1H Bets vs. FG Bets

i know im new here so this thread might not generate a plethora of responses, if any, but i would like to strike up some constructive discussion on this manner. i would like to hear comments from the members of this forum on the topic of first half wagering vs. full game wagering. i noticed that several teams this past saturday that were big favorites did not cover the first half spread, only to come back and cover the game spread. the two teams that buried me on saturday were uconn and utep. uconn had a chance to kick a field goal with 6 seconds left and the ball on the 20 to cover the half...only to miss it. huskies ended up covering the 26 at the end of the game. utep let the smu lack luster offense put a 20 spot in the 1H and only led by 4 at half while they went on to win by 30 in the end. im sure there were other games on saturday that had similar results to this but these are the two that got me. how many here are proponents of 1H bets and how many think those type of bets are for suckers or "squares" as the members here like to call them. i personally think 1H bets do provide value in certain spots/situations and would like to hear what the members have to say on this particular issue. again im new and dont expect many responses...just thought id create some discussion that may or may not helps us gamblers in the future.

stoner

1st half bets on teams laying 10 or more for the whole game in the NFL are generally solid. Hitting 65% 34-18 over past two years and this year so far. That's according to the closing lines listed on donbest.com.

thanks doug. what about in college foots.


stoner

I think there is a lot more value to be found in 2H bets, opposed to first half. I usually find myself in the same position as you, lose the first half only for that same team to cover the game.

TREEZ,

it is extremely frustrating isnt it? i dont know if its the natural progression and flow of the game that lets these teams cover the game spread at the end or what. i know in that auburn/bama game....the tigers could not gain any momentum in the first half offensively. in fact, they looked stagnant. the tide squandered away opportunity after opportunity to put the game away early. once auburn weathered the storm, they were able to establish rhythm with their offense and completely dominated the second half. only a late TD let the tide sneak in through the back door. im anxious to hear other members' perspective on this issue. thanks for contributing treez. smoke some for me.

stoner :howdy:

Indianapolis Colts are the gatebusters of NFL lately and I've been winning on Colts 1Q minus .5 spreads. Books are stupid to put up easy lines on high octane offensive teams and why on the Chicago game yesterday? Thanks for the easy money, Pinnacle.

2nd half and qtr bets...thats where you should be looking.

thanks snow and Jman. i agree that the higher octane offenses generally do cover the spread against inferior defenses. thats why it was so frustrating to see uconn and utep (whose offenses are reasonably explosive) falter early in the game against two very inferior defenses in buffalo and smu. i did manage to play auburn in the 2H vs. bama. pinny released a very generous 7 pt spread when the tigers were down 6-0 and i jumped aboard. appreciate the bantor and advice fellas. keep it coming. time to hit that after supper bowl!

stoner :smoker2: