T1B

14-5-1 last week and looking to keep the momentum going.....

1.West Virginia -22 over UCONN
Too much ground game for a bad UCONN team to handle. WVU 38 UCONN 7.

2.Illinois +18 over Penn St
No way does Illinois win, but Penn St already had offensive problems with Morelli. Penn St 19 Illinois 10.

3.Louisville -17 over Syracuse
Louisville has too much athleticism. Louisville 34 Syracuse 10.

4.Pittsburgh -6.5 over Rutgers
Does anyone Rutgers is really that good? Not that Pitt is all that great, but like I thought Mizzou would do last week, I think Rutgers loses a game. Palko has a big game. Wannstedt still a moron. Pitt 27 Rutgers 14.

5.Ohio State -31 over Indiana
Indiana coming off emotional win. IU still not any good, they just played out of their minds and Iowa gave no effort last week. Too much speed, strength, and athleticism for Hoosiers to hang. Buckeyes 49 IU 3.

6.Miami -17.5 over Duke
Call me crazy, but even with all that's gone on at The U, Miami is still at least 18 points better than Duke. Miami 31 Duke 7.

7.Missouri -16 over K-State
Good defense against a young QB = trouble. Missouri in a cakewalk 35-6.

8.Notre Dame -13.5 over UCLA
Interesting line, but does any trust Karl Dorrel to have his team prepared to play at ND? Quinn has Heisman-like performance and Irish roll 41-13.

9.South Carolina -3.5 over Vanderbilt
I've said it a million times, I love betting against teams like Vandy that are coming off emotional wins. Give me USC 23 Vandy 13.

10.Tennessee -11 over Alabama
Too much talent and it's at Tennessee. Fulmer has his team playing well again. Vols 27 Tide 10.

11.Oregon -3.5 over Washington St
I have not picked Oregon wrong this year, and I'm going to ride them to a Holiday Bowl berth! Wazzou sucks. Ducks 28 Cougs 10.

12.Kansas +3.5 over Baylor
Baylor might win, but it's going to be really close considering these offenses are horrible. Their defenses are too, but both teams are inept on offense from what I've seen. Kansas 16 Baylor 13.

13.Texas Tech -2.5 over Iowa State
Iowa State's program is done. Stick a fork in them. They're about to just quit. Red Raiders know this is a big game for them. McCarney does too, and that's why ISU will lose. Texas Tech 27 Clonies 17.

14.California -22.5 over Washington
Reality has set in with U-dub. They suck. Cal in on a roll and at home. Ca 34 U-dub 9.

15.Fresno St +32.5 over LSU
That's a lot of points for a Pat Hill team, even though they've struggled this year. This game just reaks of backdoor cover for Fresno State I say LSU 38 Fresno State 20.

16.Texas A&M +2 over Oklahoma State
Okie St is horrible, A&M is only slightly below average. I worry about the emotional letdown for A&M, but they know the importance of beating a team like Okie St, so I think they'll get the job done. Aggies 20 Cowpokes 17.

17.Colorado +13 over Oklahoma
Should be a close game with OU trying to learn how to play without Peterson. Oklahoma 20 Colorado 13.

18.Clemson -7.5 over Georgia Tech
Just too much talent overall for Clemson and I think they're a damn good team. Bowden may have finally figured it out. Tigers 30 Jackets 17.

19.Nebraska +6.5 over Texas
This is my upset of the week. Biggest home game of the Callahan era. They'll use the homefield edge and throw enough with Brown and Griffin out. Huskers 23 Longhorns 21.

20.NC St +3 over Maryland
NC St fresh off a bad loss to Wake. They'll bounce back. Maryland blows. Wolfpack 20 Twerps 14.

Picking Nebraska over Texas just saved Firentz from you biting his dick off.

Pure karma from the Geek

TheJON wrote: 19.Nebraska +6.5 over Texas
This is my upset of the week. Biggest home game of the Callahan era. They'll use the homefield edge and throw enough with Brown and Griffin out. Huskers 23 Longhorns 21.
.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Keep your locks away from the Buckeyes or I will cut out your fugging ovaries! :D

Mace over Jon=bitch=parrot=bandwagoner by 56 points.

This one is a gift from the odds makers. Mace has allready kicked the bitches ass up and down the field and shows every sign of continuing that trend.

Well since m2OOL was given a timeout and babs is gone and trix doesn't post here anymore I guess Jon is Board Bitch by default???

TheJON wrote:Notre Dame -13.5 over UCLA

I suppose I should be thankful for the fact that the line is such as to give ND a very realistic chance of winning the game without covering.

Wow, I go 14-5-1 last week and you guys are still running smack? And now I'm already 1-0 to begin this week. Keep talkin' boys, keep talkin'......

Man, I just realized how close I was on the score of that West Virginia game. Geez, I even get scores right. I just can't miss.

88 wrote:I like Michigan to brutalize Iowa tomorrow. That would be my "lock" of the week, if I believed in such things.

Mine too, along with Texas covering the 6.5 against Nebraska. Liking ND to roll UCLA as well.

Van wrote: Texas covering the 6.5 against Nebraska.

Isn't the game @ Nebraska?


Confucius say: Man who bet against homedog is a fucking idiot


You're not too good at the sports betting thing, are you?

Dinsdale wrote:

Van wrote: Texas covering the 6.5 against Nebraska.

Isn't the game @ Nebraska?


Confucius say: Man who bet against homedog is a fucking idiot


You're not too good at the sports betting thing, are you?

Van's not as quick as we wish.

By the way... I got wasted last night with owner of the bar.

His wife still hates me, along with everyone else there.

But like I said, I got wasted with the owner, and we still can't find the cap.

Dins, aka Mr Aborted Guaranteed Lead Pipe Cinch Lock, is going to try and talk shit to me about picks...

Priceless.

Yeah, I've got Texas covering the 6.5 on the road against Nebraska. So does most every tout in the nation. Those are the same guys who assured us that Cal would easily cover against Oregon, MAGLPCL.

I'd add here, "Tell me you knew...", 'cept I know you're too much of an arrogant dumbass to've known; then, or now.

Sup Vannar?


If some hack was touting the road favorite, he was trying to get a bunch of chumps to buy into his bullshit to get the line to move, so he could hedge it up.

Dumbass.

"Dumbass" was picking Oregon as a "lead pipe lock" road dog to cover at Cal.

That was off the charts being on the wrong side of a game.

You gotta bet more than just a premise, Dins, you gotta bet individual games. Getting on the right side of a given game is the best one can hope to accomplish. "Bet the home dog" makes for a nice bumper sticker but there are far too many road favorite blow outs in CF to stick to that premise.

Btw, it wasn't just "some hack". It was a large cross section of quite a few touts, on a few different shows. It was also the popular online scribe pick. There was near unanimity. The consensus was that the line was short by about 3 1/2.

Texas was also the majority pick here, in the Pick 'Em.

Shit happens, and it happened in Lincoln today, but I'd take this Texas team and give the points on the road every time against this Nebraska team, and I'd win that one most of the time.

Lost it today though, and the fucking ND game too.

UCLA is the perfect rival team for me. They do everything they can to make me hate 'em even more than I already would as a USC fan. Doesn't matter whether I pick 'em to cover or pick 'em to get shithammered, they fuck me at the drive through no matter what...

Btw, Part II, Dins...

Nice effort there today against Wassou.

Van wrote:"Dumbass" was picking Oregon as a "lead pipe lock" road dog to cover at Cal.

Figure it out, dumbass.

Who here is going to step forward and claim to be objective when it comes to "their team"?

Confucius say: Man who bet on own rooting interest not so smart.

But see, this game wasn't based upon homerism...I was mostly rooting for a giant meteor to come crashing down from the heavens and smash the stadium and all of its occupants.


But in lieu of that, I went with the obvious pick.

"Bet the home dog" makes for a nice bumper sticker but there are far too many road favorite blow outs in CF to stick to that premise.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Care to back that up with some stats, Van?

Wait...I'll do you a favor...save the effort...you won't find any...because they don't exist.

:bigshocker: Van is spouting off about shit he doesn't know the first thing about...no, really...never seen THAT before.

I'd take this Texas team and give the points on the road every time against this Nebraska team, and I'd win that one most of the time.

No, really Van...now would be an excellent time to seriously shut the fuck up.

You can bet that "every time," and I'd take that bet "every time." But despite your absolutely ludicrous and statistically inaccurate assertion, I would in fact win that bet "most of the time"...right around 75% of the time, or thereabouts.

But...it's fucking morons like you who keep the bookies happy. People insist that the road favorite is a good bet, and the bookies make BANK on it. This is not something you should even try and debate, as there is no debate -- this is a statistcal FACT.


Maybe try and actually educate yourself before you open your peckerpuckers next time, OK?

That was some TRULY stupid shit you just...well...you just made up out of thin fucking air.


DEAD fucking wrong, Vannie. DEAD wrong.

Van wrote:It was also the popular online scribe pick. There was near unanimity.

http://www.bettorsworld.com/key.htm


Hmmm....Van says "near unanimity"...the first site a search turns up not only has NEB, it has Nebraska as the play of the week...a 5 star pick.

Hmmm...this is going well for you, Van.


Second site that came up went with Texas.

Third site, in order...http://www.kronishsports.com/NCAA%20FB% ... htm...they picked Nebraska.


Those were the sites that jumped up quickly that had a "free play" on the game.


So, Van -- when did 33.3% become "near unanimity" in your world?

12-8 for jonsense

better than most handicappers do. but your still a tard

Dins, I listened to three different CF tout programs to and from work the last two days. Of the ten guys on the various panels nine chose Texas and the lone exception was a guy who simply said he was going to stay away from that game.

Of those other nine guys four of 'em included Texas giving the points as part of their "lock" parlays. Having listened to these shows for awhile now I was paying attention to each guy's picks, knowing whose parlays had been coming through and whose hadn't. The guys picking Texas have been solid with their picks so far this season.

On this board the Texas-Nebraska game was one of the most hotly picked games on the card and Texas was picked to cover by a 24-6 margin. Most everybody here made that game one of their picks and nearly everybody who wasn't a solid hard core Corn Fan picked Texas.

So, yeah, from what I read, saw and head Texas was the near unanimous pick. Given yesterday's teams and circumstances I'd still take Texas every time and I'm still confident I'd be on the right side of the game and that I'd win that one at least 7 out of 10 times.

Didn't work out yesterday though, which is why it's called "gambling".

I take it though you've somehow missed all the times Texas, Ohio State, Miami, USC, and all sorts of SEC teams, ie, the really powerful programs, have gone out on the road and predictably covered the number for years on end...

You have to take these things on a case by case basis. You have to consider who's the road favorite and how are they're playing, vs who's the road dog and how are they playing?

Cases in point: OSU this year...Michigan this year...Cal this year...USC from '02 through '05...

The list goes on and on. Pretty much, a guy would've gone broke betting the home dogs against them.

Your cookie cutter bromides won't get it done and you're not going to be able to find any pertinent stats that are relevant to each individual match up. Merely showing where home dogs cover more than they don't isn't relevant to a specific game discussion.

Starting to wonder here if you've actually watched much, or bet much, or even lived much? You seem to want to adopt your favored Internet Badass persona while bumper stickering your way through most every argument, like some clueless wannabe who loves to pass on shit as his own that he overheard while eavesdropping on his older brother's friends...

Mom's Basement Dins?

Adelpiero wrote:12-8 for jonsense

better than most handicappers do. but your still a tard

You sure about that? I counted twice and got 11-9 both times.

TheJON wrote:1.West Virginia -22 over UCONN W

2.Illinois +18 over Penn St W

3.Louisville -17 over Syracuse L

4.Pittsburgh -6.5 over Rutgers L

5.Ohio State -31 over Indiana W

6.Miami -17.5 over Duke L

7.Missouri -16 over K-State W

8.Notre Dame -13.5 over UCLA L

9.South Carolina -3.5 over Vanderbilt W

10.Tennessee -11 over Alabama L

11.Oregon -3.5 over Washington St L

12.Kansas +3.5 over Baylor W

13.Texas Tech -2.5 over Iowa State W

14.California -22.5 over Washington L

15.Fresno St +32.5 over LSU W

16.Texas A&M +2 over Oklahoma State W

17.Colorado +13 over Oklahoma L

18.Clemson -7.5 over Georgia Tech W

19.Nebraska +6.5 over Texas W

20.NC St +3 over Maryland L

Terry is correct, unfortunately. 11-9 = 55% and that is very disappointing. I usually do better than that. 11-9 would be making money had I bet on the games, thouh. Still 25-14-1 the last 2 weeks which is 64%. I'm sure everyone on here that runs smack at me about how I'm allegedly bad at picking games could do better than that. Riiiiiiiight!

Van wrote:Dins, I listened to three different CF tout programs to and from work the last two days. Of the ten guys on the various panels nine chose Texas and the lone exception was a guy who simply said he was going to stay away from that game.

So, one guy knew what the fuck he was talking about.

Impressive.

included Texas giving the points as part of their "lock" parlays.

You COMPLETE fucking dipshit.

You used the words "lock" and "parlay" in conjunction. For the sake of all that is holy, you, and anyone else who is this fucking clueless really needs to SHUT THE FUCK UP.

There was no doubt you entered into this "argument"(only in your mind...water is still wet, regardless whether Dins is the messenger or not) having NO FUCKING IDEA what you're talking about. If there was a tiny scrap of doubt(there wasn't), you just cemented it.

Ho-lee-fuck. Pure, unabashed ignorance. Only way to describe the stupid you've brought to the table.

Jaw-dropping ignorance.

Having listened to these shows for awhile now

Your "expertise" is based on this?

Tears, Jerry. Tears.

I was paying attention to each guy's picks, knowing whose parlays had been coming through and whose hadn't.

To adress this "whose parlays had been coming through"...uhm, none of them were. Or very few, anyway.

Uhm, Van...I think you need to look up the definition of a "parlay" before you start waxing your expertise on them, since it's now become clear that the word doesn't mean what you think it does. But, feel free to continue wowing us with your vast knowledge of sports betting...really.


Do you actually know what "favorites" and "underdogs" are? There's been a pretty dark shadow cast upon your knowledge...like "lock parlays" and other such stupidity.

Egads.

On this board the Texas-Nebraska game was one of the most hotly picked games on the card and Texas was picked to cover by a 24-6 margin. Most everybody here made that game one of their picks and nearly everybody who wasn't a solid hard core Corn Fan picked Texas.

So, how'd that work out for them?

So, Vannar...you honestly believe the dipshits on this board know more about oddsmaking than the oddsmakers?

This really isn't going well for you. The proof is in the scoreboard...which last I fucking checked, seemed to show a 1-0 advantage to Dinsdale in this little game.

So, yeah, from what I read, saw and head Texas was the near unanimous pick.

SWince you seem to have logged far too much time in your mother;s basement(piss-poor deflection if I've ever seen one), let me explain some things about how this here worlld works...


Those that can, do. Those that can't, pay someone to get on the radio pimping their 800 number.

Egads.

Given yesterday's teams and circumstances I'd still take Texas every time and I'm still confident I'd be on the right side of the game and that I'd win that one at least 7 out of 10 times.

Wow. You really don't know what you're talking about, and you reallyreally don't know when to quit.

I'd let you take Texas every time. And despite your unbelievably ignorant ramblings, I would win better than 7 times out of 10.

This isn't some bullshit Van debate...this is statistical FACT. It's not open for debate.

Or do you need to look up the definition of "FACT" while you've got the dictionary out?

Didn't work out yesterday though, which is why it's called "gambling".

OK, try and keep up...it won't work out that way about 75% of the time(give or take a little). (Oh, and work on that punctuation while you've got the reference books out.)


And all the bitching and wishing in the world from you won't change that.

I take it though you've somehow missed all the times Texas, Ohio State, Miami, USC, and all sorts of SEC teams, ie, the really powerful programs, have gone out on the road and predictably covered the number for years on end...

Dinsdale wrote: Care to back that up with some stats, Van?

Yeah, I guess I did miss that...since it never happened for "years on end." See, the bookmakers adjust for these things, to ensure that never happens...except in your delusions.

But, feel free to mix in those stats...that don't exist.

You have to take these things on a case by case basis. You have to consider who's the road favorite and how are they're playing, vs who's the road dog and how are they playing?

Uhm...no. No you don't. Barring some fluke injury after the line is set, you really don't...a smart bettor plays....crazy fucking concept coming...a smart bettor plays ther odds...fucking imagine that, moron.

Sportsbooks ponie up "freebies" every week. It's dweebs like you, listening to radio hacks who can't get a primetime gig, and who think they're smarter than the oddsmakers that make the books rich by being DUMB.

You use trends and current factor to eliminate which home dogs to not play. It's really that simple, regardless how much someone with a 900 number might want you to believe otherwise.

Cases in point: OSU this year

I'll grant you tOSU -- they're 7-1 this season.

Michigan this year

Huh? UM is nowhere near the top ten, although not horrible.

Cal this year

Huh? Again, not horrible, but certainly not the "lock" this year that teams like Central Michigan, tOSU, Syracuse, BYU, and Nevada have been.

I would think somebody who claimed to know soooo much on the subject would be up on such things.

...USC from '02 through '05...

Uhm...don't have home/road breakdown handy, but from 03-05 USC was pretty much a .500 team. Keep swinging and missing though, Vannie.

The list goes on and on.

What...the list of shit you're just flat fucking MAKING UP?

Pretty much, a guy would've gone broke betting the home dogs against them.

OK...one more time...

No. If a guy bets on homedogs across the board, regardless of teams, he will make BIG bucks, by betting standards. BIG money.

You're an idiot.

you're not going to be able to find any pertinent stats that are relevant to each individual match up.

Oh dear God...of all the stupidity you've posted so far, this takes the case.

Wanna place a little wager on that, Van?

Unfuckingbelievable...truly. I could come up with stats on how a team did on a nuetral field when the starting QB's grandmother was sick, you flaming douche.

Merely showing where home dogs cover more than they don't isn't relevant to a specific game discussion.

About as relevant as calling which two coin tosses are going to come up two consecutive heads...that's your odds of hitting a road favorite.


Van, shut the living fuck up. This discussion has gone so far over your head, you can't even see how badly this has gone for you.

Starting to wonder here if you've actually watched much, or bet much, or even lived much?

Oh, dear. This, from the King of the Dorks, directed at me. Worst attempt at deflection from a sinking ship I've ever seen in all of my years on these boards.

Oh, and before you go and spew the stupid again, moron...they have a forum on this very site where such things are discussed.

Dinsdale wrote:5 freaking homedogs on the NFL card this weekend. Don't see that very often.

And I don't like any of them.

Might have to parlay

NYJ -5.5 over Detroit

Indy -9.5 over Washington

and...

If I'm doing the state parlay game, I like to pick something on Monday, since it makes for a day's worth of anticipation...how about NYG(the state vcalls then New Jersey, since they can't use team names) +3.5.

Those are the three I like best. Although...any time the weather in Seattle has been wet, then turns warm and sunny, the over is often a good bet. But at 42.5....tough call. Heck, I'll go with it.

You saw the shot I semi-called in the CFB forum.

Counting Nebraska, that would be 4 of 4 events that have been played so far. The fifth is pending.


So, how'd your pics go this weekend, Vannie? Too lazy to count or care, but a quick glance at your pick'ems seems to put you a little under .500.


Still going to keep this up?

You talked the talk. I walked the walk.

Time for you to take your lumps and shut the fuck up. You're actually sitting here arguing against the scoreboard. What a fucking double-loser.


Type until your fingers bleed, Van... in the end, I have what you don't...and it may involve the lettter "B," "O,"
"D," and "E."


Fuck off, idiot.

way to tard up the thread, dins. you'd be better off giving your fingers something constructive to do like jerk yourself off.

Oh, I guess there was also this one in the NFL Forum...

Dinsdale wrote:But if I'm betting it -- I'll take the homedog +5.5.

In addition to this one in the main forum --

Dinsdale wrote:Don't get me wrong, I don't think Fresno has much of a chance...although I'd take +33.5 all day long, and twice on saturday.

I actually gave a pretty detailed analysis why I went the way I did on that one, which was fairly accurate(AWESOME execution by LSU-btw).


So, let's just call it 6 for 6 so far this weekend, with one to go.

Screw_Michigan wrote:way to tard up the thread, dins. you'd be better off giving your fingers something constructive to do like jerk yourself off.

I discussed the ins and outs and probablities of sports gambling...in a sports gambling thread.



And what, exactly, did you think you were adding to the thread, Einstein?


How does it feel to be dumber than Van? At least he discussed sports wagering...even though just about everything he said was dead wrong, at least he discussed the topic.


There's a reason many consider you a worthless boardbitch...and being gay doesn't help you in that department.


Why don't you make yourself famous on these boards, rather than trying to goad me into doing it for you?

i'm glad you enjoy hearing yourself talk, bitch.

You posted a(stupid) comment in my direction.

I responded.

So, let's add to your stellar resume "inability to grasp the concept of internet messageboards."


Clever reponse... really. But I guess if you enjoy hearing yourself say "bitch," that must make it so...based upon the superlative intelligence you've displayed.


Did you have anything to add about "locks of the week," or the viriues of homedogs, or anything...relevant?

You're intentionally missing points now. Cool. Brilliant debate strategy...

Anyway, no, you're not going to be let off the hook that easily...

You have to take these things on a case by case basis. You have to consider who's the road favorite and how are they're playing, vs who's the road dog and how are they playing?

Cases in point: OSU this year...Michigan this year...Cal this year...USC from '02 through '05...

The list goes on and on. Pretty much, a guy would've gone broke betting the home dogs against them.

Your cookie cutter bromides won't get it done and you're not going to be able to find any pertinent stats that are relevant to each individual match up. Merely showing where home dogs cover more than they don't isn't relevant to a specific game discussion.

So, what do you do...

Pretty much, a guy would've gone broke betting the home dogs against them.

OK...one more time...

No. If a guy bets on homedogs across the board, regardless of teams, he will make BIG bucks, by betting standards. BIG money.

You change the topic to something that suits you. You ignore the entire point you were supposedly refuting.

Anyway, yeah, across the board an entire card of home dogs will usually pan out. I wasn't talking about that, which I made very clear. I specifically said we're talking about specific games, not an entire card's worth of games. I said that you can't use that approach on all games, with all teams, under all circumstances. Unless you're willing to bet every fucking game on the board just to prove your theory then no, you can't use that method every time. On an individual game basis some home dogs are more attractive than others and some are downright land mines.

Betting the home dog against OSU this year would see you going broke. That's called an "individual circumstance" involving an individual team in individual games, which I clearly specified, which you clearly ignored. In this one instance Texas was thought by most to be a similar example of an attractive road favorite.

As for keeping score, no, you're not "1-0". You're "1-1" since you screamed from the high heavens that Oregon was a lead pipe lock against Cal. You didn't just offer that one up with winking asides, yucking it up along the way. No, you attempted to support your boneheaded contention with your usual belligerent potpourri of none too compelling self gratification. Stating after the fact, "Uhhh, shucks, I didn't really mean it and don't take me seriously 'cause I was just joshin'! Don't count that one!", well, tough shit. That doesn't fly. You lost, and you looked truly stupid with that one. You didn't barely lose. You didn't leave points on the board which might've seen you covering there. No, you got stomped, just as most of the experts you deride said you would.

Then again this is you we're talking about here. You'd deride Edward Teller if he disagreed with you about the finer points of the atom. You'd be wrong of course, painfully wrong, but you'd still puff up and tell him he's not much of a scientist compared to you.

As for your stupid aneurysm regarding the definition of "lock parlay", what in the fuck is wrong with you??? When a tout says to take Texas and give the points as part of his multi game "lock parlay" it simply means:

-He's gotta get all the picks correct or the whole card loses. That's a "parlay" which pays a lot more than an individual game bet.

-He's supposedly so confident in his picks that he calls each one a "lock". Usually said "lock" is accompanied by some lame guarantee.

That's it, you fuggen moron. That'd be a "lock parlay" as offered by a tout. In fact, since it's just a come on anyway he could call it any number of things to refer to the "lock" aspect but the multi game imperative defines the parlay. So, no, I didn't misuse either term. You're just Dinsing again, being a fucking apoplectic douche who's grasping at straws, still trying to find anything on which to hang your apoplectic douche hat...

Oh, and Dins, let's now add "I can't count either!" to your list of ignoble accomplishments on display in this thread...

"A bit under .500" is what you divined from my picks this week?

Oh really?

Try again, chimp. I went 6-4 this week. I got fucked by ND and yes, Texas. I also lost the G.T. pick and that Colorado horse I'd been successfully riding of late finally pulled up lame.

6-4 ain't stellar but it ain't bad either. It'd keep the lights on.

I went 7-2-1 in the previous Pick 'Em. I gagged on a 5-4-1 the week before that. So, I've yet to have a losing weekend. At my current rate, well, I'd be doing more than well enough.

You're an idiot, Dins, a real idiot.

Van wrote:Oh, and Dins, let's now add "I can't count either!" to your list of ignoble accomplishments on display in this thread...

"A bit under .500" is what you divined from my picks this week?

Oh really?

Try again, chimp. I went 6-4 this week.

I see why you'd resort to warping things once again, seeing how well the scoreboard looks for you right now.

Dinsdale wrote:Too lazy to count or care, but a quick glance at your pick'ems seems to put you a little under .500.

So, in an effort to save face(not that you have one worth saving), you somehow tried to denigrate my counting ability, after I'd just explained that I didn't actually count.


Clever.

Newsflash, dweeb -- I'm quite sure that even the Ciceros and Screw Michigans...and even the Vans of the world can count to ten successfully ten times out of ten.


But THIS is the path you chose?

I light of the circumstances, I guess I understand.


I took a quick glance (like I said...must be your reading, and not my counting), and from what I remembered of scores, it looked like 4-6, possibly 5-5....pretty good guessing, since I wasn't looking at the weekend results at the time, and went off memory...pretty fucking sweet of me. Once again, I didn't care that much...the quick glace revealed enough that you certainly didn't do anything impressive in the pick'em...which was the point.

6-4 ain't stellar but it ain't bad either. It'd keep the lights on.

Considering how dim that bulb is, 1-9 would probably do it.

Oh, and 6-4 on your clever parlays is quite similar to hitting on...zero...Mr. Parlay Locker.


Again, I posted picks on various events on various forums over the last few days. 6 of them so far. Of those, I hit 6.


At the root here, you're trying to point out flaws in my prognostication. I was just kind of curious why, since my prognostication this past week was perfect.


Beat the dead horse all you like. It's the equivalent of the Arizona Cardinals talking shit on the Raiders right now.


Since you're math challenged, I'll help you some more...

100% > 60%


Answer a question for me, Van...if I'm an idiot, and picked the game we were in disagreement on, and then went on further to post a perfect(so far) set of NFL picks...


what, exactly, does that make you?


A whooooooole buncha shit talk from the guy who lost the argument...a whoooooole bunch.


Of course, I slept in this morning, and didn't get my NFL picks in in time, so this spectacular performance resulted in a net profit of...zero. But it's the thought that counts. It'll inspire me to think I'm Dinsy the Greek next weekend, and soak me for even more dough.

Gotta side with Dins here.

6.5 is waaaaaaaaaaay too big of a spread for a road team facing a 1 loss squad. Way too big. Far from a lock, at least. I could see EVEN spread, or less than a field goal, maybe, but 6.5? And yeah, NU isn't exactly ISU or KState. They're a solid bunch with a good, experienced QB. Plus, how many big road games has McCoy played in? Zero, unless you count this year's RRS a road game.

When in doubt, stick to the two basic premises in sports betting...

Take the home dog when the spread is bigger than a FG
Take the team with the senior QB over the freshman QB

And when you have a combo of BOTH of these, that usually equals success for you.

I stupidly took TWO road favorites in the pick'em this week on spreads larger than a FG (but the matchups were "supposed" to be much more lopsided than NU-Texas, which featured two one loss teams at the time).

I went 0-2. That worked out pretty well for me. I've learned my lesson for good this time, I think.

Texas has a fairly soft pass defense...Nebraska has a fairly strong passing offense. There was that factored in, too.

But for some odd reason, Vannar seems to think the lines are set on how the oddsmakers think the final score will turn out. He's wrong about that, too. It's about getting people to bet the lines, which is why they adjust them as the week goes by. Texas had a high ranking, Nebraska, while ranked, was ranked much lower, The average hack will see those rankings, and figure 10+ spots difference in the polls is worth a touchdown, and will bet it. Reality dictates there's a lot more to it than that, and because of those factors, the oddsmakers will set the line on the high side, because they know people will bet it. Once they overbet it, the books will hedge.

That's how it works. It's how it's always worked.


Van claimed that there was "near unanimity" on Texas. Gee, I wonder if the books took that into consideration....HMMMMM.....nah, you're smarter than they are.


Since we've come this far, here's a little secret -- anytime there's a universal lead-pipe-lock with the favorite, agreed to by the masses, the dog is always a sweet bet. Marcus Allenesque bet, actually. They know better than you. Take what they give you. Like the Texas NU game. I don't call shots on too many CFB games, but that one was fairly obvious.

Dins, finally you came up with a bit of truth...

Finally. Yes, when the entire betting public is betting one way it's nearly always a good bet to go against the betting public. Oh, and yeah, as an across the board general rule your Marcus Allen bit about picking the home dogs is also the best way to go.

Dunno too many people though who simply cover the board with picks and unless you're doing that you've got to apply a little more selectivity to your picks.

Of course neither point of yours has anything to do with what I actually said. Also, there's a difference between the betting public at large and the touts and other various betting "wise guys".

Those guys were all in basic agreement that 6.5 was too short. Those guys were in basic agreement that Texas was a hugely attractive pick because they all felt that the line was laughably transparent at 6.5.

10 to 11, that was more where they'd handicapped that line.

6.5 was just way too short for a team as solid as Texas playing a bunch of mediocre talent running around in Nebraska laundry. Texas' team speed and their overall superiority in athletes made for a very easy potential blow out...

Didn't happen though, so oh well.

As for your "counting", it's just typical of you to assume an error about me and then make it another of your half witted tangents.

I didn't go 6-4 on any parlays, dumbass. I went 6-4 on individual picks, following a 7-2-1. I'll let you know if I ever feel strongly enough about three games to recommend 'em as a parlay. In the meantime go ahead and assume we're just talking individual picks here, since that's what Pick 'Em represents...

Truth be told though, I've definitely lost on some of my strongest feeling games this year. I didn't do any parlays on 'em but if I had I would've lost my ass because these were some of the games about which I was pretty damn sure...

-ND vs UCLA. I just can't get those fucking bitches in baby blue and gold right. They screw me every time, no matter which side I pick 'em. They have a capacity to disappoint that's nearly biblical.

-Ohio State vs Penn State. I don't feel bad about that one, except for frustration. I had that one in the bag, big time. PSU's QB fucked me in a way that was just hard to believe. That was one of the worst ways to lose a covered spread...ever.

-USC vs Nebraska. A push. A push that so easily should've been a cover, what with USC sitting on a push and having the ball in scoring position with eons to go...and then oh so uncharacteristically just running out the clock.

I've certainly won more than my share so far but the losses always hit harder and stick longer...

Van wrote:"There was near unanimity.

Texas was also the majority pick here, in the Pick 'Em.

Van wrote:Yes, when the entire betting public is betting one way it's nearly always a good bet to go against the betting public.

Uhm...should I even ask, or is the risk of my head exploding from reading the spinjob too great?


I'll just go with "condolences on the bad beat Van. Better luck next week."

Differentiating the betting public from the oddsmakers and professional touts, is all.

Now, as for all of us here? Yep, the large majority of us took the pipe on that one. Problem is, the large majority of the better betters here (according to their records so far) have won quite a few when they were in agreement.

In the end though you still gotta go with your own picks here, otherwise what's the point?

Van wrote: In the end though you still gotta go with your own picks here, otherwise what's the point?

I did. And between CFB and NFL, I'm 6 for 6.


Worship me. I outpaced your hacks this weekend. If I use phrases like "wise guys," "alpo," and all that other pinky-ringesque lingo, I too could buy a 30 minute saturday morning spot on AM radio.

How are you doing in the Pick 'Em here?

Dinsdale wrote:between CFB and NFL, I'm 6 for 6.

And since I tout "probablities" and whatnot -- I've got Giants +3.5 Monday Night.

What's the probability that I can go 7 for 7?

I'd have to say "not very good."

So, by that logic, Dallas at -3.5 is probably lead-piped.