Wiretowire
Pretty much a regular
Playoffs 16-7
7-1 yesterday
Thanks for the responses yesterday. GL
A rant..................
I guess I shouldn't do this but last night I'm watching ESPN after the baseball games. Don't ask me why I couldn't sleep so I turned it on hoping it would put me to sleep. Anyway, I see this round table discussion of the so called NCAA football "experts". You know where these jagoffs get together every week and spew their thoughts on who should and should not be in the playoffs.
Oh and by the way, having the playoffs on New years Eve is the single DUMBEST idea I have ever heard of. Seriously the 4 pm game might be ok but do you really think people will watch the fucking 8 pm game and you and I both know that will be the best matchup game. And then there is the ratings. Wow, people will be so drunk they won't even remember the games are on. No, not the folks in this forum. They live and breath sports so of course they will watch it much to the no nookie tonight from the girlfriends and the ensuing divorces from the wives. Casual fans that would watch Saturday night are going to ignore this shit New Years Eve. Don't forget the cardinal rule "No one meets a new person at a party and gets laid watching college football" And who would want to?
Back to ESPN. So each and every "expert" says this 4 teams and that 4 teams will be in the playoffs but each and every one had the Big Ten on the outside looking in. Ohio State, Mich St and Michigan not in the playoffs. Yet almost all of them had both Baylor AND TCU in the final 4. (Don't they play each other the day after Thanksgiving?) Now I'm not a big proponent of the Big 10. It could suck for all I know and see. But really? You are making the same mistake you did last year. The only scenario that says no Big 10 team will be in the playoffs is if they knock each other off. Michigan beats Mich St., Mich St beats Ohio St, and then Ohio St beats Michigan. I don't see that as likely as I think at least one of these teams really sucks and one goes to the playoffs. Which one you ask? How the hell do I know? But I think at least one makes the playoffs because other than each other they play cupcakes and the ESPN "experts" should know that as well. But that's what I get for watching these Bozos at 1 in the morning.
Sorry. Had to be said.
St Louis +2 1/2 -200
I don't think I'll need the runs because I see St Louis winning this one outright but I was taught moving lines to my favor instead of the books was the way to make money gambling. Lackey is more solid than Hammel. Add that Lackey is 4-0 against the Cubs this year and Hammel is 1-2 against the Cards. Also, Mark Carlson behind the plate favors the visiting team with the away team going 18-12 when he calls the game. Well, you get the idea. No total play on this game. If you can't get +2 1/2 (5Dimes) you should be nice and safe taking the +110 on the Cards. Of course +1 1/2 is even safer and can be gotten from just about every book but most people have allergies to high odds.
LA/Mets over 4 1/2 -200 (Guessing at the total here, 5 1/2, because it's not out yet. That whole Wrigley field fear from the bookies.)
Was just about to bet against Kershaw and take the +2 1/2 on the Mets at home for -200 when I realized the total will be nice and low. And the total is safer to me than the side although I just don't feel like the Dodgers have that much going for them offensively. But I do think they can score at least 2 runs and a 2-2 game is a winner unless the total is 6 which I highly doubt. It will be either 5 1/2 or 5 and I will go over 4 1/2 or 4 buying a run off.
I will correct this total in a later post if it's different but I think the total will be 5 1/2 so I can just leave it as is. It might also be only a risk of -190 instead of -200 to buy a run off but if that bothers you, you need serious counseling. GL
7-1 yesterday
Thanks for the responses yesterday. GL
A rant..................
I guess I shouldn't do this but last night I'm watching ESPN after the baseball games. Don't ask me why I couldn't sleep so I turned it on hoping it would put me to sleep. Anyway, I see this round table discussion of the so called NCAA football "experts". You know where these jagoffs get together every week and spew their thoughts on who should and should not be in the playoffs.
Oh and by the way, having the playoffs on New years Eve is the single DUMBEST idea I have ever heard of. Seriously the 4 pm game might be ok but do you really think people will watch the fucking 8 pm game and you and I both know that will be the best matchup game. And then there is the ratings. Wow, people will be so drunk they won't even remember the games are on. No, not the folks in this forum. They live and breath sports so of course they will watch it much to the no nookie tonight from the girlfriends and the ensuing divorces from the wives. Casual fans that would watch Saturday night are going to ignore this shit New Years Eve. Don't forget the cardinal rule "No one meets a new person at a party and gets laid watching college football" And who would want to?
Back to ESPN. So each and every "expert" says this 4 teams and that 4 teams will be in the playoffs but each and every one had the Big Ten on the outside looking in. Ohio State, Mich St and Michigan not in the playoffs. Yet almost all of them had both Baylor AND TCU in the final 4. (Don't they play each other the day after Thanksgiving?) Now I'm not a big proponent of the Big 10. It could suck for all I know and see. But really? You are making the same mistake you did last year. The only scenario that says no Big 10 team will be in the playoffs is if they knock each other off. Michigan beats Mich St., Mich St beats Ohio St, and then Ohio St beats Michigan. I don't see that as likely as I think at least one of these teams really sucks and one goes to the playoffs. Which one you ask? How the hell do I know? But I think at least one makes the playoffs because other than each other they play cupcakes and the ESPN "experts" should know that as well. But that's what I get for watching these Bozos at 1 in the morning.
Sorry. Had to be said.
St Louis +2 1/2 -200
I don't think I'll need the runs because I see St Louis winning this one outright but I was taught moving lines to my favor instead of the books was the way to make money gambling. Lackey is more solid than Hammel. Add that Lackey is 4-0 against the Cubs this year and Hammel is 1-2 against the Cards. Also, Mark Carlson behind the plate favors the visiting team with the away team going 18-12 when he calls the game. Well, you get the idea. No total play on this game. If you can't get +2 1/2 (5Dimes) you should be nice and safe taking the +110 on the Cards. Of course +1 1/2 is even safer and can be gotten from just about every book but most people have allergies to high odds.
LA/Mets over 4 1/2 -200 (Guessing at the total here, 5 1/2, because it's not out yet. That whole Wrigley field fear from the bookies.)
Was just about to bet against Kershaw and take the +2 1/2 on the Mets at home for -200 when I realized the total will be nice and low. And the total is safer to me than the side although I just don't feel like the Dodgers have that much going for them offensively. But I do think they can score at least 2 runs and a 2-2 game is a winner unless the total is 6 which I highly doubt. It will be either 5 1/2 or 5 and I will go over 4 1/2 or 4 buying a run off.
I will correct this total in a later post if it's different but I think the total will be 5 1/2 so I can just leave it as is. It might also be only a risk of -190 instead of -200 to buy a run off but if that bothers you, you need serious counseling. GL
