Losses mounting, Iowa! Extra CBB YTD: 15-18

Arkansas Pine Bluff +9.5
Jackson State +5

I took Seattle 2H -115 pick and 2H o19 +120

Lets get this XFL record to losing by the end of the week

overs live boys

CHI Robin Lehner u30.5 -114
ARI Antti Raanta u29.5 -125

lol @ people pounding that 2H under from 20 to 17.5

easy cash 7 mins in. Lets get that full game over now.

looks like 5-2 day

losses on ny spread, tb/sea fg over

wins on ny under, ny under 2h, seattle spread, seattle 2H spread, seattle 2H over (at a nice +120)

to bring us to 11-3

not bad, but not action network level yet

and unless tampa goes 8-0, our u7.5 wins is going to cash

look at the history of super speed ways.

most of the cars near the front never win. the best strat in these types of races is hang in the back, let everyone crash, then make a move with 30 or so laps left. it's what austin dillon did last year.

the avg finishing position for people in the top 10 is ~15th or so in the history of daytona. think only one person ever won from the pole

other types of races sure pole is good, but not these kinds. there's of course certain teams who take pride in the pole, but others have smartened up and realize it's stupid.

Interesting, thank you

Landry Jones missing wide open WRs for TDs like he's back in the Steel City.

there's that elite LA defense i thought they had

9 turnovers in the red zone, classic game

like did you see in the 500 about 7 people just braked and went immediately to the back. pretty soon people will always break and no one will want to drive

Happy Sunday

As I said I was looking into soccer over/under total corners
Reason I thought it was worth looking into, aside from the usual choice of 10.5, Betonline offers in the player prop bets the choice of 9.5, 10.5, 12.5,12.5.
I ran ok, going 4 for 7, but ended up only breaking even.
They only allow these bets on parlays, and the lines are on average bad, although I did get one for a nice -118.
So, I don't think these are sharp bets. But I will continue to make one or two a week if I find anything good.
I won't clutter the thread with this bet anymore.
So, I'll leave it up to the sharps of this thread to decide if they find this interesting.

Bilbao vs Ossasuna u11.5
Cagliari vs Napoli u12.5 / win

Bilbao vs Ossasuna u12.5
Sev vs Espanyol u12.5 /win

Mainz vs S04 u12.5
Sec vs Esp. u11.5 / win

Lazio vs Spal o9.5
Cagliari vs Napoli u12.5 / win

A. Villa vs Tot u11.5
Wolv vs Leicester u11.5 / loss

Udinese vs Verona u12.5
Ata vs Roma u12.5 / loss

Lec vs Spal u11.5
Bol vs Genoa u11.5/ loss

looks like easy 1-0 with houston covering. i'm calling it now.

12-3 XFL

how the f do we do it?

Missed an opportunity to tell him the person in the poll position either did or didn't run out of gas

Will this be your tout catchphrase?

Congrats, seems like XFL is exploitable, very nice.

this is the worst beat in the history of the xfl

A few NFL Combine props have gone up. They seem to miss the ball completely on at least a few of these every year.

Henry Ruggs III O/U 4.38

If you follow college football and/or the NFL Draft, you'll know this is criminally high number for Ruggs, who ran a 4.22 at the Alabama Junior Pro Day and is widely regarded as the fastest man in college football.

I don't know what books other than BetOnline has it, but sadly there limit is incredibly low. But, it's a free lunch, so what the heck.

Ruggs o/u 4.38 is now -400/+250, nice find. I played Jeudy u 4.44 -120, he allegedley ran a 4.40 at the junior pro day and I have to imagine he's been training to focus on the 40 as it's the biggest combine event wrt draft stock for WRs.

Saves Daily: 0-2-0, -2.39u
Saves YTD: 25-22-5, -0.32u, 60.19u risked, -0.5% ROI

Catching up. As usual the wheels come off

No one should ever be afraid about posting in this thread because they aren't sure if they can provide value. I'm a loser, guys. Let's work together so that when DefNotRsigley returns from vacation he is amazed at our progress. All thoughts, bets, and contributions are welcome here.

Yes, it shot up insanely fast once word started spreading.

I maxed it at -120 (again, quite unfortunate the max bet is so low), then it had gone up to -200 for a bit later, then they brought it off the board for a while. Reopened it at -400.

A few others shot to -400, including Jalen Hurts slower than 4.58 which I contemplated, but I was happy to get Ruggs at that insane number.

If you don't mind paying the juice, then you can still nab $50 barring a pulled hammy on the first ran. He clocked in-game speeds of 24.3 mph and 23.27 mph last year. Tyreek's fastest was 23.24 mph, and he ran a 4.25 at his Pro Day.

EDIT: I also don't mind Jeudy at U4.44. Guy is exceptional quick on the field as well. Does look like he has long legs for being around 6-1 though. Unsure if that helps or hurt him in a short race.

He's going on vacation? And miss the XFL?

Yeah esports is weird for a wide variety of reasons and Id bet the things you mentioned ring more true there than in traditional sports. Either way I have a very basic model and a meh background in statistics and I'm doing ok - even with the massive vig so I'm confident its beatable. I think the high vig and low limits keep the truly sharp bettors away but I imagine if they ventured into it theyd crush.

I also had a few theoretical questions i figured Id toss to the syndicate to help me make more informed decisions for my grocery money:

First, the western leagues are set up to play their games over the weekend, with each team playing 2 games - 1 on each day. It seems obvious to try and bet the day 1 games as early as possible to get the best possible lines, but should I be waiting until the day 1 games play before betting the day 2 games? Essentially do you think the value we lose in not getting early week lines is made up for by having slightly better projections since we gain more info by seeing another game?

Second, and this question is really one I should just look at the numbers myself, but the asian leagues play their matches in a best of three format. My theory is that when a third game is necessary both teams play a very risk averse style because they dont want to make the series-losing mistake, so chances are the kill total over/unders will generally lean towards the under. Most of this is just gonna be me looking at match data, but is there another sport where a similar thing happens?

can't speak for the other stuff but my sportsbetting noob intuition based upon you crushing early lines would be to put out your standard unit and then double down with a second helping if you still see something you like after the first round

for the bolded, this 100% happens in soccer. the phrase is called "parking the bus" where teams basically put everyone on defense and try to grind out a 0-0 tie where they'll try to score a goal here or there when the other team makes a big mistake.

the on/off switch between all out defense and all out attack is especially noticeable in 2 leg matches where they have aggregate scoring such as the champions league after the group stage. This means for the second leg each team knows what specific outcome they need.

anecdotally you often see teams that typically score only one or two goals against much weaker opponents suddenly score 5 goals against an elite defender and they magically needed 5 goals to win the overall match.

i haven't found any studies on it and this is so far down my pipeline of scraping and studying but these tend to agree there may be something to it even if they were looking at the problem with a different perspective

i have found some that found while the general public believes the team that plays the second game at home should have the advantage, it's actually the opposite. the reason for this is that away goals count as a tie breaker (if you tie 0-0 one game and 1-1 the other game the winner is the team that played as the away team in the 1-1 game whereas if aggregate is 1-1 after two 1-0 matches then they'll instead go into whatever in play tie breaker they normally do such as extra time or penalty shootout.

those papers don't really do much on the why because that's not scientific and highly speculative - but the first game is usually played normally and the second game played according to specific conditions with a specific target in mind. In soccer, the only measurable advantage to home field is referee influence via booking (minor) and extra time (if home team is losing there is nearly always more extra time than normal and vice versa) and this is crowd driven as stadiums with a track around them and more distance between the stands and field have smaller home field advantages than stadiums dedicated to soccer where fans are closer - given that refs in the champion's league would be under a whole extra layer of scrutiny, they'll likely be more honest than usual and thus those advantages are highly negated in exchange and thus it now becomes more advantageous to be the away side in the final game because more goals are scored in the second game and the away team gets the tie breaker so the the team that plays as the away team in what is usually the higher scoring game will win any ties

last year's semifinals in the champion's league

tottenham vs ajax

game 1

tottenham does a 3-4-2-1 formation vs Ajax 4-3-2-1
tottenham took 12 shots vs 10 for Ajax


game 2

Ajax needs to just not get outscored here so they keep their normal formation that worked in game one (they even pulled back the striker a bit more so it's really a 4-3-3 now but Tottenham absolutely needs to score one more than Ajax as well as 2 goals to win free and clear so they take on a more agressive 4-3-1-2

in this game the shot volume nearly doubled to 24 for tot and 16 for Ajax

tottenham got their goals winning 3-2. Ajax gave up less than a goal a game over the course of the season and Tottenham scored <2 goals a game over the course of the season and let in about a goal a game in their respective leagues. This is obviously a little different because they are now facing tougher competition than in their own leagues but still you get the idea that being forced to score forced tottenham to take more risks in the second game out of necessity and by doing so let in more opposing goals than normal too both compared to game 1 and their regular season averages.

the counter argument is barcelona vs liverpool. Here there was no change in formation, both teams played 4-3-3 both games.

Barcelona won game one 3-0 and then Liverpool won game two 4-0. Here, like the formations between games, the shot volume was basically the same as well with 14-11 adv liverpool in game one and 13-8 liverpool in game two. Here though it's a slightly different dynamic as Barca in theory had a much easier path than Ajax needing to just not allow 4 or more goals than their own scoring total and Liverpool had to be extra careful since they put up a goose egg as the away team meaning if barca scored a single goal, they'd win the tie breaker

maybe this is just noise but i've definitely noticed a trend of there being more goals in the second leg as usually one team is forced to stop "parking the bus" and go out on attack which opens up scoring opportunities for both sides

champions league dfs has been pretty good for me because it's far easier to predict game scripts - but to be fair it's an extremely limited sample size so I could be completely wrong about all of this - could very well be ashamed of this post in the near future

the counter argument is barcelona vs liverpool. Here there was no change in formation, both teams played 4-3-3 both games.


Except no Mo or Firmino in 2nd leg if I recall which biggggley matters, xG and other predictive measurements/stats id look into rick (ton of noise in soccer).

Obviously more information is better than less. If there isn't a risk of missing out on the opportunity due to a line move then yes you should wait until you have more information before placing your bets. If it happens often enough that you miss out on good bets because you waited then you should probably bet earlier. Keep a mental note of the EV you gain from waiting vs the EV you lose from missed bets and decide which is better for you.