LTA's MLB Plays

**God1** · 09-20-11, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

I just don't get this guy.

He knows his stuff -- that much is obvious. But there are three caveats: 1) he thinks there is only one way to win a bet, and that is his way; 2) he never thinks he could possibly be wrong about anything, and 3) he thinks he knows way more than he actually does about how this game works.

He said something interesting last night about Boston being the best play on the board. I'll have to dig up the quote. To say that a reeling team with Bedard on the mound laying -245 was the best play on the board, well, I rest my case.

ironic, how about Casey Coleman 2 hitter "i rest my case". makes about as much sense, right?

**Love The Action** · 09-20-11, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Did McClellan seriously just walk in the lead run on 4 pitches?

Wow.

What an azzhole...

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by God1

Tomorrow is looking tough. Unloaded on boston but am stumped as to where I think some of the other lines I like are going to end up

Originally posted by God1

Boston still looks like the best bet to me at this point.

I'm surprised Boston is going to lose, but no way in hell should this have been the "best bet" to anyone -- let alone someone who is supposedly as omnipotent as this cat.

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by God1

ironic, how about Casey Coleman 2 hitter "i rest my case". makes about as much sense, right?

Big difference between taking Casey Coleman vs. Narveson for plus money and laying -245 with Bedard as a "best bet" pal.

**God1** · 09-20-11, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

I'm surprised Boston is going to lose, but no way in hell should this have been the "best bet" to anyone -- let alone someone who is supposedly as omnipotent as this cat.

lol and had they won 8-3 would you still be saying this?

**God1** · 09-20-11, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Big difference between taking Casey Coleman vs. Narveson for plus money and laying -245 with Bedard as a "best bet" pal.

no no no. I said coleman was dominant and he pitched a 2 hitter. I was right he proved it

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by God1

lol and had they won 8-3 would you still be saying this?

I wouldn't say laying -245 in baseball would be a great bet under any circumstances, let alone a "best bet."

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by God1

no no no. I said coleman was dominant and he pitched a 2 hitter. I was right he proved it

He proved it for one night. Congratulations. You just gave it all back and then some laying -245 with Bedard and the reeling Red Sox as your best bet today.

**God1** · 09-20-11, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

I wouldn't say laying -245 in baseball would be a great bet under any circumstances, let alone a "best bet."

And that's why you'll always be betting $20 a game my friend. How about laying -245 on the sox tomorrow? bad bet?

**Redscot** · 09-20-11, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

I'm surprised Boston is going to lose, but no way in hell should this have been the "best bet" to anyone -- let alone someone who is supposedly as omnipotent as this cat.

Bedard -240ish with his health concerns and layoff is inconceivable as a best bet. I saw this start coming from him, but also expected Vandenhurk to get lit up.

And get off this Casey Coleman BS, most of the numbers you are citeing are from the minors. Please dude. You have your strengths, and they are appreciated, but you also have your blind spots my man like the rest of us.

**hawley** · 09-20-11, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by God1

And that's why you'll always be betting $20 a game my friend. How about laying -245 on the sox tomorrow? bad bet?

Its clear you are one of the most knowledgable around here with the stuff you talk about but are you honestly talking shit after touting the Red Sox as your best play?

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 09:56 PM

Here's your biggest problem "God": you refuse to budge or admit you're wrong when a line moves against you, which is par for the course given your arrogance in these threads.

Jays opened at -135 and closed at -115.
Red Sox opened at -245 and closed at -236.
A's opened at +132 and closed at +136.
SD/COL opened at 8.5 (-105/-105) and closed at 8 (-102/-108).

Warning signs were there on all of these plays. I hope you at least cash the Cardinals or the Dodgers and avoid getting skunked tonight. Why you would make a huge bet on Boston at -245 and feel good about a 90% public play closing at -236 is beyond me.

**God1** · 09-20-11, 09:57 PM

This is pointless, you judge bets based on outcomes. The outcome makes no difference to me whether it was a good or bad bet(with exceptions maybe 1% of the time) because a 1 or 2% edge is never manifested in the playing of one game. That's the difference between me and you bud, I do this for profit you do this for tiddlywinks

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by God1

And that's why you'll always be betting $20 a game my friend. How about laying -245 on the sox tomorrow? bad bet?

Wow. You've slipped off the deep end. It's amazing that you are more arrogant on the days when you get lit up than you are on the days you win. Hard to do and believe, but you somehow manage it.

**bigballer891** · 09-20-11, 09:58 PM

Enjoying the discussion in this thread guys. LTA, G1 or whoever, wondering what you guys think about the royals tomorow?

**God1** · 09-20-11, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Here's your biggest problem "God": you refuse to budge or admit you're wrong when a line moves against you, which is par for the course given your arrogance in these threads.

Jays opened at -135 and closed at -115.
Red Sox opened at -245 and closed at -236.
A's opened at +132 and closed at +136.
SD/COL opened at 8.5 (-105/-105) and closed at 8 (-102/-108).

Warning signs were there on all of these plays. I hope you at least cash the Cardinals or the Dodgers and avoid getting skunked tonight. Why you would make a huge bet on Boston at -245 and feel good about a 90% public play closing at -236 is beyond me.

I bet the Jays at -132 small and at -120 a little bigger. Losing to the closer by 10+ cents is going to be a losing bet everytime.

I bet the As at +142. I bet the col over at 8 +106 lol. The sox bet I am still convinced was profitable for reasons that are beyond the scope of your comprehension

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by God1

This is pointless, you judge bets based on outcomes. The outcome makes no difference to me whether it was a good or bad bet(with exceptions maybe 1% of the time) because a 1 or 2% edge is never manifested in the playing of one game. That's the difference between me and you bud, I do this for profit you do this for tiddlywinks

So explain how the lines moving against you on almost every play you made today -- including the huge public Boston bet -- was a good investment when it opened at -245 and closed at -236?

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by God1

The sox bet I am still convinced was profitable for reasons that are beyond the scope of your comprehension

i.e., it was an embarrassing loss looking back and I really can't defend it without making up a bunch of bullshit.

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by God1

I bet the Jays at -132 small and at -120 a little bigger. Losing to the closer by 10+ cents is going to be a losing bet everytime.

So you saw the 12 cent line drop, bet "a little bigger" anyway, then say that "losing to the closer by 10+ cents is going to be a losing bet everytime"?

Why did you add to it then?

**God1** · 09-20-11, 10:02 PM

I am not going to beat the closer everytime. I can't predict the future. But I get it right more often than not which produces profit and that's just how I do bud

And I am far from a skunking even if the cards and dodgers both lose. I don't post every play I make, you guys were lucky enough to get most, today I also had the unders on both indians/sox games, the indians in game 1 and nationals game 1 and the As under

**hardball** · 09-20-11, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by God1

lol and had they won 8-3 would you still be saying this?

I would.

-245 is a good price for Bedard but -137 isn't for Holland?

Your market approach to totals seems sharper than what appears to be your quant model to sides.

Stick with totals.

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by God1

I am not going to beat the closer everytime. I can't predict the future. But I get it right more often than not which produces profit and that's just how I do bud

Explain the logic in adding to your Jays bet when you have the opinion that "losing to the closer by 10+ cents is going to be a losing bet everytime". That makes zero sense, other than your ego got in the way of making a logical decision kind of like it's getting in the way of having a rational conversation right now.

**God1** · 09-20-11, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

So you saw the 12 cent line drop, bet "a little bigger" anyway, then say that "losing to the closer by 10+ cents is going to be a losing bet everytime"?

Why did you add to it then?

Because I thought it was profitable why else? If i was right 100% of the time i'd be yacht shopping. Luckily you only need be right more often than not bud

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by God1

I am not going to beat the closer everytime. I can't predict the future. But I get it right more often than not which produces profit and that's just how I do bud

And I am far from a skunking even if the cards and dodgers both lose. I don't post every play I make, you guys were lucky enough to get most, today I also had the unders on both indians/sox games, the indians in game 1 and nationals game 1 and the As under

This just gets better and better.

So we were lucky to receive your "best bet" of Boston -245.

You couldn't make this shit up.

**God1** · 09-20-11, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

So explain how the lines moving against you on almost every play you made today -- including the huge public Boston bet -- was a good investment when it opened at -245 and closed at -236?

Bud, you think casey coleman was getting slapped around recently, any talk beyond ERA and wins is beyond your comprehension and I'm not going to bother. Feel free to believe what your heart desires

**God1** · 09-20-11, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by hardball

I would.

-245 is a good price for Bedard but -137 isn't for Holland?

Your quantative approach to totals seems sharper than what appears to be your fundamental model to sides.

Stick with totals.

you've got it backwards, quantative to sides and market to totals

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by God1

Bud, you think casey coleman was getting slapped around recently, any talk beyond ERA and wins is beyond your comprehension and I'm not going to bother. Feel free to believe what your heart desires

Link? I never said anything remotely close to that. I questioned you saying he was a "dominating pitcher" over the past three months, of which you were apparently including Triple-A stats.

The fact that you're desperate enough to call out how much I bet on games and make things up to exaggerate whatever point you're desperately trying to make in damage control mode puts me in control of this argument.

I win. Good night.

**God1** · 09-20-11, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

This just gets better and better.

So we were lucky to receive your "best bet" of Boston -245.

You couldn't make this shit up.

just as you were lucky to get my "pretty large cards ML and RL". see i can play the results oriented game too

you see the short term, a couple games, a couple days. I look at the long term and just see rivers of cash my friend

**italianbandit** · 09-20-11, 10:13 PM

Guys maybe its time for some marriage counseling.

**God1** · 09-20-11, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by italianbandit

Guys maybe its time for some marriage counseling.

No, no, this is funny I want to see him keep going on and on about a couple games of variance

**Love The Action** · 09-20-11, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by italianbandit

Guys maybe its time for some marriage counseling.

No matter how hard they try, they always end their day together going back and forth until one of them goes to bed...two love-sick puppies...while the rest of the world just laughs in silence....too much time on their hands

**Blackroc78** · 09-20-11, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Love The Action

No matter how hard they try, they always end their day together going back and forth until one of them goes to bed...two love-sick puppies...while the rest of the world just laughs in silence....too much time on their hands

**God1** · 09-20-11, 10:23 PM

lol pinnacle has wandy/arroyo total at over 8 -110 and norris/bailey was over 8 -113

**Redscot** · 09-20-11, 10:24 PM

Why o why did I stop my Met auto-fade. I was sure as shit the Mets would get smoked today and go over and wussed out on them both.

Oh well, looking like a positive night. Always appreciate your work LTA.

Catch you all tomorrow.

**No coincidences** · 09-20-11, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Redscot

Why o why did I stop my Met auto-fade. I was sure as shit the Mets would get smoked today and go over and wussed out on them both.

Oh well, looking like a positive night. Always appreciate your work LTA.

Catch you all tomorrow.

Their bullpen is an embarrassment not just to their dysfunctional franchise, but baseball in general.