Actually, he's 5-4...close to exactly the 50/50 split that anybody could get playing these teasers randomly. The problem is the -140 juice that makes him seriously underwater. He very well might win the next 3 to go 8-2. Its a 12.5% probability. Then again, its also a 12.5% probability he'll lose the next 3 in a row.
You all know that I don't think teasers are a good bet. But if you are going to do it anyway, including Atlanta is a particularly bad move. That game is expected to be very high scoring. The less the expected total, the more useful an extra 13 points would be. If you are going to do it, I'd pick a team from the Chicago/Cleveland game.
Actually, he's 5-4...close to exactly the 50/50 split that anybody could get playing these teasers randomly. The problem is the -140 juice that makes him seriously underwater. He very well might win the next 3 to go 8-2. Its a 12.5% probability. Then again, its also a 12.5% probability he'll lose the next 3 in a row.
You all know that I don't think teasers are a good bet. But if you are going to do it anyway, including Atlanta is a particularly bad move. That game is expected to be very high scoring. The less the expected total, the more useful an extra 13 points would be. If you are going to do it, I'd pick a team from the Chicago/Cleveland game.
i see what your saying with the low totals game but how come you like the cle/chi game the best? there are some other low total games also den/bal hou/buff and nyj/mia. who would you take in the cle/chi game clev to 26.5?
730,
For starters, go read TallGuys posts and stop betting teasers.
Second, if you are looking for one this week I would think Chicago is as strong a play as any other. Chicago is in a must win position, coming off two tough road games against strong defenses. They should fair much better at home against Cleveland. Meanwhile, the Browns are showing no signs of improvement.
There is no such thing as a lock but this game looks like it has all the right ingredients.
Tallguy,
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but you made a few comments that kinda stun me:
1. Are you SN himself in Disguise? LOL, How did you guess!
2.I think I am saving people a lot of hard earned money. SN hasnt charged anyone for anything.
3.I feel like i'm doing a public service. Are you serious? Many of us here can think for ourselves, a "public service" isn't needed
Finally, you finished with a comment about you being attacked. I will say this, SN could be a lot more constructive, and alot less defensive in his responses. However, you were the one who walked into his thread and questioned his integrity once you didn't get a response to your liking. Like i said, we'll have to agree to disagree here.
However, you were the one who walked into his thread and questioned his integrity once you didn't get a response to your liking. Like i said, we'll have to agree to disagree here.
I guess one of the things we disagree about is the meaning of the word "attack". In my opinion, its not an attack if you stick to the point of the thread. I was pointing up legitimate objections to his accounting and I had the evidence to back it up. If somebody has a question with my methodology, I think they should question it. There is a lot to be gained by hard questions and answers. When I was referring to "attacks", I was referring to the pointless and juvenile namecalling. It serves no purpose whatsoever.
However, you were the one who walked into his thread and questioned his integrity once you didn't get a response to your liking. Like i said, we'll have to agree to disagree here.
I guess one of the things we disagree about is the meaning of the word "attack". In my opinion, its not an attack if you stick to the point of the thread. I was pointing up legitimate objections to his accounting and I had the evidence to back it up. If somebody has a question with my methodology, I think they should question it. There is a lot to be gained by hard questions and answers. When I was referring to "attacks", I was referring to the pointless and juvenile namecalling. It serves no purpose whatsoever.
I'd like to see your "evidence" With the exception of week 5(no units attatched to ml bets) his numbers and units are rather easy to understand. We will see if his numbers truly match the units lost in week 7.
You are correct that immature name calling serves no purpose and should not be tolerated in this forum. However, you are the one who has called SN "a fraud", and to me, that is a very strong accusation....especially without "evidence". So if you have the evidence, let's see it.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
