inserting an appropriate pointspread band first to make sure it's actually valid.
I suggest using "-4.7 < line < 2.7" for queries from SF's perspective and "4.7 > line > -2.7" from KC's perspective.
Killer Sports and Gimme the Dog have been working only intermittently. Currently (about 11 P.M. Pacific Time) KS is not working to generate SB matchups but GTD is. Usually neither has generated SB matchups late at night, so hats off to GTD.
Good luck everybody.
1
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo:
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: This query is based on both teams' last games' DEF efforts and it says fade SF and take KC: PO = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 SU: 15-27-0 (-4.64, 35.7%) ATS: 13-29-0 (-4.94, 31.0%) Z = 2.31 so the sample size is fairly reliable. Good luck everybody. Thank you DBW for that query. If you add D to that query you flip the result. PO = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 and D 6-15-0 (-6.64, 28.6%) PLAY FAV. SF?
I prefer not to query SF as a F or KC as a dog; the spread is too small.
Any playoff specific query as a F will include teams favored by 6, 7 or even 10 or more. I don't want those query results (QRs) polluted by big favorites. I do just the opposite for KC since it is just a small dog. Having said that, I forgot to do what I just mentioned.
For this specific matchup I made a mistake by neglecting to add what I view as an appropriate pointspread ban for a 2-point favorite; this is a better query:
playoffs = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 and -4.7 < line < 2.7 ----- This reveals how deceptively favorable that query was.
SU: 6-5
ATS: 5-6 I should NOT have posted that query without inserting an appropriate pointspread band first to make sure it's actually valid.
I suggest using "-4.7 < line < 2.7" for queries from SF's perspective and "4.7 > line > -2.7" from KC's perspective.
Killer Sports and Gimme the Dog have been working only intermittently. Currently (about 11 P.M. Pacific Time) KS is not working to generate SB matchups but GTD is. Usually neither has generated SB matchups late at night, so hats off to GTD.
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo: Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: This query is based on both teams' last games' DEF efforts and it says fade SF and take KC: PO = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 SU: 15-27-0 (-4.64, 35.7%) ATS: 13-29-0 (-4.94, 31.0%) Z = 2.31 so the sample size is fairly reliable. Good luck everybody. Thank you DBW for that query. If you add D to that query you flip the result. PO = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 and D 6-15-0 (-6.64, 28.6%) PLAY FAV. SF? I prefer not to query SF as a F or KC as a dog; the spread is too small. Any playoff specific query as a F will include teams favored by 6, 7 or even 10 or more. I don't want those query results (QRs) polluted by big favorites. I do just the opposite for KC since it is just a small dog. Having said that, I forgot to do what I just mentioned. For this specific matchup I made a mistake by neglecting to add what I view as an appropriate pointspread ban for a 2-point favorite; this is a better query: playoffs = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 and -4.7 < line < 2.7 ----- This reveals how deceptively favorable that query was. SU: 6-5 ATS: 5-6 I should NOT have posted that query without inserting an appropriate pointspread band first to make sure it's actually valid. I suggest using "-4.7 < line < 2.7" for queries from SF's perspective and "4.7 > line > -2.7" from KC's perspective. Killer Sports and Gimme the Dog have been working only intermittently. Currently (about 11 P.M. Pacific Time) KS is not working to generate SB matchups but GTD is. Usually neither has generated SB matchups late at night, so hats off to GTD. Good luck everybody.
I would use a line between negative and positive 4 points if you're concerned about the querying a series of games where you would be generating results which would include really big underdogs.
The basic premise should be the same, which is, teams that were the less impressive during the regular season in relation to their present opponent have consistently beaten the point spread in the big game.
a) playoffs=1 and not C and tA(W)<oA(W) and -4<line<4
b) playoffs=1 and not C and tA(line)>oA(line) and -4<line<4
c) playoffs=1 and not C and tA(ats margin)<oA(ats margin)
d) playoffs=1 and not C and -4<line<4 and tS(W, N=10)<oS(W, N=10)
e) playoffs=1 and not C and -4<line<4 and p:playoffs=1 and pp:playoffs=1 and ppp:playoffs=1 and op:playoffs=1 and opp:playoffs=1 and oppp:playoffs=0
The results all favor the Chiefs, though not to the extent if we used underdogs only as our parameter.
We can tend to over-analyze, which, I am not naming any names, but you know who you are.....lol
"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Albert Einstein
1
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
Quote Originally Posted by jowchoo: Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams: This query is based on both teams' last games' DEF efforts and it says fade SF and take KC: PO = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 SU: 15-27-0 (-4.64, 35.7%) ATS: 13-29-0 (-4.94, 31.0%) Z = 2.31 so the sample size is fairly reliable. Good luck everybody. Thank you DBW for that query. If you add D to that query you flip the result. PO = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 and D 6-15-0 (-6.64, 28.6%) PLAY FAV. SF? I prefer not to query SF as a F or KC as a dog; the spread is too small. Any playoff specific query as a F will include teams favored by 6, 7 or even 10 or more. I don't want those query results (QRs) polluted by big favorites. I do just the opposite for KC since it is just a small dog. Having said that, I forgot to do what I just mentioned. For this specific matchup I made a mistake by neglecting to add what I view as an appropriate pointspread ban for a 2-point favorite; this is a better query: playoffs = 1 and p:dpa - op:dpa > 18.2 and -4.7 < line < 2.7 ----- This reveals how deceptively favorable that query was. SU: 6-5 ATS: 5-6 I should NOT have posted that query without inserting an appropriate pointspread band first to make sure it's actually valid. I suggest using "-4.7 < line < 2.7" for queries from SF's perspective and "4.7 > line > -2.7" from KC's perspective. Killer Sports and Gimme the Dog have been working only intermittently. Currently (about 11 P.M. Pacific Time) KS is not working to generate SB matchups but GTD is. Usually neither has generated SB matchups late at night, so hats off to GTD. Good luck everybody.
I would use a line between negative and positive 4 points if you're concerned about the querying a series of games where you would be generating results which would include really big underdogs.
The basic premise should be the same, which is, teams that were the less impressive during the regular season in relation to their present opponent have consistently beaten the point spread in the big game.
a) playoffs=1 and not C and tA(W)<oA(W) and -4<line<4
b) playoffs=1 and not C and tA(line)>oA(line) and -4<line<4
c) playoffs=1 and not C and tA(ats margin)<oA(ats margin)
d) playoffs=1 and not C and -4<line<4 and tS(W, N=10)<oS(W, N=10)
e) playoffs=1 and not C and -4<line<4 and p:playoffs=1 and pp:playoffs=1 and ppp:playoffs=1 and op:playoffs=1 and opp:playoffs=1 and oppp:playoffs=0
The results all favor the Chiefs, though not to the extent if we used underdogs only as our parameter.
We can tend to over-analyze, which, I am not naming any names, but you know who you are.....lol
"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."
[Quote: Originally Posted by Indigo999]Quote Originally Posted by lumpy701: Friend of mine sent me this. Is he correct? a) the team with the worse record entering the Super Bowl is 18-2-1 ATS since 1995. b) Teams in the Super Bowl that played in the Wild Card round are 12-1-1 in the Super Bowl Well Lumpy we can check it....as I have said, my database goes back to 2002 for the playoffs and 1989 for the regular season. We've already checked that the team with the lesser winning percentage has been 16-2 ATS (+6.67) , and 12-6 straight up (+3.72) As a dog they've been 11-1 ATS (+9.88), 7-5 straight up (+3.67) If the line is between -4 and +4 those teams have gone 5-1 ATS (+8.25), 5-1 straight up (+7.8) Now, out of all the angles I've looked at, here is one going against KC...those teams that played in three or more playoff games last season have gone 2-5 ATS (-6.79) and 3-4 straight up (-3.00).....VERSUS Chiefs Those that played two playoff games exact have gone 7-4 ATS, 7-4 straight up (+2.36)....ON 49ers.[/Quote
I think this is because it is so hard to REPEAT as it hasn’t been done since the Pats 20 years ago. Typically the Super Bowl loser regresses the next season as well.
What are the trends on Super Bowl Champs defending their title the next year?
Pats
Broncos
Boys
Niners
Steelers x2
Dolphins
Packers
0
@IntenseOperator
[Quote: Originally Posted by Indigo999]Quote Originally Posted by lumpy701: Friend of mine sent me this. Is he correct? a) the team with the worse record entering the Super Bowl is 18-2-1 ATS since 1995. b) Teams in the Super Bowl that played in the Wild Card round are 12-1-1 in the Super Bowl Well Lumpy we can check it....as I have said, my database goes back to 2002 for the playoffs and 1989 for the regular season. We've already checked that the team with the lesser winning percentage has been 16-2 ATS (+6.67) , and 12-6 straight up (+3.72) As a dog they've been 11-1 ATS (+9.88), 7-5 straight up (+3.67) If the line is between -4 and +4 those teams have gone 5-1 ATS (+8.25), 5-1 straight up (+7.8) Now, out of all the angles I've looked at, here is one going against KC...those teams that played in three or more playoff games last season have gone 2-5 ATS (-6.79) and 3-4 straight up (-3.00).....VERSUS Chiefs Those that played two playoff games exact have gone 7-4 ATS, 7-4 straight up (+2.36)....ON 49ers.[/Quote
I think this is because it is so hard to REPEAT as it hasn’t been done since the Pats 20 years ago. Typically the Super Bowl loser regresses the next season as well.
What are the trends on Super Bowl Champs defending their title the next year?
Quote Originally Posted by lumpy701: Friend of mine sent me this. Is he correct? a) the team with the worse record entering the Super Bowl is 18-2-1 ATS since 1995. b) Teams in the Super Bowl that played in the Wild Card round are 12-1-1 in the Super Bowl Well Lumpy we can check it....as I have said, my database goes back to 2002 for the playoffs and 1989 for the regular season. We've already checked that the team with the lesser winning percentage has been 16-2 ATS (+6.67) , and 12-6 straight up (+3.72) As a dog they've been 11-1 ATS (+9.88), 7-5 straight up (+3.67) If the line is between -4 and +4 those teams have gone 5-1 ATS (+8.25), 5-1 straight up (+7.8) Now, out of all the angles I've looked at, here is one going against KC...those teams that played in three or more playoff games last season have gone 2-5 ATS (-6.79) and 3-4 straight up (-3.00).....VERSUS Chiefs Those that played two playoff games exact have gone 7-4 ATS, 7-4 straight up (+2.36)....ON 49ers.[/Quote I think this is because it is so hard to REPEAT as it hasn’t been done since the Pats 20 years ago. Typically the Super Bowl loser regresses the next season as well. What are the trends on Super Bowl Champs defending their title the next year? Pats Broncos Boys Niners Steelers x2 Dolphins Packers
The playoff database goes back to 2002....with the exception of the Patriots in 203-2004, all other repeating champions are before that time,...we can deduce that a team has repeated once in the last 22 years.
The Chiefs (to the Bucs) and the Seahawks (to the Patriots) both lost in the Super Bowl in their attempt to win consecutive championships. The Chiefs were smoked, and the Seahawks had the game in the bag in their Super Bowls.
That Russell Wilson threw a game changing endzone pick in the last minute of the game in their loss to the Patriots was a harbinger of his career to come of numerous red zone mistakes.
0
Quote Originally Posted by NONEED4LUCK:
@IntenseOperator
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999:
Quote Originally Posted by lumpy701: Friend of mine sent me this. Is he correct? a) the team with the worse record entering the Super Bowl is 18-2-1 ATS since 1995. b) Teams in the Super Bowl that played in the Wild Card round are 12-1-1 in the Super Bowl Well Lumpy we can check it....as I have said, my database goes back to 2002 for the playoffs and 1989 for the regular season. We've already checked that the team with the lesser winning percentage has been 16-2 ATS (+6.67) , and 12-6 straight up (+3.72) As a dog they've been 11-1 ATS (+9.88), 7-5 straight up (+3.67) If the line is between -4 and +4 those teams have gone 5-1 ATS (+8.25), 5-1 straight up (+7.8) Now, out of all the angles I've looked at, here is one going against KC...those teams that played in three or more playoff games last season have gone 2-5 ATS (-6.79) and 3-4 straight up (-3.00).....VERSUS Chiefs Those that played two playoff games exact have gone 7-4 ATS, 7-4 straight up (+2.36)....ON 49ers.[/Quote I think this is because it is so hard to REPEAT as it hasn’t been done since the Pats 20 years ago. Typically the Super Bowl loser regresses the next season as well. What are the trends on Super Bowl Champs defending their title the next year? Pats Broncos Boys Niners Steelers x2 Dolphins Packers
The playoff database goes back to 2002....with the exception of the Patriots in 203-2004, all other repeating champions are before that time,...we can deduce that a team has repeated once in the last 22 years.
The Chiefs (to the Bucs) and the Seahawks (to the Patriots) both lost in the Super Bowl in their attempt to win consecutive championships. The Chiefs were smoked, and the Seahawks had the game in the bag in their Super Bowls.
That Russell Wilson threw a game changing endzone pick in the last minute of the game in their loss to the Patriots was a harbinger of his career to come of numerous red zone mistakes.
Remember if you are playing a two team teaser that the implied probability of each of the two legs should be greater than a 75% success rate if you are paying -140 for the privilege(?) at a sportsbook for it to be a +EV wager.
0
Remember if you are playing a two team teaser that the implied probability of each of the two legs should be greater than a 75% success rate if you are paying -140 for the privilege(?) at a sportsbook for it to be a +EV wager.
Super Bowl angle.....teams in the super bowl off playing their two previous playoff games that season on the road.....8-0 ATS (+8.75), 6-2 straight up (+5.38)....Chiefs
not C and playoffs = 1 and p:A and pp:A
Results
2003 Panthers +7 29-32 Patriots
2005 Steelers -4 21-10 21010 Seahawks
2007 Giants +12 +12 17-14 Patriots
2010 Packers -2' 31-25 Steelers
2011 Giants +3 21-17 Patriots
2012 Ravens +4 34-31 Fortyniners
2020 Bucs +3 31-9 Chiefs
2021 Bengals +4 20-23 Rams
0
Super Bowl angle.....teams in the super bowl off playing their two previous playoff games that season on the road.....8-0 ATS (+8.75), 6-2 straight up (+5.38)....Chiefs
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
