Posted:
#5476
Quote Originally Posted by GIANFRANCO1114:
1H UC DAVIS / CAL SANTA BARBARA UNDER 60.5
1H UC DAVIS / CAL SANTA BARBARA UNDER 60.5
1100-1000
This is 56.5 !!!!
(sorry)
1st half, 2nd half OVER UNDER theory - all tourney long
Posted:
#5493
This is up there with one of the worst betting ideas I've ever heard of. Betting on the under every first half and over every second half is a sure way to lose in the long run. Book makers already adjust their lines for the first half and second half betting to make up for any nervousness that can come up in the first half, and a foul fest that can occur in the second. It's like saying "I'm going to bet against every team that drinks powerade and not gatorade because I don't like gatorade": It has absolutely no math, or proof why; it just is a certain way. If you somehow win doing this, please know that you won because of short term variance, nothing more.
Posted:
#5494
Quote Originally Posted by tonyhydro:
This is up there with one of the worst betting ideas I've ever heard of. Betting on the under every first half and over every second half is a sure way to lose in the long run. Book makers already adjust their lines for the first half and second half betting to make up for any nervousness that can come up in the first half, and a foul fest that can occur in the second. It's like saying "I'm going to bet against every team that drinks powerade and not gatorade because I don't like gatorade": It has absolutely no math, or proof why; it just is a certain way. If you somehow win doing this, please know that you won because of short term variance, nothing more.
This is up there with one of the worst betting ideas I've ever heard of. Betting on the under every first half and over every second half is a sure way to lose in the long run. Book makers already adjust their lines for the first half and second half betting to make up for any nervousness that can come up in the first half, and a foul fest that can occur in the second. It's like saying "I'm going to bet against every team that drinks powerade and not gatorade because I don't like gatorade": It has absolutely no math, or proof why; it just is a certain way. If you somehow win doing this, please know that you won because of short term variance, nothing more.
Get lost scumbag!
Posted:
#5497
Quote Originally Posted by tonyhydro:
This is up there with one of the worst betting ideas I've ever heard of. Betting on the under every first half and over every second half is a sure way to lose in the long run. Book makers already adjust their lines for the first half and second half betting to make up for any nervousness that can come up in the first half, and a foul fest that can occur in the second. It's like saying "I'm going to bet against every team that drinks powerade and not gatorade because I don't like gatorade": It has absolutely no math, or proof why; it just is a certain way. If you somehow win doing this, please know that you won because of short term variance, nothing more.
This is up there with one of the worst betting ideas I've ever heard of. Betting on the under every first half and over every second half is a sure way to lose in the long run. Book makers already adjust their lines for the first half and second half betting to make up for any nervousness that can come up in the first half, and a foul fest that can occur in the second. It's like saying "I'm going to bet against every team that drinks powerade and not gatorade because I don't like gatorade": It has absolutely no math, or proof why; it just is a certain way. If you somehow win doing this, please know that you won because of short term variance, nothing more.
2 years is not short term variance 
Hot Forum Topics
