2012-13 NCAA hoop picks

**No coincidences** · 01-17-13, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by 2daBank

its why i rarely, or at least try not to vary my wager size all that much...some guys much better at that than me but always been hard for me to decide what play better than another, if i like it it pretty much the same, every time i start having one i like more than the rest it inevitably turns out to be my worst of the bunch..hurt a really strong nfl season the last 4 weeks going heavy on that 1 gm i really liked which turned out to be the fukkjob of the weekend,,,it nice i tend to be pretty consistent but always been little jealous of guys that can go .500 but hit the big plays...

True. I've been OK with the big plays in every other sport -- not money in the bank, but not crash and burn. Obviously this thread is the complete opposite of that, though. I'm not sure if I've hit more than 1 or 2 of 10 or so plays over 5U all year.

**No coincidences** · 01-17-13, 06:01 PM

MIN -130 (13U to win 10)

**No coincidences** · 01-17-13, 08:25 PM

Another huge loss. The common denominator in literally every one of these games is backing a short home fave. Do these ever cover? Or do the ones I take just crash and burn?

Apparently Michigan simply isn't going to miss tonight. Fvcking 57 percent from the field.

**No coincidences** · 01-17-13, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

I'll give you fair warning for Thursday:

I'm leaning USC, Minnesota, Valpo and maybe Pacific and San Francisco.

LOL. So glad I passed there and went huge on the Gophers instead.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 01:34 PM

LaSalle -120 (3.6U to win 3)
Arizona State +7 (3.3U to win 3)
Oklahoma +7 (1.1U to win 1)
Wichita State -150 (1.5U to win 1)

Will be adding more later.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 04:16 PM

LaSalle opens at +2, closes at -2, and loses by 7.

**t-wizzle** · 01-19-13, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

LaSalle opens at +2, closes at -2, and loses by 7.

A 4 pt line move is rarely a good thing.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by t-wizzle

A 4 pt line move is rarely a good thing.

I agree if the move was from +10 to +6.

From +2 to -2 isn't quite as big given how close it is to PK.

**t-wizzle** · 01-19-13, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

I agree if the move was from +10 to +6.

From +2 to -2 isn't quite as big given how close it is to PK.

I think just in general if a line moves that much you gotta fade the movement. The original number will end up covering more often than not. Idk when you got it but obviously you can't anticipate 4 pt line moves.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by t-wizzle

I think just in general if a line moves that much you gotta fade the movement. The original number will end up covering more often than not. Idk when you got it but obviously you can't anticipate 4 pt line moves.

Well, it's irrelevant here because it went from +2 to -2 and they still lost by 7 despite the public being on X.

**t-wizzle** · 01-19-13, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Well, it's irrelevant here because it went from +2 to -2 and they still lost by 7 despite the public being on X.

What do you mean? The original number covered.

Btw I don't think we can say public was on Xavier but that's not the point right now.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by t-wizzle

What do you mean? The original number covered.

Btw I don't think we can say public was on Xavier but that's not the point right now.

The original number was LaSalle +2. It closed LaSalle -2. LaSalle lost by 7. So no, the original number didn't even come close to covering.

Edit: I get what you're saying. Never mind.

You thought the public was on LaSalle over a big-name mid-major like Xavier at Xavier? What?

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 05:03 PM

Wichita State 2H PK (1.15U to win 1)

**t-wizzle** · 01-19-13, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

The original number was LaSalle +2. It closed LaSalle -2. LaSalle lost by 7. So no, the original number didn't even come close to covering.

Edit: I get what you're saying. Never mind.

You thought the public was on LaSalle over a big-name mid-major like Xavier at Xavier? What?

Yea I'm saying Xavier -2 covered. Xavier -2 would be fading the line move.

I saw numbers that had LaSalle being bet more but public betting percentage websites are like wikipedia as a source - none are legit because it's not like we know where the numbers are coming from.

My point is that this wasn't the kind of game that was bet heavily enough to the point where you could say the public was pounding xavier.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by t-wizzle

I saw numbers that had LaSalle being bet more but public betting percentage websites are like wikipedia as a source - none are legit because it's not like we know where the numbers are coming from.

Where?

**t-wizzle** · 01-19-13, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Where?

Scoresandodds.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by t-wizzle

Scoresandodds.

Never heard of it. I'll have to check it out.

The three sites I follow -- freesportsbet, sportsbook.ag and VegasInsider -- all had X in the 70% range.

**t-wizzle** · 01-19-13, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Never heard of it. I'll have to check it out.

The three sites I follow -- freesportsbet, sportsbook.ag and VegasInsider -- all had X in the 70% range.

OK well maybe you're right. LaSalle has been really hot and had the better record but Xavier is the name in that matchup.

I really take public %'s with a grain of salt. We can figure out who the public side is going to be without looking at a site, it's almost always obvious.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by t-wizzle

OK well maybe you're right. LaSalle has been really hot and had the better record but Xavier is the name in that matchup.

I really take public %'s with a grain of salt. We can figure out who the public side is going to be without looking at a site, it's almost always obvious.

Yeah, I'm not saying it's a big deal either way. And late money was on X.

**t-wizzle** · 01-19-13, 05:20 PM

Gotta go with Butler tonight I would imagine. Thoughts?

**t-wizzle** · 01-19-13, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by t-wizzle

Gotta go with Butler tonight I would imagine. Thoughts?

Literally a minute after I say that the line moves from 3.5 to 2.5. Fukk.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by t-wizzle

Gotta go with Butler tonight I would imagine. Thoughts?

I like Butler here, so take Gonzaga.

**t-wizzle** · 01-19-13, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

I like Butler here, so take Gonzaga.

Nah Zags might get smoked. Butler missing their top scorer so we get them +2.5-3 at home - that's great value. And there will likely be an overreaction to the Clarke injury.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by t-wizzle

Nah Zags might get smoked. Butler missing their top scorer so we get them +2.5-3 at home - that's great value. And there will likely be an overreaction to the Clarke injury.

I'm looking at Butler, Iowa and Colorado State. Maybe Western Illinois or Wyoming. Nothing else really interests me the rest of the night.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 06:12 PM

Ohio State +2 (1.1U to win 1)

**mlb** · 01-19-13, 06:14 PM

U taking a shot on iowa?

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by mlb

U taking a shot on iowa?

Probably.

This thread is just one big tilt fest.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 06:16 PM

Ohio State +5.5 live (2.2U to win 2)

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 06:19 PM

What a bullshit push on that Wichita State pick.

Make a goddam free throw.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 07:03 PM

Iowa 1H +0.5 (7.7U to win 7)
Colorado State -170 (6.8U to win 4)
Western Illinois +3.5 (3.3U to win 3)

Iowa is recognizing the 20-year anniversary of Chris Street's death tonight. I think they come out energized in a packed house at CHA against a Badger team that is following up their road upset at Indiana.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 08:38 PM

I would've put 15-20 units on Iowa 1H if I had any confidence whatsoever right now.

**Dexter** · 01-19-13, 08:43 PM

thats gonna get you going....nice capping

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 08:46 PM

Butler +3 (2.2U to win 2)

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Dexter

thats gonna get you going....nice capping

Thanks. Too bad there wasn't a 0 after that 7 -- LOL.

**No coincidences** · 01-19-13, 11:02 PM

Nevada 2H +2.5 (1.1U to win 1)