Squares rule

pubguy · Nov 28, 2008

Anyone else getting killed by the squares?

It was so easy yesterday (in hindsight of course) Oh Dallas is good, bet it big. Tenn is good bet it big. Hey let's do a parlay cuz both teams are good. Might as well throw in the Eagles. They are home and only favored by 3. The Aggies suck and Texas is good. Let's throw Texas in the parlay as well. Woohoo. This bettin stuff is easy!

Argh!

TTinCO · Nov 28, 2008

Look at what favs & overs did last Sunday

viking611 · Nov 28, 2008

I love when people claim that because these double digit favs win, you are a square if you bet it.

Anybody who takes Detroit no matter what the spread is an idiot.
Dallas was certainly the play against a terrible Seattle team.

There's no squareness about those 2 games...saw blowouts all the way.

pubguy · Nov 28, 2008

My point exactly. Last Sunday was brutal as well. Squaresville

BadCo · Nov 28, 2008

viking611 said:
I love when people claim that because these double digit favs win, you are a square if you bet it.

Anybody who takes Detroit no matter what the spread is an idiot.
Dallas was certainly the play against a terrible Seattle team.

There's no squareness about those 2 games...saw blowouts all the way.

It is a bonanza for the public.

Today John Q. is a wiseguy.

VIEJODINOSAUR · Nov 28, 2008

This thread is laughable....keep betting guys!

Iceman · Nov 28, 2008

Though I liked the under in all 4 games yesterday, I bet Dallas and Philly.

Bottom line I made Dallas a -14.5 pt favorite and Philly -5 in a must win spot. Value is the key word.

pubguy · Nov 28, 2008

Square is just a term. A winning bet is a winning bet. I'm ok with that. My point is that these games were no-brainers and guys who normally can't pick their way out of a paper bag are winning easily. Not to mention that DD faves were about 1-14 before turkey day in the NFL.

Iceman · Nov 28, 2008

Let me add. I think the key is finding underrated or overrated teams in your opinion. I am not sure the public was all over those teams yesterday. In fact i wouldnt be surprised if most people took dogs all day. With Detroit there is this perception they are good at home on thanksgiving and I think a lot of people grabbed all those points. as most people dont think Tenessee is top notch for the record they have posted this year.

My thinking was Seattle is one of the worst teams in football and I am not sure most feel that way combined with dallas is a legit SB contender with Romo and a lot of people have jumped off their bandwagon creating Dallas value.

With Philly, you have a good team most thought was average and that is not true they have just played bad the past few weeks against a Arizona team most think a little too highly of, a good team but not in the elite class, this created value also. One team going up in the public's eyes verus one going down. My thinking was what would have this line been 6 weeks ago. Philly -7? Look at the teams arizona has beat, really nobody.

In the NFL I think if you try and think like joe fan (square or the public or whatever you call it) you see value in a lot of late season games and yesterday was a prime example. I think the days of just betting dogs isnt the way to be sharfp or square, it is too think how the public thinks and then do the opposite of what they are thinking, esp in NFL.

VIEJODINOSAUR · Nov 28, 2008

Public can win....just not most of the time....

Good analysis Iceman...

Sammy439 · Nov 28, 2008

Philly last night was not public at all. Between 70-80% of the ESPN Streak players picked the Cardinals to win OUTRIGHT at even odds. They didn't even get 3 points.

Warner is use to playing in good conditions indoors at St.Louis and in great weather on the west coast and Arizona. The freezing weather in Philly last night played a big part in his 3 early picks. The eagles are use to playing in cold weather. This was the biggest game of McNabbs career. Philly was an underated team, Arizona may be the most overrated team in the NFL. They have no offensive line at all. The +3 was a trap and most joes took it I would think.

The only dog yesterday that I thought had a good shot at covering was Seattle. I thought if Hasslebeck or whatever his name is got hot he could put up some big numbers. But their offensive line is horrible too. Dallas is really coming on though.

winbet · Nov 28, 2008

Anyone who even considers the Public/Square angle deserves what he gets, which is losing on a regular basis. When are you wankers going to knuckle down and do some hard work instead of looking for mythical easy money. :drink:

barman · Nov 28, 2008

VIEJO DINOSAUR said:
This thread is laughable....keep betting guys!

This type of quip posted next to the smiling Cosell picture never fails to bust me up...

:103631605

quantumleap · Nov 28, 2008

winbet said:
Anyone who even considers the Public/Square angle deserves what he gets, which is losing on a regular basis. When are you wankers going to knuckle down and do some hard work instead of looking for mythical easy money. :drink:

Because even though I do the hard work I suck at this!

:drink:

GasMan · Nov 28, 2008

Books get it back tonight with UCLA.

nimue77 · Nov 28, 2008

pubguy said:
Square is just a term. A winning bet is a winning bet. I'm ok with that. My point is that these games were no-brainers and guys who normally can't pick their way out of a paper bag are winning easily. Not to mention that DD faves were about 1-14 before turkey day in the NFL.

The linemakers were the squares on the Detroit game. I didn't know what the line was but someone asked me before hand what I though the line should be. I though back to the Niners/Chargers superbowl line of 17. I said should be 17. Now...i'm not a capper but I thought -10.5 was too low.

TTinCO · Nov 28, 2008

nimue77 said:
The linemakers were the squares on the Detroit game. I didn't know what the line was but someone asked me before hand what I though the line should be. I though back to the Niners/Chargers superbowl line of 17. I said should be 17. Now...i'm not a capper but I thought -10.5 was too low.

We'll see some ugly #s going up on Detroit from here on out. Will they be enough? That's yet to be seen.

As far as today, it looks like the books got torched by:

Ohio (+1 to -2.5....won by 15)
Mississippi (-12 to -18.5/19....won by 45)
East Carolina (-3.5 to -6.5....won by 32)
Boise (-17 to -21.5....won by 51)
East Mich over (61 to 64/65.....scored 108)

They got a little back on Colorado (+15 to +18....lost by 9)

Those are some major moves in games that were total beatdowns. It sure looks like the smart money is way ahead of the bookmakers lately.

VIEJODINOSAUR · Nov 28, 2008

As long as the numbers don't fall, don't worry about the bookmakers, they will get theirs...

VIEJODINOSAUR · Nov 28, 2008

nimue77 said:
The linemakers were the squares on the Detroit game. I didn't know what the line was but someone asked me before hand what I though the line should be. I though back to the Niners/Chargers superbowl line of 17. I said should be 17. Now...i'm not a capper but I thought -10.5 was too low.

So called sharps were taking +12 and +11.....How much did you win on the game? Bookmakers did OK....:lol::drink:

nimue77 · Nov 29, 2008

VIEJO DINOSAUR said:
So called sharps were taking +12 and +11.....How much did you win on the game? Bookmakers did OK....:lol::drink:

All I said was I thought it was too low. I may be wrong....not a capper as I said and I don't really follow the NFL.
Just seemed like if the Niners were a 17 pt favorite over SD then 11 for Detroit vs whoever it was they were playing that had only 1 loss all year was too low.

Squares rule

WNBA Guru

.

www.youtubecom/hubbardsmusic

WNBA Guru

New member

Member

Rx Wizard

WNBA Guru

Rx Wizard

Member

Almost Geraldo

Rx. Senior

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit

Oh boy!

Member

New member

.

Member

Member

New member

Forum statistics

Share this page