Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***
 

[ QUOTE ]

Even when I point out in the other thread that Pit won 42-0 as a 24.5 point favorite, you change the subject and start talking about expansion teams

[/ QUOTE ]

Pointing out the opponent was a first-year expansion team is 'changing the subject?'

ROFL_copter. Sick level dude.

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
The sharp play on both those lines was completely obvious. One of course was never available.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have NE -14.5 @ Baltimore as a pending bet, and I am not sure I would say -14 was "never available" either.

Anyway, my point was that no matter what you think about the Philly +24.5 line, it does not follow that someone who does not agree is automatically a square and a fanboy. That's stupid talk.

[ QUOTE ]

The other was seen briefly, and I didn't see one sharp calling it a no-bet much less playing the other side of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know who is a "sharp"? There are many people on this forum who are obsessed with declaring themselves sharps, and they often refer to people who disagree with them as "squares". That's one thing I don't like about this forum, and you are a perfect example. Why are you calling someone a "square" and a "fanboy" just because they said they were laying off a line you thought was good?

[ QUOTE ]

And don't bother calling yourself a sharp, cause if you do, "I don't agree with this viewpoint."


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't refer to myself as a "sharp". That kind of behavior seems pretty lame. I don't care if you think I am a "sharp" or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Not knowing how I'd set the line <> don't know the line was available.


[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize for saying you said that. I had you confused with someone else.

[ QUOTE ]

Your implication clearly is that laying off that game can be validated as an "acceptable play".


[/ QUOTE ]

You are jumping to an illogical conclusion. Maybe I just meant that if someone makes one solitary mistake, it doesn't necessarily mean they are a "square" or a "fanboy"?

[ QUOTE ]

Contention here obviously is that it is EV- to advocate "laying off" when "playing +24.5" is such an obviously EV+ play.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are making the mistake of being results oriented. You seem to be talking like this line was WAY off. Should it have been NE -17? NE -14? NE -3? Just how far off was this line?

I wasn't gonna touch the game at Phi +22, and only bet it when it got to +24.5. In other words, I know that at the time I didn't feel like this was the most ridiculous line I had ever seen or anything like that. It's easy to be a swaggering braggart when your team happens to cover.

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think laying off the game is okay unless you think +24.5 is an EV0 or worse line?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I happened to have had Phi +24.5, but I am not gonna say that laying off is simply indefensible. Some people are under the impression that McNabb is a HOF QB, so maybe that was the problem? NE had beaten 8 out of 10 teams by 20 or more points, so I guess that was a factor. I don't consider it a HUGE mistake to have laid off, nor would I automatically label someone a "square" or a "fanboy" just because I thought they were making one big mistake.

[ QUOTE ]

And OBTW, no one here is being ROT...most of us were pretty strongly advocating +24.5 as an easy EV+ play long before game wrap.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a funny quote. I really don't think you understand that if this game were played 100 times, NE would cover some of those times. You seem to think this one game has 100% validated your viewpoint, no questions asked. That is the very definition of being results oriented.

If I advocate calling an all-in bet with 3 high BEFORE I runner-runnner winning trips, does that mean I am not being results oriented if I brag afterward? Understand that I am not saying you made a bad play taking +24.5 (I made the same bet), but it doesn't matter that you called it beforehand. It is ONE GAME.

As a further example, I had Phi +25 parlayed with under 52. That was a loser, and it didn't come close. Should I lament what a horrible bet I made? I guess the book really pulled one over on me, letting me place that wager.

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
As a further example, I had Phi +25 parlayed with under 52. That was a loser, and it didn't come close. Should I lament what a horrible bet I made? I guess the book really pulled one over on me, letting me place that wager.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I had the same bet. And as per your words I am the final arbiter of what is and what is not "sharp" betting behavior. I support this type of frivolity.

Though if I wasn't busy taking huge +EV bets from tardo books. I woulda just bombed +24.5 Sometimes I'm too good.

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
Understand that I am not saying you made a bad play...but it doesn't matter that you called it beforehand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does. PSU isn't saying it was a good bet because he won, he's saying there was inherent value in the line [if inelegantly.]

Texas +250 v USC was a good bet that I called before hand. I cannot be accused of ROT because it won. Obviously if they played again, USC may have won, it was still a good bet. The line was not set to attract equal action, but to suck in all the USC bettors at a bad price [say -275]

UAB +10.5/+450 v Kentucky 2nd Round CBB Tourney was a v.v. good bet. I loaded up on this. It's not a good bet because UAB won outright, it's a good bet because of the huge value inherent in the misplaced line, same as above.
Obviously, some % out of 100 the Wildcats would cover the Blazers, but since 98% of office/public bettors couldn't tell you UAB's nickname, much less that they press 94'/40m you can safely assume the public was riding UK pretty hard.

Eagles -3 @ GB Week 1 was a good bet. The Pack Offense scored 6 pts on their drives, recovered a punt muff in the end zone, and another one at the 20 in the final minute for another 3 pts. PHL's O outscored GB's O 13-6 with 2 fewer possessions, the Defs each scored 0. The fact that PHL lost on a last-second FG doesn't change the value of that line going back to August.

Perf offered me 8/10-1 initially on KC not making the playoffs. There was obvious value in that line, I didn't even need to know it was arbable to immediately book a bet with him.

All these 'events' are only played one time. That is irrelevant to their inherent value. No different than a GOOG $675 Dec call option. That 'game' is only run once, but at a certain price you should buy all you can.

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think you understand that if this game were played 100 times, NE would cover some of those times. You seem to think this one game has 100% validated your viewpoint, no questions asked. That is the very definition of being results oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why it is that you think I've basically said that +24.5 is a good bet because it won. It makes me laugh that you think I need to have ROT explained to me.

I think I'll be done with this argument as it's kinda like banging my head against a brick wall. One question though... Does it really count for you to say you had +24.5 when in fact what you had was a middle that had +24.5 on the high end? Seems to me you thought there was more value in the middle than the actual number, as if not you'd have doubled down on +24.5 to give a middle as well as a true +24.5 bet...

- C -