[PAYTON20]

I love the constant square/sharp argument that goes on here at SBR.

From reading posts tonight, the "sharp play" was the Bears because "everyone was on the Lions" and it was the opposite of the more obvious play. We see how that worked out

Anyway, call me a square all you want... but you can't argue with results.

[paco]

Nice work Payton ,

[No coincidences]

Fvcking Chargers.

[PAYTON20]

Nice work Payton ,

Thanks pacman

Fvcking Chargers.

See I got kind of lucky at the end because of that FG. I know people will come on here saying I shouldn't buy points and it's a waste etc. etc. But I have had good luck doing it in football, especially in NFL. I love having 3 or less in case a team wins by a FG or else it goes to overtime. Anything over 3 and it goes to OT... you're fukked. NFL games come down to the last FG quite often

[milwaukee mike]

nice work, you went 7-1. not incredibly difficult when you have -255 -168 etc chalk in there but still good.

not sure why you want to pat yourself on the back, or do you want us to do it for you?

by the way i went 12-2 (check Legends contest) and i'm sure so did quite a few others but we didn't start a thread about how great we did...

[SportsMushroom]

I wouldn't call you a square because of the side you are on

If I were to call you a square for something it would be because of that juice you are laying sir. yes I know all the green in you spreadsheet makes it look nice, but one week the results are going to be exactly the opposite, and your bankroll will be shattered because you laid all that juice

just ask brahmabull, he goes on 18-6 winning streaks yet ends up reloading every other week

[DrStale]

Yeah I think the getting excited and showing how awesome you are based on an 8 game sample is what makes you square.

[PAYTON20]

nice work, you went 7-1. not incredibly difficult when you have -255 -168 etc chalk in there but still good. not sure why you want to pat yourself on the back, or do you want us to do it for you? by the way i went 12-2 (check Legends contest) and i'm sure so did quite a few others but we didn't start a thread about how great we did...

Haha, congrats on 12-2.

I wasn't looking for any pats on the back. Trying to add to the conversation I always see on here about square/sharp plays. I wanted to show that making the "obvious" play and sometimes laying some chalk/buying points isn't always the worst thing in the world. I usually don't lay -255 MLs like on Green Bay... but I was really confident they'd win and thought Atlanta might cover. Plus I was up already at that point so I could afford the loss if it happened

[PAYTON20]

I wouldn't call you a square because of the side you are on

If I were to call you a square for something it would be because of that juice you are laying sir. yes I know all the green in you spreadsheet makes it look nice, but one week the results are going to be exactly the opposite, and your bankroll will be shattered because you laid all that juice

just ask brahmabull, he goes on 18-6 winning streaks yet ends up reloading every other week

Hahah, nah I've seen picks by brahmabull... I'm nothing like that. I hardly ever lay really heavy chalk on single play MLs. -250 would be about my limit and I hardly ever do that.

Although I have had success in the past by doing heavy chalk ML parlays in college football

[k13]

It's not a square play when the line steams to 7 late.

Square is your Titans ML.

[yisman]

I wouldn't call you a square because of the side you are on

If I were to call you a square for something it would be because of that juice you are laying sir. yes I know all the green in you spreadsheet makes it look nice, but one week the results are going to be exactly the opposite, and your bankroll will be shattered because you laid all that juice

just ask brahmabull, he goes on 18-6 winning streaks yet ends up reloading every other week

[ngates815]

Brahma bull won 7 games once as well.


we all know how that ended laying big juice.

[boneheaded1]

I don't mind laying big chalk on something I'm pretty sure of. For instance, this week I would have no fear laying big chalk on the Packers. I just don't see any scenario where the Rams win. That would be one of my "free money" plays.

There's a reason it's such a low return. The books are trying to scare off big money bets on the sure thing. I mean most "sharps" would never dream of betting $5,000 to win $400. But in this case my question is; Why wouldn't you?

Packers moneyline is being included in every bet I make.

[Double Bogey]

Congrats, every weekend square made money this weekend too. Keep betting like that in the NFL and you'll be buried fast.

[MexicanStallion]

I don't mind laying big chalk on something I'm pretty sure of. For instance, this week I would have no fear laying big chalk on the Packers. I just don't see any scenario where the Rams win. That would be one of my "free money" plays.

There's a reason it's such a low return. The books are trying to scare off big money bets on the sure thing. I mean most "sharps" would never dream of betting $5,000 to win $400. But in this case my question is; Why wouldn't you?

Packers moneyline is being included in every bet I make.

Sunday, the Giants would have killed those kind of bets. They ruined ML Parlays and a bunch of teasers moving them to a PK etc. It was a very popular survivor pick as well etc. I'm just not one of those people who will risk a lot for such a little return. I don't like to chance those. It definitely works for some people, but there is always one game that can kill you.

[ngates815]

Sunday, the Giants would have killed those kind of bets. They ruined ML Parlays and a bunch of teasers moving them to a PK etc. It was a very popular survivor pick as well etc. I'm just not one of those people who will risk a lot for such a little return. I don't like to chance those. It definitely works for some people, but there is always one game that can kill you.

let me remind you....

Bonehead laid 100 to win 5 bucks on Boise St ML.

We all know how those types of guys end up.

[lakerboy]

guys leave the guy alone. let him enjoy his winnings

[boneheaded1]

Ngates it was to win $8.70. Yeah I know how it ended up. Me, $8.70 richer. Woohoo!!!!

Yeah the Giants killed one of my moneyline parlays (the power parlay) and one of my teasers (had them +8.5).

But, the Giants wasn't one of those games you add to everything and I didn't have them added to everything. The Packers this week? That's one of those games.

Just because I lay that kind of chalk doesn't mean i do it on every heavy favorite. It has to be a game in which I don't see any scenario in which the dog wins. And that's the Packers this week. Why not add an extra 10% to every bet you win?

[boneheaded1]

But yeah, I make bets laying big chalk from time to time. Is it crazy? Perhaps. But we all do the same thing just in different ways. We bet where we see value. If we assess value correctly, we are long term winners. If we don't, then we're a bunch of losers. How you bet is of no consequence as long as you can properly assess value.


If there is a scenario in which I can foresee the dog winning it has to be less than 1/2 the amount the return dictates.

Example:
Packers lose this game 2 out of 100 times (at worst). Meaning as long as this bet has a payout of greater than 4% of the amount bet, this bet is worthy of making.

Does anyone think the Rams win this game more than 2 times out of a 100 (if that).

Would never do this bet on the Giants; too inconsitant and not motivated. Plus the Seattle D was shown to be pretty decent. There were enough scenarios that I could envision an upset. I felt the Giants lose at worst 30% of the time. Not enough to stop me from putting them on a parlay but certainly enough to prevent a big bet giving up plenty of juice (would need a 60% return to lay a big single moneyline bet on that game and it wasn't even 30%). That was nowhere near my 50% limit that I showed with the Packers example. Meaning there was not enough value there to make that bet.

[SportsMushroom]

there is nothing you can say to convince me that a -1000 favorite has value

the only 2 out of 100 times the packers lose argument is meaningless because that is your opinion and is not based on any sort of actual data

I can assure you that the packers lose more than that

the books are not stupid, they know that the favorite is always the public play, that is why its called the favorite, and that is why they offer as low a price as they can on favorites, you will never find value on anything with a - infront of the odds I can assure you

this is two professional football teams and taking -1000 on one of them is a bad bet even if the packers win by 40 points

[Brock Landers]

good job guy, call it square is fine, as long as it wins, who cares

[jarvol]

I wasn't looking for any pats on the back.

Sure you were or you wouldn't have created this dumb thread.

[DrStale]

I don't mind laying big chalk on something I'm pretty sure of. For instance, this week I would have no fear laying big chalk on the Packers. I just don't see any scenario where the Rams win. That would be one of my "free money" plays.

There's a reason it's such a low return. The books are trying to scare off big money bets on the sure thing. I mean most "sharps" would never dream of betting $5,000 to win $400. But in this case my question is; Why wouldn't you?

Packers moneyline is being included in every bet I make.

What happens if the Packers completely look past this game and/or Rodgers gets knocked out? Rams pass defense is probably better than any the Packers have seen thus far as well. No sure thing in the NFL. Putting any game in all of your bets is just dumb.

[cant call it]

Good work. Increase in $ means you are doing it right. Fukk the square/sharp talk. This is +$, can't argue with it.

[boneheaded1]

Sportsmushroom: So you are saying you make all your bets on 100% factual data and make NO educated guesses whatsoever? Cool. Show me your 100% record and I'll tail you. That's what betting is; taking data and extrapolating an outcome then assessing probability and value to that outcome.

Just because you aren't comfortable with something doesn't mean it's wrong.

I would suggest you re-read the first paragraph of post #19

So you are saying the Rams +700 is a better bet?

If you don't understand it. That's fine. But don't imply I'm an idiot because I'm going off an estimate I came up with; it's hypocritical, unless of course you can show me your 100% record, in which case you can call me a dumbass all you want.

I ain't saying my record is 100% but I'm not the one who's implying that you never have to make guesses or estimates.

What's you number on the Packers losing?


Mushroom, let me know if you post your picks, I'd be happy to take a small portion of my roll and tail you. I'm always more than happy to watch my roll grow.

[ferndog]

Let me say this. A win is a win no matter what. One week of winners is great if you are taking your money and going home and not playing anymore. But if you play all the time then remember it's not a sprint but a marathon. So you have to keep it up.

[boneheaded1]

Dr Stale. Love the avatar (although I'm not fan of any of the teams, it's just cool).

And what about the Rams offense against the Packers defense?

I agree with you that that strategy can get you killed.

[DrStale]

Dr Stale. Love the avatar (although I'm not fan of any of the teams, it's just cool).

And what about the Rams offense against the Packers defense?

I agree with you that that strategy can get you killed.

Ha, thanks.

Well the Packers pass defense has shown that it can be exploited for sure. Granted the Rams arent the best candidates to make that happen but right now GB is 30th in the NFL in pass defense. Just food for thought.

[boneheaded1]

Stale

Packers are 30th because they are playing prevent in the final quarter against weaker teams and the yardage gets racked up. They've also played Saints and Falcons (both teams that can move the ball in the air).

Rams are 13th against the pass but really haven't played anything like the Packers. Most of the teams they played like to pound it. And when you play the Rams. Why wouldn't you pound it.

Stats can sometimes be deceiving. Need to look at underlying reasons.

[SportsMushroom]

Sportsmushroom: So you are saying you make all your bets on 100% factual data and make NO educated guesses whatsoever? Cool. Show me your 100% record and I'll tail you. That's what betting is; taking data and extrapolating an outcome then assessing probability and value to that outcome. Just because you aren't comfortable with something doesn't mean it's wrong. I would suggest you re-read the first paragraph of post #19 So you are saying the Rams +700 is a better bet? If you don't understand it. That's fine. But don't imply I'm an idiot because I'm going off an estimate I came up with; it's hypocritical, unless of course you can show me your 100% record, in which case you can call me a dumbass all you want. I ain't saying my record is 100% but I'm not the one who's implying that you never have to make guesses or estimates. What's you number on the Packers losing? Mushroom, let me know if you post your picks, I'd be happy to take a small portion of my roll and tail you. I'm always more than happy to watch my roll grow.

all I did was try to explain to you how -1000 plays have absolutely no value at all and that taking them will hurt you either now or at some point down the road

I was trying to give you solid advice but from that you took that I was calling you a dumbass, which I wasnt, but now Im having second thoughts

and to answer your question, yes the value is in the raiders ml but that does not mean I am taking it, it is too early to know if I will bet it but right now I believe the best bet on this game is raiders +14.5

this is just my opinion so dont take this as an attack on your person, but I believe that 110 to win 100 is a bet that makes sense, and I believe that laying 1000 to win 100 will see your bankroll shrink to $0 sooner rather than later

[antifoil]

sharp is getting the best number

square is playing the closing number

if you could have played the bears last night at +7.5 or 8. it was a sharp play. the easiest way to be a winning gambler is to find a local that puts up off market number. then right before game time use the offshore lines as the best lines available to pick off bad local numbers.

[boneheaded1]

Ok Got it mushroom. Thanks.

The rule on PT is the best defense is a good offense. PT is certianly not for the timid.

I appreciate knowledgable people picking holes in my theories. You don't get smarter by people agreeing with you. You get smarter by gaining perspective outside of your own. So thanks. I mean it.


But really I was serious. It wasn't a challenge. Do you post your picks? I will try to tail you. Might help me learn the other side of betting. Or at least gain some comfort in it.

But I will say, I've got 7 years of history with -1000 type of bets/parlays and have never had to reload (but then again never pulled more than the low $3K's from my account and I used to always bring it down to $100 at the end of the season, I only bet football). I do however, really think you are underestimating using them from time to time. But I understand the discomfort.

[DrStale]

Stale

Packers are 30th because they are playing prevent in the final quarter against weaker teams and the yardage gets racked up. They've also played Saints and Falcons (both teams that can move the ball in the air).

Rams are 13th against the pass but really haven't played anything like the Packers. Most of the teams they played like to pound it. And when you play the Rams. Why wouldn't you pound it.

Stats can sometimes be deceiving. Need to look at underlying reasons.

The Packers also went down double digits early to both the Panthers and the Falcons when Newton and Ryan went right down the field, so its definitely not all garbage yards.

Not sure where youre seeing them playing teams that like to pound it either. The Giants, Eagles and Redskins all have better passing games this year than they do running games.

[SportsMushroom]

Ok Got it mushroom. Thanks. The rule on PT is the best defense is a good offense. PT is certianly not for the timid. I appreciate knowledgable people picking holes in my theories. You don't get smarter by people agreeing with you. You get smarter by gaining perspective outside of your own. So thanks. I mean it. But really I was serious. It wasn't a challenge. Do you post your picks? I will try to tail you. Might help me learn the other side of betting. Or at least gain some comfort in it. But I will say, I've got 7 years of history with -1000 type of bets/parlays and have never had to reload (but then again never pulled more than the low $3K's from my account and I used to always bring it down to $100 at the end of the season, I only bet football). I do however, really think you are underestimating using them from time to time. But I understand the discomfort.

those are actually impressive figures, 7 years of profitably betting big favs

hey if you can make money betting -1000 congratulations, I cannot that is for sure and never met anyone who could until now

no I dont post plays, started a thread a while ago posting baseball but didnt do well, now that I stick to nfl and basketball I do well (cant wait for hoops season), developed some profitable systems over time, but i am reluctant to post plays, I know how moronic it sounds but I believe its bad luck to post plays, hey I am human, we are superstitious by nature

[Ice House]

what do you like for Saturday?