Something has been bothering about betting the Nationals every night, and I think I have it figured out. I'm currently 5-14-1 -12.47x. If I get much deeper in the hole on them, I question if I'll be able to win it back if they get hot. I mean, if they reel off five in a row, won't they get more public support?
Obviously, nothing can be done about the past, but it's not like the future bets on Washington are independent for the reasons described above. Also, it doesn't mean I'm done betting on the Nats. If they can play something like 47% ball the rest of the way (giving them 72 wins total, for what it's worth) and randomize the win pattern, I'll be quite happy. Of course, the odds of that happening are long, especially when Kip Freaking Wells is their best fireman.
Plays
705p Cleveland +160 2x
805p Houston +136 2x
1005p Oakland -109 2x
1010p Washington +192 2x
Pass: TEX/OAK u9
Is it 2003 and someone forgot to tell me? How is Mike Hampton only +136 against the freaking Cubs? At least the books put up a close-to-fair number on the Nats game for once.
Streak for the Cash
805p Boston vs. Orlando
Current Streak: 2
Boston is easily the number one play on the board tonight. If Boston is over soon enough/I can stay up that late, the Lakers seem like a solid play. Artest only averaged 6 fgm/g and the line is 10.
Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Is it 2003 and someone forgot to tell me? How is Mike Hampton only +136 against the freaking Cubs?"
Because he's never been particularly bad when he's actually been on the mound? I don't even know what this means, really.
"At least the books put up a close-to-fair number on the Nats game for once."
Neither does this. Are you trying to say, "At least the books put up a number that isn't incredibly ugly to the naked eye on the Nats game for once"? Or do you know what the fair number is and you're just keeping it to yourself?
"At least the books put up a number that isn't incredibly ugly to the naked eye on the Nats game for once"?
Precisely.
Post a Comment