That is from BoDog. As I see now, BetJam was/is +100. Truthfully, I have no idea why I default to BoDog. I guess using BetJam more often would require thought and I try and leave all thinking out of it when wagering.
That said, I am taking over on all sevens until it stops working which, by my estimation on how coincidence and Murphy's Law works, will be about six hours from now.
2010: 15-7-1 +8.55
You are welcome! Ya know, I feel like such a herb taking over, over, over, but I suppose if it is working I shouldn't argue. I simply have no faith in any of these bullpens. And, again, I am taking over on all reasonably-priced sevens until otherwise convinced.
(980) Seattle Mariners Over 7 (-120)
(952) Chicago Cubs Over 9 (EVEN)
You are welcome! Ya know, I feel like such a herb taking over, over, over, but I suppose if it is working I shouldn't argue. I simply have no faith in any of these bullpens. And, again, I am taking over on all reasonably-priced sevens until otherwise convinced.
(980) Seattle Mariners Over 7 (-120)
(952) Chicago Cubs Over 9 (EVEN)
2010: 17-7-2 +10.55
I am going to feel silly when one of these square bets fails to come through, but I cannot NOT take plus money on seven and seven-plus with what I have seen from bullpens this season. Also, looking for Saunders to bounce back and have a nice start after two clunkers. Numbers aren't that great vs. Toronto but this journeyman Hallet for Toronto ain't so hot either.
(917) Los Angeles Angels -120 [5 Innings)
(902) Chicago Cubs Over 7½ (+115)
I am going to feel silly when one of these square bets fails to come through, but I cannot NOT take plus money on seven and seven-plus with what I have seen from bullpens this season. Also, looking for Saunders to bounce back and have a nice start after two clunkers. Numbers aren't that great vs. Toronto but this journeyman Hallet for Toronto ain't so hot either.
(917) Los Angeles Angels -120 [5 Innings)
(902) Chicago Cubs Over 7½ (+115)
