Second -300 line in a week.
Last week was Kershaw who covered easily.
Personally I think anybody who lays 3:1 (some shops have -315, others -280, so for arguments sake let's call it 3:1) on a irrelevant game in May needs to turn in their gambling card, but who am I to judge.
Even in a parlay it really doesn't cut into the books edge.
Run line you still have to lay -130.
Can't bet it.
Yeah, Nats should win this game going away, but if you got the three, do you really need to one?
Last week was Kershaw who covered easily.
Personally I think anybody who lays 3:1 (some shops have -315, others -280, so for arguments sake let's call it 3:1) on a irrelevant game in May needs to turn in their gambling card, but who am I to judge.
Even in a parlay it really doesn't cut into the books edge.
Run line you still have to lay -130.
Can't bet it.
Yeah, Nats should win this game going away, but if you got the three, do you really need to one?