Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Gambling > Sports Betting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old 11-29-2007, 01:25 AM
NajdorfDefense NajdorfDefense is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 8,227
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 11-29-2007, 01:49 AM
Post-Oak Post-Oak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 899
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 11-29-2007, 02:16 AM
Thremp Thremp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Free Kyleb
Posts: 10,163
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 11-29-2007, 03:10 PM
NajdorfDefense NajdorfDefense is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 8,227
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 11-29-2007, 09:23 PM
psuasskicker psuasskicker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: More than meets the eye
Posts: 2,043
Default 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 -
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.