[psuasskicker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't understand your point then. He said -24.5 against the Eagles was a terrible line


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, what he effectively said was that anyone who did not bet Phi +24.5 was nothing but a "square" and a "fanboy". I don't agree with this viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't agree with viewpoint <> Other person not knowledgable.

"Hello, Pot? This is Kettel. You're black."

I'm not the sharpest sports bettor, I'm a noob at it. But even I know a stupid line when I see one.
Pats -24.5 over Eagles = stupid.
Pats -14 over Ravens = stupid.
The sharp play on both those lines was completely obvious. One of course was never available. 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.

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

[ QUOTE ]
He went on to say he had no idea how to set that line, and he was also clueless that the line has been available for hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... Once again for the process-oriented-challenged:

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

Show me exactly where I said that? You'll have an apology on your way.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I never said that. What I did say is that laying off that game does not qualify you as a "square" or a "fanboy".

[/ QUOTE ]

Your implication clearly is that laying off that game can be validated as an "acceptable play". Contention here obviously is that it is EV- to advocate "laying off" when "playing +24.5" is such an obviously EV+ play.

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

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.

- C -