So much for positive territory in gambling. Of course, if my modeling is correct I should be down 3.20 on the dollar. Actually I’m down 4.80, which would be bad, if I were dumb enough to take even odds bets. At least I called the winner for 10 games.
This week the computer actually flagged 3 good bets, been a long time since that happened. The computer says Minnesota will not only cover the spread, but will stomp Detroit. My modeling doesn’t take into account injuries directly and I haven’t looked yet, but did Minnesota lose a star player last week? I didn’t even know they had a star player.
Then the computer says take the under bet in New England vs Buffalo, neither of these teams are going to do all that scoring.
Finally, and this one is suspect, it says Indianapolis will cover the 10 point spread against Pittsburgh by actually beating them. I guess that would depend on the team pulling their heads out of their asses and realizing that Manning was only 1/22 of the team. Granted he was a very good 1/22 piece but no where near the whole team.
|Houston||New Orleans||21||26||New Orleans||4||47|
|New England||Buffalo||24||18||New England||6||41|
|NY Jets||Oakland||23||19||NY Jets||3||42|
|Kansas City||San Diego||18||26||San Diego||8||44|
|Green Bay||Chicago||23||22||Green Bay||1||44|
|New Orleans||4.0||52.0||New Orleans||Under|
|NY Jets||3.0||41.0||NY Jets||Over|
|San Diego||14.5||44.5||Kansas City||Under|
Ok after looking at the news, it would appear that the gamblers’ idea of Minnesota is, after getting beat by a team that far outclasses them, then beat by a mediocre team, they’re done? I’d put real money on my bet.