This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.

User Info: Joe__Tobin

Joe__Tobin
1 month ago#191
Raider1015 posted...
St. John's, Baylor and Washington are lower seeds with unexpectedly high-end guards.


Johnnies:
a) are play in underdogs tomorrow night
b) almost lost to Cal in Brooklyn
c) are St. John's

Baylor/Cuse is flummoxing me although I don't think it's gonna be a shootout, I'm pretty confident it's not gonna be both teams making it rain. Who knows with 8/9's though......wait, Baylor? Who on Baylor is an unexpectedly high end guard?

Warshington hasn't been right since that inexplicable loss to Cal and was gasping and breathing in Pac-12 play even long before that (@Wazzu.) I don't think they have the ammo to take down UNC.
The enemy won't reveal itself Raymond. Stymies my retribution. It's like blue balls. In your heart.- Frank Semyon
http://tinyurl.com/gshr4zd #ThanksCanada

User Info: Raider1015

Raider1015
1 month ago#192
I'm not betting on those three guard teams necessarily, just examples of meh teams that randomly have guards in NBA orbit. I do like Baylor (+2) against Cuse though. They're both massive zone teams: one is great scoring against the zone and one is hopelessly bad due to their lack of shooting. Even though I feel like an idiot opposing Boeheim.

Belmont is a good upset pick, and probably the best hope to extend our streak of a first four team advancing to the round of 32.

Oregon-Wisconsin is such an obvious upset pick it really doesn't even count.

The line on Yale-LSU is telling. Vegas knows they're on HIGH upset alert. I'd take the Bulldogs on the ML +250 if anything.
Most recent articles:
http://bit.ly/1Rrpqmd

User Info: Joe__Tobin

Joe__Tobin
1 month ago#193
I like Florida, by your guard logic. For some reason, I feel like KeVaughn Allen and (especially) Jalen Hudson are suddenly about to remember how to shoot the basketball. And we already know that they already know how to defend and fight and win in March.

Nevada's a dumb team with a dumb coach, Florida's a smart team with a smart coach. Opinions vary on Michigan but Florida can wheeze its way to a 51-48 win there. It wouldn't be the first time a dangerous sleeper Florida team has made a run.

Baylor is going to f*** them in every position on the boards - I just worry because Baylor is just a miserable shooting team at all three levels and even though the rebounding numbers (especially on the oboards for Baylor) are LOPSIDED, Syracuse is literally the tallest team in the country so Baylor is in the odd position of being undersized, I think the backcourts are a wash and even though this might be Scott Drew's best coaching job in quite a while, they've faded a bit late and I have a feeling they get sucked in to the zone trap and just throw up an absolute brickfest. 131.....are we sure both are getting in to the 60s?

Oregon started -1, then Badger money came in and now Wisconsin's favored by more than a point. That movement just screams stayaway to me. The public loves Oregon. At least some wiseguys love Wisconsin. But other wise guys have been on Oregon for a little while now (congrats Clipp.) That's a toughie. Does the San Jose thing make a difference being in Oregon's time zone?

One more time, the 3/14 numbers:

LSU -7.5 Yale
Houston -12 GA State
Purdue -13 Old Dominion
Texas Tech -14 NKU

Yeah, one is not like the others. I've talked about that matchup elsewhere.
The enemy won't reveal itself Raymond. Stymies my retribution. It's like blue balls. In your heart.- Frank Semyon
http://tinyurl.com/gshr4zd #ThanksCanada
(edited 1 month ago)
We enjoix FDu comeback
http://tinyurl.com/q7o6uys

User Info: Joe__Tobin

Joe__Tobin
4 weeks ago#195
There's one line I'm just not going to talk about. We don't want to disturb certain things that already are very much not being disturbed.

Belmont was free money tonight. I would've been too emotionally on tilt from that game to play it anyway (because either is beating us because of the way Temple turns people over but one was a way better matchup than the other and now I get to go to sleep and have dreams of Belmont just running whatever it wants and just getting good look after good look as my school is powerless to stop it because its coach is a mental not as good as other coaches case) but Temple.....Temple shouldn't have been in this tournament. Temple shouldn't have been in this tournament; it got a lucky charge call against Houston to get its like one good win and then it beat UCF right after UCF locked up a bid. Temple had no business being in this tournament.

If Dean Wade gets ruled out officially while I'm on the bus tomor.....today then I'm gonna be pissed. Game time decision that man at the least EMAW.
The enemy won't reveal itself Raymond. Stymies my retribution. It's like blue balls. In your heart.- Frank Semyon
http://tinyurl.com/gshr4zd #ThanksCanada
(edited 4 weeks ago)

User Info: Clipper

Clipper
4 weeks ago#196
2 for 2 on tonight's NBA games! I'm gonna develop a bad sense of confidence if this keeps occurring...

Did not expect to win that Brooklyn bet at halftime, I'll tell you that...
Did you know Stuart Scott almost made the Scripps National Spelling Bee as a child? Then the judges asked for skiing, but he only had one I. - acr

User Info: Clipper

Clipper
4 weeks ago#197
Only followed that Nets game through the 1st half, then took a nap. Holy hell, they were down 25 in the 4th? Yikes...got really lucky on that one...
Did you know Stuart Scott almost made the Scripps National Spelling Bee as a child? Then the judges asked for skiing, but he only had one I. - acr

User Info: Joe__Tobin

Joe__Tobin
4 weeks ago#198
If you could briefly describe your guiding principles for your NBA plays that'd be great. To me, other than s*** like the very wise Raider (bud I know we've clashed, Zion/RJ in here, ugly s*** like Adrian Peterson elsewhere, but you're good at this) fading an obviously-don't-give-a-s*** Warriors/LeBron, the NBA just looks like a bunch of white noise until the playoffs for me.

I understand there's gems in the rough. It's a HELL of a lot of lot of rough - and aren't individual O/Us nightly lotteries? It's not a college thing where you can count on one or both teams to struggle to score routinely. I realize scoring's been ridiculous this season but I imagine Vegas was on to that scent early and the totals are stupid high for like any Houston game for example and that they're so high, your margin of error is so slim. One team shoots bad first half, rip the ticket.

And see, like that 25 point Nets run....really? The Nets?.....it feels like 20 point comebacks by even rando ass teams like the Nets or Bulls or whatever happen like nothing in NBA regular season games. The results just feel so random. The West is just one of the biggest clusters I've ever seen. The East is a similar cluster among the top 5 and then among the next bunch. Like, (almost) every game is a lottery? I don't get it.
The enemy won't reveal itself Raymond. Stymies my retribution. It's like blue balls. In your heart.- Frank Semyon
http://tinyurl.com/gshr4zd #ThanksCanada
(edited 4 weeks ago)

User Info: Clipper

Clipper
4 weeks ago#199
If you could briefly describe your guiding principles for your NBA plays that'd be great.


So first, I think you're right with the O/U being virtually a crapshoot on a nightly basis. Yeah there may be things you can pick up like match-ups and whether a good match-up makes for more scoring or less, but I don't usually bet the O/U.

In terms of things I look for on a nightly basis, I'm mostly looking at a couple things.

- Teams on back-to-backs, 3-in-4-days, 4-in-5-days. Looking for value in those...not only value in betting against them, but value in betting on them when Vegas is giving them the business for being on a crazy stretch of games, even if they are clearly a superior team to the one they've been playing.

- Value in underdogs (usually road dogs, but sometimes home) using the same principle of "This team is better, but maybe they aren't phenomenal on the road...but they are still better than the team they are playing." I'm looking at line numbers more than a lot of metrics when I do this because if I can find a decent road dog especially in a +130-150 line I'm gonna take them a lot of the time (See: Pelicans at +166 over the Mavericks a couple days ago). I've used the whole "If they win this ___% of the time, I make money" argument multiple times" and I know it sounds really archaic, but if I win that bet 37.74% of the time, I break even. So from a simple math standpoint I just have to ask myself...could I expect the Pelicans, under those circumstances, to win that game at least 37.74% of the time? If I answer yes and believe in it, then it's worth betting. I used similar reasons for picking against the Bucks playing at home against the Sixers and Pacers (+199 and +435). Two VERY good teams. Two teams that could contend for the Eastern Conference title.At those odds, consistently, I feel like I can project pretty well.

The Nets 25-point comeback is a massive anomoly...ESPN Stats and info said the Nets are just the 4th team in the shot clock era to overcome that kind of 4th quarter deficit (teams are now 4-3,028 when facing that deficit). So I mean I'm obviously not holding onto that. I was resigned to virtually breaking even after the Sixers/Hornets last night.

To take an example from above, I'll be picking the Celtics (+130) at Philadelphia today. Breakeven chart says I need to win 43.48% of those bets to break even. The Sixers are traveling back from Charlotte to play the back end of an away-home back to back. It's their 3rd game in 4 days. Their last two games with Milwaukee and Charlotte have been back and forth down to the wire games. The Celtics are facing no such issue, they are playing pretty well, they are fresher and I think they'll wear Philly down. Nothing overly scientific about it, just the way I think it'll go down.

I do try to use some statistics obviously, but I work really hard to not let them bog me down too much. Not gonna lie, I'm one of those people who thinks sometimes people are so buried in the analytics forest they can't see the trees. The one stat I plan on using more frequently is defensive efficiency, especially when taking road dogs since defense travels. But like I said, I've been relying a lot on what my naked eye can see easily rather than anything else.
Did you know Stuart Scott almost made the Scripps National Spelling Bee as a child? Then the judges asked for skiing, but he only had one I. - acr

User Info: Clipper

Clipper
4 weeks ago#200
Overall guiding principle--just speaking to the general populace here, not to Jag, cuz he knows how gambling works--my biggest ones are looking for games with no juice and looking for underdogs.

Since I started tracking this about 2 weeks ago, I've made 36 bets (obviously not volume betting here, which might make baseball hard when it starts up, but we'll see). 23 of my bets (64%) have given me + odds. That's an enormous advantage if you can find good picks.

Picking underdogs to WIN, not just to cover, if you are going to pick them. If you're picking a team at +3 (see the Celtics/Sixers line above), you ought to believe the Celtics can win that game. If you don't, you're leaving a very small window in which the Sixers win the game but DON'T cover. More importantly than that, you're leaving money on the table. Why take Boston +3 to get -110 odds when you can take the moneyline and get +130? Because of that small 3 point window for Boston to cover and still lose? Makes no sense to me because in the long run, you're leaving a solid chunk of money on the table. Same thing if you're gonna bet the Sixers...if you think they'll win, you ought to think they can cover. Why take the -150 moneyline when you can take -110? Your breakeven point becomes 60% instead of a more manageable 52.48%. Since I started tracking, I have picked 20 underdogs vs. 16 favorites...on 19 of those underdogs, I took the moneyline. The only one in which I did not was when I picked Minnesota over Penn State in the Big 10 tournament (and I added a second bet to that, which WAS on the moneyline). Betting valuable moneylines radically improves your chances to be profitable.

Also, honestly...just picking underdogs in general. Why? Because underdogs go against the public mood most of the time. At least once a year you'll read some article about a week in the NFL where sportsbooks just got buried because like, 13 favorites covered the spread. Obviously Vegas is gonna find a way to make money anyway, but most money generally goes on favorites, and betting against the public is supposed to be the easiest strategy to live by.

Hell, take Raider fading the Warriors a bunch this year. A lot of people, myself included, have refused to do that. A lot of people have lost a lot of money betting the Warriors this year (luckily, I have only done it once, and I don't necessarily have an intention of doing it again). Vegas sportsbooks have probably cleaned up good on the Warriors this year. Probably did it again on Monday when they were favored on the road against a red hot Spurs team.
Did you know Stuart Scott almost made the Scripps National Spelling Bee as a child? Then the judges asked for skiing, but he only had one I. - acr
(edited 4 weeks ago)