[johnnyvegas13]

Good play here

[Justfollow]

I followed u and put this months rent on the line. If i lose this im screwed!!!!!! Please tell me u had inside information!!!! Please!!!!

[pimike]

Guys win or lose that was NOT a good bet....

You never bet the team coveting a spread at half.

[ToPHeR]

Square play

[StackinGreen]

Guys win or lose that was NOT a good bet....

You never bet the team coveting a spread at half.

I've never heard anyone say this, pimike, not good advice

I won't hold it against you, I just know this is not something you should believe in.

In general the counter-intuitive happens; teams winning tend to win, and by more so obviously they also cover even easier. Why? The line is often pushed by chasing bettors (of the losing team). And the leading team is in the drivers seat to do whatever they want. Seen it time and time again.

[pimike]

I've never heard anyone say this, pimike, not good advice

I won't hold it against you, I just know this is not something you should believe in.

In general the counter-intuitive happens; teams winning tend to win, and by more so obviously they also cover even easier. Why? The line is often pushed by chasing bettors (of the losing team). And the leading team is in the drivers seat to do whatever they want. Seen it time and time again.

If you are on the winning side at half, then line makes it worse from your original line you don't bet it.

That is a golden rule we professionals use. You may never heard it but I'm trying to educate some punters .

Happy New Year!

[Renegades]

Mike is right. In theory the final score should revert back close to the number more often than not.

[Renegades]

If not, then that would mean the line is way off and we know that is usually not the case especially in the pro's. Bowl games may be a little different because there is more variance

[StackinGreen]

If you are on the winning side at half, then line makes it worse from your original line you don't bet it.

That is a golden rule we professionals use. You may never heard it but I'm trying to educate some punters .

Happy New Year!

Mike is right. In theory the final score should revert back close to the number more often than not.

I don't think that's true, Renegade.

Mike, I didn't see anyone say they already had Houston, THEN bet.

Either way, I'd still say a line is a line is a line. If they set a bad one, you take it, regardless of other wagers or hopes. Now, how bad a line will determine if you do take it, but reasoning by extreme will show you that I'm right on.

[pimike]

If not, then that would mean the line is way off and we know that is usually not the case especially in the pro's. Bowl games may be a little different because there is more variance

Correct.

Your goal in making any play is to look for value. Use current game as an example since it actually is.

Half time Houston 21-3 up 18 line was +7 for game (looking good)
Now second half line is +3 Houston. Now Score with a dog up that many your edge and possible middle would be FL St. Why take more on the dog after already covering first half looking good for the game?

You are taking a chance to give your profits back by doing that. Hence its a bad play.

Now specific game is 2nd half Houston losing by 4 right now. So it ends 14 or less you are not getting value at that point.

Hope that helps.

Trying to help not being a jerk.

If FL State was up 10 at half and line was a pk, I had Fl St it's a no bet, why Fl St is covering spread. Let original play roll.

[Bbfromgpt]

Houston +4 1st half

FSU -3.5 2H


$$$$$

[Martinr]

Guys win or lose that was NOT a good bet....

You never bet the team coveting a spread at half.

I agree that betting the team that is already covering at halftime exposes you to renegade's theory of the line coming back to the original number over the remainder of the game, and that's a completely valid point, but I also like StackinGreen's reply where he says "a line is a line is a line..", and that it should be situation dependent.
I've spent a bit of time following in-play markets. The lines change after every score and as time goes by (obviously) but the lines that are set almost always correlate with the opening number, almost as though they are set by computer and not by someone actually watching the game.
There are some good opportunities betting in-play.

[Mase of Base]

If it's such a bad bet why wouldn't you take the other side and make easy money? Easy, because it doesn't work that way.

[StackinGreen]

I agree that betting the team that is already covering at halftime exposes you to renegade's theory of the line coming back to the original number over the remainder of the game, and that's a completely valid point, but I also like StackinGreen's reply where he says "a line is a line is a line..", and that it should be situation dependent.
I've spent a bit of time following in-play markets. The lines change after every score and as time goes by (obviously) but the lines that are set almost always correlate with the opening number, almost as though they are set by computer and not by someone actually watching the game.
There are some good opportunities betting in-play.

Martin, of course it exposes you to possibly losing the original wager. That seems like something sharp to say, but it isn't. You just have the current knowledge, and the comfortability therefore, of the bet looking real good for you to cash. The question of whether you should risk that when you are likely going to win is a totally different question, which has to do with straight analysis of the 2H line. Nothing else. That's where these guys are wrong. They are talking about superstition or emotion.

Let me be clear: I'm not talking about this game. I'm talking about 2H betting in general. I've definitely cashed big time bets on teams I had already blowing another out or outdoing the line as a dog. If you expected the line to come back every time, just as Mase of Base suggests, that would be your theory and you would kill the books. But proving my point, you and I know that's not the case. Follow?

[StackinGreen]

Correct.

Your goal in making any play is to look for value. Use current game as an example since it actually is.

---

You are taking a chance to give your profits back by doing that. Hence its a bad play.


---

Trying to help not being a jerk.

In no way are you a jerk, you are just trying to explain your position and I'm trying to show you why you are actually self contradictory.

Note above that you first say "Your goal is to look for value."

THEN, you say taking a chance (read: gambling) to give back your profits makes the play a bad play. It should be self-evident that that is totally untrue.

I can explain why you are doing this and are incorrect: You are falling into a conditional probability trap. You think the knowledge before the game trumps the knowledge we now have at halftime. How could that be? We know way more by half (half the game is played and the score is known) than we could have ever known before the game, and even little variables.

In summary, we have new knowledge at half, and based on how good we are at analyzing, we can only THEN decide if with this new knowlege it is a good line or bad line. Again, that we have a bet on the game already has nothing to do with how good the 2H line is, or how bad it is.

Make sense now?

[pimike]

In no way are you a jerk, you are just trying to explain your position and I'm trying to show you why you are actually self contradictory.

Note above that you first say "Your goal is to look for value."

THEN, you say taking a chance (read: gambling) to give back your profits makes the play a bad play. It should be self-evident that that is totally untrue.

I can explain why you are doing this and are incorrect: You are falling into a conditional probability trap. You think the knowledge before the game trumps the knowledge we now have at halftime. How could that be? We know way more by half (half the game is played and the score is known) than we could have ever known before the game, and even little variables.

In summary, we have new knowledge at half, and based on how good we are at analyzing, we can only THEN decide if with this new knowlege it is a good line or bad line. Again, that we have a bet on the game already has nothing to do with how good the 2H line is, or how bad it is.

Make sense now?

I understand what your saying. But in 30 years doing this the first half is not a true indicator how the 2nd half will play out. In fact many NFL games were just the opposite this year.

Once I see my bet has a good probability at the half why RISK losing some back?

[StackinGreen]

I'm glad you see my point.

I won't argue that it's easy at half or anything, never did. It could be that it's even harder for you to truly analyze the number if you already bet it and know you have an ongoing advantage.

Best of luck in the New Year, boyz

[Justfollow]

I cant pay rent this month. THANKS OP

[StackinGreen]

I cant pay rent this month. THANKS OP

I hope this isn't true, funny post anyway though