For those of you interested in those sort of things, Moneyline and I have been discussing the merits of reverse line movement. In other news, I didn't realize until I went to type this post, but I have developed quite the taste for chalk. I guess when I go bust by the end of January, I'll learn my lesson.
NCAAF
TCU -2.5 +103 3x
NCAAB
Wisconsin -1 +102 2x
Arizona -2.5 +104 1x
Santa Clara +4.5 +101 1x
Good luck tonight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It really sucks that TCU didn't cover that game, but I agree with you that there was still value there. TCU absolutely dominated that game, and it took about every break falling Boise's way to lose that game.
I agree. I feel like TCU covers the number somewhere between 65-70 times out of 100 they play that game on a neutral field. Probably seventy-five if their QB wasn't a ginger. That's all you can really ask for when you bet on a game.
Three retarded pass interference calls on 3rd downs cost us 6 points (would have been 9 if he didn't miss a fg).
1st one wasn't catchable. 2nd one the guy sold it like he knocked him down even though he didn't.
The last one was clearly a penalty. He held the shit out of the receiver, which would constitute a 5 yard defensive holding penalty, not a 15 yard interference when the ball wasn't catchable.
Oh well, small blemish on an otherwise outstanding start for us.
Surprised you didn't mention the equally retarded Wildfrog pass.
I deserve a fairly called game, horrible execution is to be expected.
"I feel like TCU covers the number somewhere between 65-70 times out of 100 they play that game on a neutral field."
Is that based on the specifics of how the game actually played out, or simply on the line, the relative merits of the two teams, and the action?
Because if it is the latter then I think that is an extremely optimistic outlook.
The former.
No contrarianism in that analysis. Just simply that TCU "looked" like the better team, particularly across both lines.
Post a Comment