DIME....I agree with you about books adjusting their numbers according to the action they are getting. But SIA has not moved off of 44 at any time in the last 3 days. Obviously, I would think that more players would be playing under 44 with them than over 44, yet they have not adjusted that number at all.
over under limit is 440$....it is possible that the majority of their customers only have an account with them & that they are getting equal action...not many sharps play there as limits are low & they dont feel it is safe...
be careful do not bet over their limits
take a look at the ML for eagles -165...WAY WAY cheaper than anyone else.
be careful do not bet over their limits
take a look at the ML for eagles -165...WAY WAY cheaper than anyone else.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jacmar:
You have to give SIA some credit. They are not afraid to stay put on the New England total. They have been at 44 for the past few days, and as of one hour before kickoff, they are still holding at 44. How many books can say that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why should I give credit to a book that has a history of slow-pay, no-pay, etc? They could post 56 for the over/under. But if they're not gonna pay, does it really matter!?!?
You have to give SIA some credit. They are not afraid to stay put on the New England total. They have been at 44 for the past few days, and as of one hour before kickoff, they are still holding at 44. How many books can say that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why should I give credit to a book that has a history of slow-pay, no-pay, etc? They could post 56 for the over/under. But if they're not gonna pay, does it really matter!?!?
Personally, I have never had a problem collecting from SIA. I know there have been allegations made against them, but we don't know the real story behind the reasons for them not paying. If some players went against their rules, or tried to deceive them, SIA may be justified in their reasoning for not paying.
Jacmar - I think your assumption is wrong, "Obviously, I would think that more players would be playing under 44 with them(SIA) than over 44, yet they have not adjusted that number at all."
It's pretty well established that SIA has a high percentage of squares. Squares prefer '0's to 'U's. Squares had seen Manning and his Colts put up an average of 40 points the last two play-off games. I think the action was about 50-50 at SIA on the '0'/'U' at 44.
I have heard the complaints about SIA, but I've been with them nearly two years and all my withdrawal requests (all via NETeller) have been processed in a timely fashion. I got a dime from them less than a week ago.
It's pretty well established that SIA has a high percentage of squares. Squares prefer '0's to 'U's. Squares had seen Manning and his Colts put up an average of 40 points the last two play-off games. I think the action was about 50-50 at SIA on the '0'/'U' at 44.
I have heard the complaints about SIA, but I've been with them nearly two years and all my withdrawal requests (all via NETeller) have been processed in a timely fashion. I got a dime from them less than a week ago.
