[Post-Oak]

[ 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.