OT-ish: The gambling thread

[fightingirish595]

Last week I said to myself..Cheifs would or will bounce back. And didn't.

Now that they have lost 2 in a row and I am in a very weird place with them. Sooner or later they will cover over the top and blow someone out IMO But when? I thought it would be last week. I am HOPING it's tonight.

Not that this is a must win for the Chiefs. But they can't...can't lose 3 in a row here. Would be a MASSIVE blow. Why I like them

And I absolutely love the under tonight

I mean they could lose tonight and still be in first in the division

 

[mgcolby]

Last week I said to myself..Cheifs would or will bounce back. And didn't.

Now that they have lost 2 in a row and I am in a very weird place with them. Sooner or later they will cover over the top and blow someone out IMO But when? I thought it would be last week. I am HOPING it's tonight.

Not that this is a must win for the Chiefs. But they can't...can't lose 3 in a row here. Would be a MASSIVE blow. Why I like them

And I absolutely love the under tonight

Well we are on opposite sides tonight. Like I said in the other game thread. They are in a tough spot here injuries, division game on the road in a really tough place to play. Especially in Primetime.

I never do well on over/unders. But may go check it out.

 

[maust]

Weird game. Strength (KC offense) on strength (Den D), weakness (KC D) on weakness (Den offense). Just don't like it against the number, like the under at 50 for $100 though

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

I mean they could lose tonight and still be in first in the division

Oh I know. But a 3 game skid with their schedule come up? May not be in 1st for long if they drop this

 

[fightingirish595]

I also have Lindsay and freeman first TD

 

[mgcolby]

Jumped on Stanford -4.5

****...just saw there is RLM in Stanford, thinking about mixing my bet.

 

[jmt57]

Top picks based on the differential:
Steelers +6 at Chargers
49ers +3 at Rams
Texans +4 at Chiefs
Jets +7 vs Cowboys

Next tier:
Dolphins +4.5 vs Washington
Eagles +3.5 at Minnesota


I think I will work on some parlays and teasers from this group. Lot of road dogs and inconsistent teams though.

Very impressive, @mgcolby

Five out of six of your best bets came out winners, including 4-4 on the top tier.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Hold ON CHIEFS

 

[jmt57]

So far this season (since week 3) for the weeks I have tracked (4 weeks). There have been 38 games where the Dog covered the Spread in 28 of them they won straight up. Only in 10 games has the dog covered using the points given, thats just 27% of the time.

There have been 60 games over the the 4 weeks and in just 10 of them has the spread come into play or 16.6%.

Just off small sample size, the 82% the guy on the radio cited seems to be accurate. Trying to find my previous years data, but can't find the dang folder at the moment.

I recall going back and forth with 60 Pats on this topic previously.

In my opinion there is a mistaken conflation between 'just pick the winner' and 'just pick the favorite'. It seemed to juxtapose into 'picking an underdog to cover is a losing strategy', but to me the first sentence above is uniquely different from the second.

When games have a spread of three points or less - which is quite often - there is virtually no room for a back door cover. Therefore in games with low spreads, yes - just pick the team you think will win, and ignore the spread.

Whether or not one should utilize this logic in spreads of more than three points is very debatable.

At some point if you truly think the underdog will win straight up against long odds, then one should be wagering moneyline rather than ATS.

 

[mgcolby]

I recall going back and forth with 60 Pats on this topic previously.

In my opinion there is a mistaken conflation between 'just pick the winner' and 'just pick the favorite'. It seemed to juxtapose into 'picking an underdog to cover is a losing strategy', but to me the first sentence above is uniquely different from the second.

When games have a spread of three points or less - which is quite often - there is virtually no room for a back door cover. Therefore in games with low spreads, yes - just pick the team you think will win, and ignore the spread.

Whether or not one should utilize this logic in spreads of more than three points is very debatable.

At some point if you truly think the underdog will win straight up against long odds, then one should be wagering moneyline rather than ATS.

So far, on the admittedly small subset of data, it doesn't seem to matter, with the exception of two really large spreads that covered.

I don't think picking dogs is a losing strategy, but it seems to suggest that if you like the dog you are better off overall to take the ML. I would not suggest this with the favorites because of the sizable risk to win a 100 on the moneyline. But I see potential value benefit in taking the money line on the dog

However,I have tried this tonight and so far it is failing spectacularly.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

So far, on the admittedly small subset of data, it doesn't seem to matter, with the exception of two really large spreads that covered.

I don't think picking dogs is a losing strategy, but it seems to suggest that if you like the dog you are better off overall to take the ML. I would not suggest this with the favorites because of the sizable risk to win a 100 on the moneyline. But I see potential value benefit in taking the money line on the dog

However,I have tried this tonight and so far it is failing spectacularly.

Dog I always take ML.

But tonight I took KC ML just because of how confident I was feeling. Honestly depends on the day and if I just say **** it

I need KC to pump the brakes on scoring however..

 

[mgcolby]

Dog I always take ML.

But tonight I took KC ML just because of how confident I was feeling. Honestly depends on the day and if I just say **** it

I need KC to pump the brakes on scoring however..

I'll give the Chiefs credit they definitely responded to the 2 losses well, in the face of the adversity of losing Mahomes. But I still can't help feel it's more to do with Denvers ineptness than KC's prowess.

 

[mgcolby]

Hopefully Stanford pulls their heads out their asses and come through for me.

 

[maust]

I'll give the Chiefs credit they definitely responded to the 2 losses well, in the face of the adversity of losing Mahomes. But I still can't help feel it's more to do with Denvers ineptness than KC's prowess.

Your feeling is absolutely correct.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

I'll give the Chiefs credit they definitely responded to the 2 losses well, in the face of the adversity of losing Mahomes. But I still can't help feel it's more to do with Denvers ineptness than KC's prowess.

Oh Denver is awful. Flacco shows nothing

 

[mgcolby]

They played fairly well the last 2 weeks. Flacco had some life. This is the same Flacco from the first 4 weeks.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

They played fairly well the last 2 weeks. Flacco had some life. This is the same Flacco from the first 4 weeks.

I just never believed in the Broncos. Beating the Titians at home...meh

 

[maust]

I just never believed in the Broncos. Beating the Titians at home...meh

I never believed the under would break a sweat but Flacco tried his best to make me nervous with his help KC would kill it

 

[mgcolby]

I just never believed in the Broncos. Beating the Titians at home...meh

Good call.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

I never believed the under would break a sweat but Flacco tried his best to make me nervous with his help KC would kill it

Yeah that under was such a lock tonight in my book