All Forums | NHL Betting Forum

** DNI's Monday NHL Pick ** - By DÑI Mourinho®

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 11227
Posts: 38
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 2502
Posted: #1
Good morning ladies and gentlemen,

I bid you a wonderful day. We had a tough beat with Vancouver going to OT when up 3:0 in the game. That's the leg that lost it for us.

+$1,768.01, 13-10.

DNI Mourinho hit a rough patch with some near misses, but with 3 NHL games today, we look to turn it around.

Stay tuned for DNI Mourinho's official play later today.

Sincerely,

DNI Mourinho
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2014
Posts: 2908
Posted: #2
Don't think about it to much, it's only 3 games today..RANGERS...ML...DEVILS...ML ST. LOUIS BLUES,, ML.....
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 2502
Posted: #3
The Rangers and Devils games are the ones I feel I need to analyze the most.  
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2014
Posts: 2908
Posted: #4
Quote Originally Posted by DNI:

The Rangers and Devils games are the ones I feel I need to analyze the most.  
                           But their both going to win....!!!!!!
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2014
Posts: 2908
Posted: #5
The RANGERS have lost the last 2 games,  one at home against TAMPA BAY and the other  away against DETROIT, now they comeback home to play one game against the PITTSBURGH PENGUINS before they hit the road again... And the next game is going to be on saturday against THE MIGHTY VANCOUVER so expect the RANGERS to put a stop on this 2 game losing streak and get back on the win column.......RANGERS>>>ML..........
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2014
Posts: 2908
Posted: #6
you should've never went against ottawa yesterday, because they were suppose to win yesterday, just like edmonton......!!!   i cashed in some nice money !!!! Not to mention that the NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS was also another pick that i had.....GOOD LUCK BUDDY !!!
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2001
Posts: 87445
Posted: #7
Quote Originally Posted by DNI:


It wasn't that I went against Ottawa, I didn't care which team won, but it seemed based on statistics that when Vancouver Wins or Loses, they rarely have gone to OT.

When up 3:0, the live betting options for an Overtimes were well above +1000.  That was a bad beat for sure.  If I could have quasi-hedged, I would have, but I don't have those types of wagering options in what I was using last evening.

As I have posted in other threads, if you did any research you would of seen the last game they played a little over 3 weeks had the exact same score and went to OT.  
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2001
Posts: 87445
Posted: #8
Quote Originally Posted by DNI:

As I have posted in other threads, if you did any research you would of seen the last game they played a little over 3 weeks had the exact same score and went to OT.

Hello Lippsman,

I did see that, but those are independent events of one another. I tend to put more weight into recent form and that's why I wagered that the game wouldn't end in overtime.

If you ignore history you will be defeated by it. 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2014
Posts: 208
Posted: #9
Quote Originally Posted by DNI:

If you ignore history you will be defeated by it.

would anyone have thought Vancouver up 3:0 would go to OT? Did you think that Mr. Lippsman?


He would have noticed it before it went to 3:0; before the game had started
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2001
Posts: 87445
Posted: #10
Quote Originally Posted by BIGBEE23:

Quote Originally Posted by DNI:

If you ignore history you will be defeated by it. would anyone have thought Vancouver up 3:0 would go to OT? Did you think that Mr. Lippsman?
He would have noticed it before it went to 3:0; before the game had started


Nailed it !!! And DNI that's why they play 60 minutes.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 60107
Posted: #11

Mr DNI Moronio,

Nobody expects anything with long odds to happen.  That's why they have long odds to begin with.

But when you have 6 games of that nature, 1 of them is going to happen.  That's why you have -500 odds.

When a person wins the lottery they don't expect it to happen .  You cant explain why someone wins the lottery, but sure enough - someone is going to win the lottery.

Your inability to grasp simple mathematics and rules of probability are going to be your downfall.  The best approach to you is to keep with an extremely small sample size and hope to go on a run, and then retire. 

Because time aint on your side friend (and neither is math).

Sincerely,

Vanzack
Respecting math, not arguing with math

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2009
Posts: 276604
Posted: #12
#DNIMOURINHOvVanZack  
The Pastor of Disaster
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 7891
Posted: #13
Quote Originally Posted by DNI:

Hello,

I am not in disagreement about mathematics as a logical way of analysis on some wagers and some styles of wagering. 

Again, this isn't something I practice with American Football, or Basketball, or any other sport, except NHL, where I have found it profitable in a niche market so to speak.

Of course long-shots happen, it's why the game is played and why people do win on long shots.  But the analysis and reasoning was sound last night.  

Vancouver stormed out 3-0, the odds of that game going into OT at that point were extremely unlikely.  EVEN when 3rd period started at 3-3, the odds would have been at least +200 to end the game as a draw in regulation.  The odds were IN MY FAVOR nearly the entire game, until the last 7 minutes or so of the game.  Remember, this wager was for + money as well. 

How would that have been a 'wrong wager' or 'mathematically incorrect' in your book?  I was on the right side of that wager the minute Vancouver went up 2-0.

Sincerely,

DNI Mourinho

It was a very high probability play, just look at the odds. Of course you are going to be on the "right side" of the wager a lot of the time. The key is to be on the right side AT THE END OF THE GAME, which you were not.

The real question is, why include a prop bet like that in a parlay full of other games you claimed to handicap and do research on??


 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 60107
Posted: #14
Quote Originally Posted by DNI:

Hello,

I am not in disagreement about mathematics as a logical way of analysis on some wagers and some styles of wagering. 

Again, this isn't something I practice with American Football, or Basketball, or any other sport, except NHL, where I have found it profitable in a niche market so to speak.

Of course long-shots happen, it's why the game is played and why people do win on long shots.  But the analysis and reasoning was sound last night.  

Vancouver stormed out 3-0, the odds of that game going into OT at that point were extremely unlikely.  EVEN when 3rd period started at 3-3, the odds would have been at least +200 to end the game as a draw in regulation.  The odds were IN MY FAVOR nearly the entire game, until the last 7 minutes or so of the game.  Remember, this wager was for + money as well. 

How would that have been a 'wrong wager' or 'mathematically incorrect' in your book?  I was on the right side of that wager the minute Vancouver went up 2-0.

Sincerely,

DNI Mourinho

Mr. DNI Moronio,

Im glad you asked.  It seems like you are willing to learn.  So asking questions for your gross misunderstanding of probability should be applauded.

The only points that matter to a wager like yours are before the game starts, and the final score.  ANYTHING IN BETWEEN THE START OF THE GAME AND THE FINAL SCORE HAS NO BEARING.

You can pick any point in the game and point to it as a period where you could be in an advantageous position.  But at that point, the odds (or price you would need to pay) would also reflect that position.

So when you make a -500 wager at the beginning of the game, there is no point during that game that matters except the final score.  So the fact that they were up 3-0, or down 3-0, or anywhere in between has zero importance on your wager.

You make your bet before the game starts.  If you were to lay -100 in game that at 3-0 it would go to overtime, I am sure that if you picked the 1 out of 100 that would go to overtime - you would be upset.

But saying that you made the correct wager before the game because at one point during the game the score was 3-0, just is utterly ridiculous friend.

Sincerely,

Vanzack
Feeling very sorry for gamblers that wont make any effort to understand probability

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 60107
Posted: #15
Quote Originally Posted by DNI:

Hello,

Remember, this wager was for + money as well. 


 
Sincerely,

DNI Mourinho

Mr. DNI Moronio,

I feel compelled to dispute your obvious mistake above for any readers who might be interested in knowing the truth about this wager.

You refuse to listen or learn this simple fact - and it is a fact - it is not an opinion....

You did not have this OT wager at + odds.  YOU WERE LAYING -500 (or whatever it was) ON THIS WAGER.

Just because it is buried in a parlay, and all of the other parlay plays won, doesn't change the odds you paid for this bet.  YOU BET ROUGHLY 840 TO WIN 160 ON THIS WAGER.

You laid the full price.  You did not hide this wager, you did not increase the odds of this wager because it was in a parlay, you did not increase your probability of winning this wager because it was in a parlay.

You laid -500 that this game would not go to OT, and you bet about 840 bucks on it, and you lost.

You did not have + odds.

Sincerely,

Vanzack
Looking out for the impressionable minds of covers

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2014
Posts: 2455
Posted: #16
Mr DNI,

I made a bet for OT in the oilers game at +300 just for a unit.

I also made a play for Sens ML at +125 3 units, I had a losing night but that one wager covered most of my loss, and guess what it doesn't matter about how favoured the odds are you take 4-6 selections in your parlay you need them all to win meaning you had a losing night whereas I covered my losses.

I hope you see what everyone else is trying to explain to you about your parlays 

Keep your head up friend,

Make P
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2014
Posts: 2455
Posted: #17
Quote Originally Posted by DNI:

Hello Mr. MakeP:

I don't think people realize here a couple of crucial points about my NHL plays:

1.  These aren't my sole source of wagers that I make, I am diversified in the sense that I supplement this with primarily futbol (see futbol thread).

2.  The bankroll of a professional isn't $1,000 and certainly not $10,000 tops.  My plays are less than 1.5% of my bankroll, so for instance this recent poor run in NHL doesn't 'doom' the bankroll.  

3.  I am 'covering' for bad days like the past couple of NHL, with my 'other' plays, futbol and MMA.  Likewise, when my NHL plays win, sometimes soccer loses, or college football, or MMA, and NHL 'covers' those as well.

4.  I'm not playing a parlay for -200 return.  Nearly all my plays have been + money through - 135 at the most.  

5.  I don't post pure MMA plays ( I should ) I do not post pure NFL, or pure college football plays I make, because I don't feel as proficient in them to share, AND, I really don't have time to make all these posts about other sports.

NHL and soccer are the sports I love, and thus, I am only sharing what I love to do.

Sincerely,

DNI Mourinho
oh dear.....
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2013
Posts: 32665
Posted: #18
 Forget it guys. ... like talking to a wall.  Not looking to go to the box Lipps, but you have to admit this is getting ridiculous and out of hand. It has disrupted the entire board when this thread is constantly the only thing we see all the time. 
Those Who do not learn from History, are doomed to repeat it
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2005
Posts: 5358
Posted: #19
everything is fine except when u lose u lose, thats it.
u dont need to explain
anygame at -500 or above or around, when it loses
its a surprise but it happens all the time in sports.

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 13130
Posted: #20
Did you watch the video Vanzack posted DNI...I'd be interested in hearing your rebuttal to it as a professional...

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 13130
Posted: #21
I'd be glad too...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHfDPriLoKI



Looking forward to hearing your rebuttal...
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 60107
Posted: #22
Quote Originally Posted by zamigo6:

I'd be glad too...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHfDPriLoKI



Looking forward to hearing your rebuttal...

Me too...

But don't expect anything based on his history of ignoring absolutely everything posted to generate discussion.

My guess is you will get some sort of rehash of what he has already posted about why math isn't everything and why he has intuition and how he is profitable and a professional.

I don't think we are dealing with a rocket scientist here.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 60107
Posted: #23
Quote Originally Posted by DNI:


Very true my friend.  Typically when a -500 or greater loses, it's precisely because something unexpected happened.

With Vancouver last night, I would guess the odds of OT happening when 3:0 were more like - 5000 or so.  That was a completely unexpected loss to be honest.

Sincerely,

DNI Mourinho

Prime example.

Even after explaining it over and over - he insists he was a -5000 favorite to win the no OT bet.

Its kind of funny.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 13130
Posted: #24
In reality, he bet that a tie game (0-0) wouldn't go into OT and discussing it as if it were a live bet at 3-0, but that's all entirely irrelevant. I'm curious as to his opinion on the video...
 
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 13130
Posted: #25
Quote Originally Posted by DNI:

Mr. VanZack & Mr. Zamigo,

I watched the video you posted, so here's my response.  

There seems to be two main points in this 4:00 minute video.

1.  The first point is 'getting juiced' by 4% on each team within a parlay.  (I.e. laying -125 on a 50% proposition).  I understand this, you are getting paying more per game.  This seems to be the mathematical propositions that you are advocating.


So here's my response to this.  Paying "extra 4% juice" on each team within the parlay, is a matter of one's preference.  Meaning this.  I knowingly accept this as a cost of doing business.  There is NO, I repeat NO business in this world that doesn't come with overhead.  It doesn't matter what business you are in, be it wagering, accounting, medicine, legal, marketing, financial trading, etc... that doesn't have overhead added cost to doing business.  Everything in this society comes at a cost, it's taxed.    

So moving to the point - This is the risk you take (extra juice) to put the odds, per game, in your favor.  Taking for instance, Vancouver +1.5 goals, gives me the edge on that specific game.  YES, I KNOW you are paying more juice (per play in a parlay) but that gives you an extra edge even if it costs slightly more.

But this makes sense.  Why should it cost you an equal value or cost you less to slant the 'per game odds' in your favor, pre-game?



The idea that you are putting the odds in your favor is an illusion. You are actually moving the odds out of your favor. That's the entire point. You are making it more likely that you win the game and also more likely that you lose money over time. You can't seem to wrap your mind around this. 

Your comparison to business is funny and ridiculous. If you opened a Pizza shop and you calculated your price per slice (on your end) was $1.25 so you would sell them for $2.00 a slice you'd make a profit each time you sold a slice. But if you were to decrease the price you are selling the pizza for to $1.00 you'd probably sell a hell of a lot more pizza, but guess what? You'd lose 25 cents every time you sold a slice. This is exactly what you are doing, winning more often and losing more money, selling more pizzas and losing money.
All Forums | NHL Betting Forum
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
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.