NFL team O/U wins - my top 3 picks

[Vyse]

Maybe whispers in his head?

[Thremp]

CarlSpackler,

I know this is SE, and the discussion usually is terrible for betting. But what does "plenty of value" mean?

Also, what do you know about football that separates you from that thousands of other people who do this for a living?

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No Derrick Dockery, no depth on D, Springs is always hurt, Smoot stinx and they have one good WR.

I don't think Jason C can turn into an avg NFL QB in his first full-year as a starter. That's the risk I'm taking. I am already assuming Portis is back at 100%, if not then I like my bet even more.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Cambell could be fine. He has looked good throughout mini-camp and he was brought along smart. He understands the system well.

However, the whispers out of Skins training camp is that Portis is not 100%. Betts should be able to pick up the load until Portis is healthy.

The secondary is very week. They added another big hitting, poor coverage safety and Fred Smoot who they were delighted to get rid of when he was in his prime.

I still think if they get some positive varience and are able to get turnovers and avoid turning the ball over they could be over 7.5. I would say 11:9 they hit the under.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are these whispers you've heard of about Portis? I haven't heard anything but positive news, saying he's fully recovered from knee tendonitis that affected him earlier this summer. In fact, he supposedly has been running his standard sprint times. Or are you hearing something new about his shoulder?

[/ QUOTE ]

Favoring his shoulder and concerns about both his strength in that shoulder and his mental approach. Don't expect to see much of him this preseason.

Although, yes I do also hear voices in my head. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[PokerFink]

People say a bet has plenty of value if they think it is solidly +EV for them.

It's just another way of saying, "I think this bet is +EV, but sports betting has such ridiculous [censored] variance that who the [censored] knows what will really happen."

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
People say a bet has plenty of value if they think it is solidly +EV for them.

It's just another way of saying, "I think this bet is +EV, but sports betting has such ridiculous [censored] variance that who the [censored] knows what will really happen."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is saying you suck at betting sports and have no clue how much to wager or really do analysis.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People say a bet has plenty of value if they think it is solidly +EV for them.

It's just another way of saying, "I think this bet is +EV, but sports betting has such ridiculous [censored] variance that who the [censored] knows what will really happen."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is saying you suck at betting sports and have no clue how much to wager or really do analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

christ this forum is full of nits

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People say a bet has plenty of value if they think it is solidly +EV for them.

It's just another way of saying, "I think this bet is +EV, but sports betting has such ridiculous [censored] variance that who the [censored] knows what will really happen."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is saying you suck at betting sports and have no clue how much to wager or really do analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

christ this forum is full of nits

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you don't understand that if you expect this wager to win 55% at -110 (normal), and the price of it moves from -110 to +130. You are now wagering 20.3% of your bankroll on it instead of 5.5%?

Or if the claim of significant edge was actually that it would win 60% of the time, then the size of your wager would jump from 16% to 29.23% of your bankroll.

Yes, this is nitty. Asking someone to explain themselves when they provide no back-up to their statements is nitty.

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
CarlSpackler,

I know this is SE, and the discussion usually is terrible for betting. But what does "plenty of value" mean?

Also, what do you know about football that separates you from that thousands of other people who do this for a living?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty of value: I think the appropriate line should be Washington season total over 8.5 +100. The public obv. disagrees. Isn't it uncommon for an nfl season o/u to be off by more than 1 game? Is this not a big enough edge to bet? Fwiw, I don't do a comprehensive study of every nfl team's season o/u, I just look at the lines, and the ones that jump out at me I'll then study and research thoroughly. The end result is it's usually not a bet, and I've only actually bet one season total each of the last couple years (Was. under last year, and NYJ under the year before).

What separates me from the people who do this for a living? I have a full time day job, so the time I'm able to invest in this endeavor is limited. I'll be blunt. The past few years since I started getting serious about betting football, I put in about 20 - 25 hours of work on it a week (mostly focused on nfl games) usually through Sept. and my results will be good to great. Then I get burned out.

What happens next is predictable. I start getting overconfident and lazy, don't put in the necessary work needed to be successful, and my results suffer. I do bet less per unit the vast majority of the time the rest of the season when I know I haven't done my homework, but I really shouldn't even be making most of the plays I do the last 3/4 of the season. My best plays the latter half of the season are usually when I decide not to play any games. End result is I'm up or down a little at the end of the year betting football.

As far as the Redskins go, I've been following them very closely this whole offseason (which I've never done before). I'm not just talking about their FA signings and draft picks. I'm talking OTA's, schematic changes on defense which should fix glaring defficiencies from last year, the work Campbell has put in at Redskins Park this offseason, etc. I would be shocked if there is an nfl qb that has put in more work this offseason than Campbell, btw.

Btw, Smoot is a huge upgrade over Kenny Wright, who was a below average zone coverage corner who was a complete misfit for Williams' defensive scheme. Landry should be a huge upgrade at the safety spot opposite Taylor, once he's learned the system. And speaking of Taylor, he received horrible coaching last year, with one coach telling him to do one thing, and another one teaching him completely different techniques. Rocky McIntosh will be a significant upgrade at WLB, as he's now comfortable with the system. Fletcher is a monster upgrade at MLB, and he already knows Williams' system. Griffin being healthy is huge for this team as he's their best dlineman. Marcus Washington is supposedly all the way back from hip surgery, although I'm going to reserve judgement until I see how he plays in the preseason.

[Thremp]

Carl,

I'll go with that. I mean while I don't agree with all of it. Atleast it seems like you have a well reasoned opinion that atleast seems to be more thought out than most. Hopefully you've crunched your numbers fairly well.

Good luck.

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People say a bet has plenty of value if they think it is solidly +EV for them.

It's just another way of saying, "I think this bet is +EV, but sports betting has such ridiculous [censored] variance that who the [censored] knows what will really happen."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is saying you suck at betting sports and have no clue how much to wager or really do analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

christ this forum is full of nits

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you don't understand that if you expect this wager to win 55% at -110 (normal), and the price of it moves from -110 to +130. You are now wagering 20.3% of your bankroll on it instead of 5.5%?

Or if the claim of significant edge was actually that it would win 60% of the time, then the size of your wager would jump from 16% to 29.23% of your bankroll.

Yes, this is nitty. Asking someone to explain themselves when they provide no back-up to their statements is nitty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Btw, when I said even earlier, I really meant +100. That's what I was thinking in my head, don't know why I typed even. If it's even w/10% vig it's obv. alot less attractive.