2013 Fall Season Sports Wagering (entertainment purposes only)

[Kahns Krazy]

For fun, I'm going to track my "fake bets" this year to see how badly I would do if I hadn't given up sports gambling. About this time of year, I would put in about $300 and hope it lasted until the start of basketball season.

At +450, I'm putting $20 on the Reds to win the division.

I'm already starting to remember why I gave it up.

[PMI]

Betting is illegal. But, hypothetically speaking, if it were not illegal and I were thus able to participate in it, this would be that time of year where I'd get really excited to pick some winners.

[waggy]

I don't even know what +450 means.

I bet I'd do really good..

[Mel Cooley XU'81]

Great idea for a thread.

I've been toying with an "Ask Nigel" thread to plumb the depths of betting and handicapping arcana and trivia.

I note that My Bears are a 3 point favorite over My Bengals on Sunday.

No brainer: take the points.

Nigel: Is there a money line on the NFL or in football generally? Or is it just vs. the spread?

And can you bet any amount (assuming a minimum, of course) on a money line bet? You aren't "required" to bet $100, right?

The money line "indexes on $100" to make it interprettable and consistent from one "opportunity" to the next, right?

C'mon Waggy, get off the couch! You'd do really . . . well.

[GoMuskies]

Western Kentucky +13.5

[Kahns Krazy]

Great idea for a thread.

I've been toying with an "Ask Nigel" thread to plumb the depths of betting and handicapping arcana and trivia.

I note that My Bears are a 3 point favorite over My Bengals on Sunday.

No brainer: take the points.

Nigel: Is there a money line on the NFL or in football generally? Or is it just vs. the spread?

And can you bet any amount (assuming a minimum, of course) on a money line bet? You aren't "required" to bet $100, right?

The money line "indexes on $100" to make it interprettable and consistent from one "opportunity" to the next, right?

C'mon Waggy, get off the couch! You'd do really . . . well.

I guess it depends on your hypothetical bookmaker (for entertainment purposes only). From what I've heard from others who looked into it for entertainment purposes only, you can bet any amount above a minimum. Some sites might require you to wager for entertainment purposes in increments, others let you bet whatever.

Generally NFL and NCAA will have a point spread (which is normally -110 on either side, which represents the house edge) and a money line (straight up) bet, which will pay on odds.

[Milhouse]

Bengals win the division and go 11-5.

[GoMuskies]

Who bets for entertainment purposes only? If you want to make a bet, get online and do it. And don't be shy about it.

[casualfan]

People will hate me for it but UC is only favored by 7.5 points over Illinois this weekend last I checked.

I would be floored if they don't win by at least two touchdowns

[Kahns Krazy]

Tonight I would be taking Baltimore +270 for $20. I really want Denver to win this game. I tend to think there are more upsets in the first couple weeks of the season, though. I'm expecting to lose this bet, but at least if the Bengals are a half game back tomorrow morning, I'll be up $54 (for entertainment purposes).

[paulxu]

(which is normally -110 on either side, which represents the house edge)

What does this mean...this -110? Or when it is +450, or whatever.

[GoMuskies]

What does this mean...this -110? Or when it is +450, or whatever.

-110 - Bet 110 to win 100

+450 - Bet 100 to win 450

[paulxu]

-110 - Bet 110 to win 100

+450 - Bet 100 to win 450

So that's just paid out as you indicate based on who wins or loses? No point spread involved?

[GoMuskies]

So that's just paid out as you indicate based on who wins or loses? No point spread involved?

On point spreads, the lines are generally (though not always) -110 for both sides. So if Xavier is favored by 37 against UC, when they win by 39 you would win 100 for your $110 bet. If UC hits a garbage three at the end to lose only by 36, the UC bettors would win $100 for their $110 bets.

The other numbers generally come in on money line bets or future bets (betting on a team to win the World Series or a golfer to win a Tournament). Or if betting on baseball. For baseball, if the mighty Reds are playing the lowly Cards, the line might be Reds -200/Cards +180. So if the Reds win, you'd have to bet $200 to win $100. And if the unthinkable happend, the Cards betters would win $180 for their $100 bets. The 20 point spread between 180 and 200 is the book's juice (assuming exactly evenly split betting, which is rare).

[RoseyMuskie]

People will hate me for it but UC is only favored by 7.5 points over Illinois this weekend last I checked.

I would be floored if they don't win by at least two touchdowns

Illinois football "fan"...I'd take UC in a heart beat. U of I is that bad.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Great idea for a thread.

I've been toying with an "Ask Nigel" thread to plumb the depths of betting and handicapping arcana and trivia.

I note that My Bears are a 3 point favorite over My Bengals on Sunday.

No brainer: take the points.

Nigel: Is there a money line on the NFL or in football generally? Or is it just vs. the spread?

And can you bet any amount (assuming a minimum, of course) on a money line bet? You aren't "required" to bet $100, right?

The money line "indexes on $100" to make it interprettable and consistent from one "opportunity" to the next, right?

C'mon Waggy, get off the couch! You'd do really . . . well.

Disclaimer: just because one gambles and knows the nuances and terminology does not make one a successful gambler. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have...but I don't want you to think I'm good at this. Gambling is a losing proposition in the long run...period. I've pretty much broken even the last couple years and I'm ecstatic.

I think your questions were already answered. Most football and basketball games have both a point spread and a money line. The point spread is generally at -110... But some lines can be juiced to -115/-120 or +105/+110. That generally happens when the book doesn't want to change the line and is happy to get action on the -115/-120 side lots of times because they favor the other side. I obviously love it when a team I'm on is getting reduced or even plus odds. I lose less if it loses and win more when it hits.

As for your no brainier on the Bengals....that one scares me to death. The Bears are non-public home favorites. That's like being a ranked team getting points against a non ranked team....the unranked team covers more often than not when everyone is on the ranked team. My concern about The Bengals? I think the public has watched Hard Knocks and is betting them big. Plus, the media is touting the Bengals preseason like the UD fans tout their preseason hype. I think the books are sitting back and taking tons of money on the Bengals while thinking they will be laughing themselves to the bank. I would stay away or take the Bears Sunday.

Here is the line on the Chi/Cin game

Sep 08463BENGALS (CIN) - WEEK 1+3-110o41½-110+135
10:00 AM464BEARS (CHI) - WEEK 1-3-110u41½-110-155

The Bengals are 3 point dogs. If you wanted to bet on the Bengals to lose by less than three, you'd bet $22 on the Bengals +3 to win $20, $33 to win $30 and so on. If you wanted to take Cin to win the game outright, a $10 bet would pay $13.50. $100 would pay $135. If you took the Bears to win outright, you'd have to bet $15.50 to win $10. Or $155 to win $100. So if you think the Bengals win outright, it probably be wise to bet a smaller amount for a larger payout on the money line. You're hosed if they lose by 1, 2 or 3. If you took the points you'd win if they lost by 1 or 2 and push (no action/bet canceled) if they lost by a field goal. Hope this helps.

Here is a website that shows where bets are being placed....

1:00 PMCincinnati+3180055.99%Chicago-3141544.01%ViewView


So the Bengals are a road dog being bet at 56/44. Not a huge percentage...but the line has been staying put or actually going higher on Chi (think I saw it at 2.5 earlier this week). It's not moving...if bets continue to come in on the Bengals and that line doesn't move...BEWARE. The books like Chicago. The books don't always win... But they win more than they lose...see Las Vegas. The reason people lose is because they bet with their hearts/allegiances instead of looking at the numbers. At this point, I look more at the lines, the public betting and the line movement more so than the teams.

Let me know if you want to know how parlays and teasers work. Again...they aren't a good idea to bet. Bad odds but bigger payout. The best way to gamble is to flat bet everything. Bet the same amount on every game. Do I follow this rule? Not always.... But I'm much more disciplined than i used to be. And it's paid off. A disciplined gambler would scoff at parlays and teasers...but they are still fun for people who are just wanting to have fun and have some action on different games.

[paulxu]

Plus, the media is touting the Bengals preseason like the UD fans tout their preseason hype.

OK Nigel, you lost me somewhere in the middle of all that.
But nobody could hype anyone like UD can hype.
Just ask yourself...whose got as many pre-season championship trophies? No one.

[Nigel Tufnel]

OK Nigel, you lost me somewhere in the middle of all that.
But nobody could hype anyone like UD can hype.
Just ask yourself...whose got as many pre-season championship trophies? No one.

I may having been typing in hyperbole...but the media is licking the salt off the Bengals' balls with the preseason hype. I hope they are right...but Joe Public gambler reads that stuff and relies heavily on it. If the Bengals are so great, why are they dogs to the Bears? I know nothing about the Bears, but it seems to me that they must be pretty good. And they are at home. Home field in the NFL is huge. I feel pretty confident that the books aren't looking for even money on both sides on this game. I think they think the Bears will win by more than 3 points. There are A LOT of home dogs this week in the NFL. If Joe Public pounds the road favorites, it's going to either be a really good day or a really bad day for the books. Like I said, they win more than they lose.

[waggy]

Bengals +3

[Nigel Tufnel]

Hypothetically speaking...if it was legal and i had the balls, neither of which is true, I'd definitely be the book for the new gamblers on this site. Chances are, I'd break even or win money. But alas....it's illegal for people to spend their money on games of chance involving sports. Unless you live in Nevada....which makes sense. Of course, you can spend your money in games of chance not involving sports at any local horse track or casino. Again... makes total sense. For more flawed logic, see my thread titled Weed.


Sep 0506:14 PM
NFL
2T TEASER Ties Push
[451] RAVENS (BAL) - WEEK 1 o42½-110 (B+6) (NBC)
[452] BRONCOS (DEN) - WEEK 1 -1½-105 (B+6) (NBC)
21 / 20

Teasers are a bad bet....but this one is looking good. Why are they not a wise bet? Because it looks like if I had taken Broncos -7.5 and Over 48, I would have won a lot more than what I will...but I'm into the entertainment aspect and having a rooting interest in a game on national tv. This is a bad strategy for someone who wants to make big bucks on gambling. But I just enjoy a little action from time to time.

[GoMuskies]

I won $50 from Tardy Turtle betting on a sporting event once. It was totally illegal and completely awesome.

[chico]

Jets under 6 wins.
Bengals over 8.5 wins
New England -10.5 vs. Buffalo

[GoMuskies]

I find betting on the NFL completely assinine. Not that I don't sometimes do it, but I think it's a complete waste of money. It's too efficient a market.

[paulxu]

I'd wager that the Colts and Pats are re-thinking their decisions to give up on Manning and Welker.

[blueblob06]

A few of my buddies and I pick 6 college football games against the spread each week (whatever we deem the 5 biggest games of the weekend and then each of us can pick a wildcard game). We just payout beers to the winner.
In week 1 of this year (last week), I went 6-0 against the spread...so i think it's all down hill from here! In the last 2 full seasons of college football, I had done that 1 time before.

If only I had parlayed that in Vegas! Of course, all the other weeks, if I made a parlay, I'd have lost....Ah gambling!

[blueblob06]

[QUOTE=Mel Cooley XU'81;403993] And can you bet any amount (assuming a minimum, of course) on a money line bet? You aren't "required" to bet $100, right?

[QUOTE]

Mel, some sites let you bet as little as $1 on games, which is pretty cool. And especially cool for futures, like who's going to win the BCS Title game, Heisman, Super Bowl, etc.

[PMI]

Over the past few years, it seems that if you've had a crystal ball and could pick straight up winners, you would dominate against the spread. The teams that won the games have tended to cover lately, and last night the trend continued. Now, of course, part of that is that anytime an underdog wins in the parity-ridden NFL, it obviously covers too. But the favorites also have covered at a ridiculous rate. I agree with Nigel that betting over the long run tends to even out, if you're good at it, but I'd add a caveat. Be very selective. I prefer to use a system (which is ever-evolving) made up of numbers and "ratings" of my own opinions to handicap every single NFL game. It's only when I think a line is WAY off (which is rare) or when I'm VERY confident, that I will actually bet on a game anymore. I probably won't bet on any NFL games in this first week, other than maybe a really small-wager little parlay for fun. But I prefer to be very confident in my picks, and risk a good number, over just betting on lots of games and trying to score a winning record. The more games you bet on, the more likely you are to even out or lose, and you're paying the juice on all the wagers. So I'll try and handicap every game I can, but I'll only bet when I really think I've found something that Vegas is missing (and by missing, I don't mean that I think I can outsmart them, but sometimes they set lines a little off purposely due to other factors, or sometimes I'm more willing to take a risk on a factor they handicapped nicely.) I've stuck to that the last couple years and I've done about as well as I could expect in what I consider the hardest league to profit in. If I stick to my routine, and lose, I can live with it. It's when you get undisciplined and start trying to chase back money you may have lost in bad beats or impulse wagers or homer picks that you play right into the books' hands, and I won't allow myself to do that.

As for the Bengals/Bears game, that is simply one I wouldn't touch. I know the Bengals are the hot pick, and they might be pretty good, but my biggest concern, among many, about the game is that we can't truly know exactly what the Bears are yet. New staff, new system. This goes for a lot of teams. The Eagles scare me shitless for Monday night because we really have no idea what we're going to see out of Blue Chip Kelly's offense. I am not an enormous believer in him in the long run, personally, but we have no idea what to prepare for at this point, even if we can speculate. Those are the scary games to me. The Redskins season opener at New Orleans last year is another example. The Skins were the biggest underdogs in the NFL, and the Saints were about half of America's suicide pick for the week. Brees at home where they were undefeated the year before against a rookie quarterback and a struggling franchise. Seemed too easy, right? Except for that nobody in NFL history had ever seen a player of RG3's caliber run that kind of offense until that day, and we shocked the world. There will be shocks this weekend. In a few weeks, we'll have a much better grasp on what teams and systems and players are, but I'll be studying in the meantime.

[Kahns Krazy]

I'd wager that the Colts and Pats are re-thinking their decisions to give up on Manning and Welker.

Agree about the colts, but I think New England just couldn't afford Welker, right?

[paulxu]

Agree about the colts, but I think New England just couldn't afford Welker, right?

I really don't know why New England let him go. Guess I assumed it was an age/speed deal or something. You're probably right that it was money.
But with the meltdown that New England has become in the last few months, he could have served them well.
Then again, I wanted to see Saint Tebow at tight end...just for giggles.

[SpeeDeeVee]

Mike Shanahan is only 5 and 20 as a home team favorite, so the smart money would be to take the Eagles to cover over the Redskins Monday night. An interesting stat I just heard on sports radio. Sounds like pretty good odds to me.

[94GRAD]

I'd wager that the Colts and Pats are re-thinking their decisions to give up on Manning and Welker.

I'd wager the Colts are extremely happy to have a young Luck than an Older Manning.

[PMI]

You guys really think the Colts are regretting "giving up on Manning," AKA getting Andrew Luck? I think that's bananas.


Mike Shanahan is only 5 and 20 as a home team favorite, so the smart money would be to take the Eagles to cover over the Redskins Monday night. An interesting stat I just heard on sports radio. Sounds like pretty good odds to me.

No offense, but your post is pretty much the model of how NOT to think as a bettor. This is exactly the kind of "trends" that no smart bettor should EVER buy into. I'm not saying the Redskins will or will not cover (even though I believe they will) but anyone who makes their bets based on nonsense like that is simply donating to the Vegas fund. Want to hear another interesting stat? Mike Shanahan is undefeated in season-opening games (two of which were at home) as a Redskins coach, both straight up and ATS. See how silly it is to use trends in order to handicap? No matter how many trends you have to favor your side of thinking, there are always just as many that favor the other side. You have to look at the matchup itself, and given how very little we know about the Eagles in general, and how little we know about how the Redskins are going to run their schemes, it's impossible to do anything more than guess in that regard. RG3 had a perfect QB rating and a total field day against the Eagles at home last year, and then later tore them up on the road two weeks after messing up his knee. Vick has traditionally torched the Redskins defense. I'm not saying I would take it, but I think the only conclusion I could reach based on the little we know about the matchup, is that the over might be a solid gamble.

[chico]

I find betting on the NFL completely assinine. Not that I don't sometimes do it, but I think it's a complete waste of money. It's too efficient a market.

I much prefer betting on college but every once in a while I'll place a wager if I like the spread. Plus early in the season you can find some advantageous lines - with the way teams go up and down on a yearly basis early in the season is the only real good time to wager.

[Nigel Tufnel]

You guys really think the Colts are regretting "giving up on Manning," AKA getting Andrew Luck? I think that's bananas.



No offense, but your post is pretty much the model of how NOT to think as a bettor. This is exactly the kind of "trends" that no smart bettor should EVER buy into. I'm not saying the Redskins will or will not cover (even though I believe they will) but anyone who makes their bets based on nonsense like that is simply donating to the Vegas fund. Want to hear another interesting stat? Mike Shanahan is undefeated in season-opening games (two of which were at home) as a Redskins coach, both straight up and ATS. See how silly it is to use trends in order to handicap? No matter how many trends you have to favor your side of thinking, there are always just as many that favor the other side. You have to look at the matchup itself, and given how very little we know about the Eagles in general, and how little we know about how the Redskins are going to run their schemes, it's impossible to do anything more than guess in that regard. RG3 had a perfect QB rating and a total field day against the Eagles at home last year, and then later tore them up on the road two weeks after messing up his knee. Vick has traditionally torched the Redskins defense. I'm not saying I would take it, but I think the only conclusion I could reach based on the little we know about the matchup, is that the over might be a solid gamble.


Wise words. Things that have happened in the past have no bearing on what will happen on Sunday/Monday.

[paulxu]

You guys really think the Colts are regretting "giving up on Manning," AKA getting Andrew Luck? I think that's bananas.

My wife is convinced I'm bananas.
Getting Luck is great for the future. I was only pointing our there may have been a few good years left for Peyton.
The Colts didn't trade him to get Luck did they? (Hell, maybe they did. I don't know)
But I thoroughly enjoyed watching him tear up the Super Bowl Champ's defense (their trademark) the other night.
Guess I'm a sucker for the old guys.

[PMI]

My wife is convinced I'm bananas.
Getting Luck is great for the future. I was only pointing our there may have been a few good years left for Peyton.
The Colts didn't trade him to get Luck did they? (Hell, maybe they did. I don't know)
But I thoroughly enjoyed watching him tear up the Super Bowl Champ's defense (their trademark) the other night.
Guess I'm a sucker for the old guys.

I've always believed that the Colts knew very well that Peyton still had gas left in the tank, but they had an opportunity that was just too good to pass up. The Colts have got to have the luckiest fans of any team over the last decade and a half. They had Peyton Manning all those years, then after he gets hurt, have their first shitty year in forever, and then get the next Peyton Manning. I think the Colts, in theory, would agree that they'd rather have Peyton this year, and maybe next, if they didn't have to worry about the future. But given the real circumstances, they made the only right choice, difficult as it may have been.

But no, the Colts did not trade Peyton, they released him tearfully and let him go choose his team. It would've been interesting to see what they would've asked for/gotten had they had to go that route.

[SpeeDeeVee]

You guys really think the Colts are regretting "giving up on Manning," AKA getting Andrew Luck? I think that's bananas.



No offense, but your post is pretty much the model of how NOT to think as a bettor. This is exactly the kind of "trends" that no smart bettor should EVER buy into. I'm not saying the Redskins will or will not cover (even though I believe they will) but anyone who makes their bets based on nonsense like that is simply donating to the Vegas fund. Want to hear another interesting stat? Mike Shanahan is undefeated in season-opening games (two of which were at home) as a Redskins coach, both straight up and ATS. See how silly it is to use trends in order to handicap? No matter how many trends you have to favor your side of thinking, there are always just as many that favor the other side. You have to look at the matchup itself, and given how very little we know about the Eagles in general, and how little we know about how the Redskins are going to run their schemes, it's impossible to do anything more than guess in that regard. RG3 had a perfect QB rating and a total field day against the Eagles at home last year, and then later tore them up on the road two weeks after messing up his knee. Vick has traditionally torched the Redskins defense. I'm not saying I would take it, but I think the only conclusion I could reach based on the little we know about the matchup, is that the over might be a solid gamble.




Which is exactly why I don't bet on football games. Trends mean nothing, that's why they play the game. Here is a trend worth looking at. I would wager that RG3 had a higher QB rating on turf versus real grass. Don't know for sure but I would take that bet.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Well, books were on the money with Chi -3. Got all the Bengal money line money and pushed the points and lost on any Bears money line action. The Bengals were the better team....but turnovers kill.

[waggy]

books were on the money with Chi -3.

I was paying attention. Vegas is so lucky!

[SpeeDeeVee]

You guys really think the Colts are regretting "giving up on Manning," AKA getting Andrew Luck? I think that's bananas.



No offense, but your post is pretty much the model of how NOT to think as a bettor. This is exactly the kind of "trends" that no smart bettor should EVER buy into. I'm not saying the Redskins will or will not cover (even though I believe they will) but anyone who makes their bets based on nonsense like that is simply donating to the Vegas fund. Want to hear another interesting stat? Mike Shanahan is undefeated in season-opening games (two of which were at home) as a Redskins coach, both straight up and ATS. See how silly it is to use trends in order to handicap? No matter how many trends you have to favor your side of thinking, there are always just as many that favor the other side. You have to look at the matchup itself, and given how very little we know about the Eagles in general, and how little we know about how the Redskins are going to run their schemes, it's impossible to do anything more than guess in that regard. RG3 had a perfect QB rating and a total field day against the Eagles at home last year, and then later tore them up on the road two weeks after messing up his knee. Vick has traditionally torched the Redskins defense. I'm not saying I would take it, but I think the only conclusion I could reach based on the little we know about the matchup, is that the over might be a solid gamble.

No offense taken but Shanahan is now 5 and 21 as the home team favorite. Like I said, I don't handicap but just passed on an interesting trend I heard on the radio. I did however, shake down a couple of over zealous Redskin fans that gave me 7 points and 2 cases of Dogfish Head IPA. All in all, not a bad bet and a great start for Chip Kelly and the Eagles. I did hear another trend on the same radio station yesterday. 72% of money bet was on the Eagles, so somebody must use this type of info when wagering.

[waggy]

Jags +20.

[Kahns Krazy]

Much as I hate to say it, Green Bay -3.

[chico]

Hope you guys got your bets in early for the Minnesota/Cleveland game. Line has already spiked to 6.5 - it was 5.5 yesterday.

[waggy]

Well the Jags bet was an awful one. 20 is a lot of points, but still not enough. I think that makes me 0-1-1, if there is such a thing as a true push. But the bettor actually loses money on a push, correct?

I'm just using the lines given on the ESPN page to make my "bets". This week I'm taking the Browns +4 against the Bengals.

[PMI]

Well the Jags bet was an awful one. 20 is a lot of points, but still not enough. I think that makes me 0-1-1, if there is such a thing as a true push. But the bettor actually loses money on a push, correct?

I'm just using the lines given on the ESPN page to make my "bets". This week I'm taking the Browns +4 against the Bengals.

What did we talk about in the other thread? You DON'T bet on the Jags! Worst team in NFL history. And it rhymes with "fags" so God hates them. Come on waggy.

[waggy]

God hates their unholy football.

[Kahns Krazy]

I have been terrible at picking games for entertainment purposes. I'm taking the Pirates tonight on the money line hoping my losing streak keeps up.

[waggy]

I'm 1-1-1. I'm going to get serious now. Gettin' the solar powered calculator out!

[Kahns Krazy]

Oh, and there is a push waggy. It's the winning bettor that pays the juice. A push is a push.

[waggy]

Magic 8 ball says Titans +3.

[BENWAR]

I'll take Atlanta -9 against the Jets.

[GoMuskies]

I had Northwestern +7 yesterday (and not just for entertainment purposes). That ending did not please me.

[waggy]

About how many games do you pick a week Go?

[GoMuskies]

Depends on the week. Some weeks I will like a lot of games and bet 10. Some weeks I will not like much of anything and will bet 2 or 3.

Yesterday I bet 7 individual games and was actually 6-1 (VERY rare). I didn't win much because:

A) I only bet between $11 and $21 on the games I picked;
B) The Northwestern game was one of the $21 picks; and
C) I had a $20 money line parlay with 8 relatively heavy favorites that would have paid $50 (I've actually had some pretty good luck with this strategy, whereas most parlays are losers all the way). The first 7 came in. The 8th was UC.

[paulxu]

The 8th was UC.

There's got to be some poetic justice there, but I can't find it.

Damn Tennessee had Georgia and let 'em slip away. Crap.

[waggy]

Forgot to make a pick last week, so I'm 1-2-1.


The Bengals-Lions game should be a good one. Bengals are getting 3 points and Detriot has erected a giant tiger head to welcome them to the city. Bengals might not win, but I think they can cover. Bengals +3.

[waggy]

I think I like the Jets to cover this week. The Bengals have been winning, but they haven't exactly been blowing teams out.

[GoMuskies]

I like the Cocks tonight +3 at Mizzou. Time for the Tigers to meet reality.

[paulxu]

You know that Shaw is out, right?

Should we try the Saban Solution? If you leave a Muskie game early your lose your season ticket?

Wake almost got Miami. Now it's up to Duke to get VT.

[waggy]

Man I don't know about that S. Carolina bet. I really don't pay super close attention to college, but from the little I've seen Mizzou has been kicking asses.

[paulxu]

Hah! Dookies upset VT.

Not looking good in first OT for the +3 bet.

[GoMuskies]

Never had a doubt. :)

[waggy]

Wish I'd gotten to watch it. Had to take a phone call. Nice pick.

[GoMuskies]

I'd say it was a really bad pick that just happened to work out.

[Kahns Krazy]

I think I like the Jets to cover this week. The Bengals have been winning, but they haven't exactly been blowing teams out.

Hah. I just saw this.

[waggy]

It's like an 'I called it!', ..excepted in reverse.

[GoMuskies]

I went with Kokrak -115 over Mark Wilson at the McGladrey (whole tournament and not just tomorrow). Mainly I went with Jason because I couldn't believe my book actually offered a chance to bet on him.

[GoMuskies]

Nebraska -2 vs. Florida Gulf Coast

[waggy]

Is there a line on the X game Go?

[waggy]

I like Detroit over Chicago. The line is Even according to ESPN.

[GoMuskies]

Is there a line on the X game Go?

Couldn't find one.

Just to have a reason to pay attention to the score of the first college basketball game of the season this afternoon, Air Force +3 over Army.

[GoMuskies]

I'm UNSTOPPABLE in college baskets!!!

[GoMuskies]

Kokrak +2000 (20/1) to win the McGladrey.

[vee4xu]

Oops, wrong planet.