I Suck this Week
This morning I finished 61st out of 700+ in the Guaranteed $10,000 NL Rebuy, winning a little over $60, and netting about $46 after the entry fee, a rebuy, and an add-on. Unfortunately, I also played in a $50,000 Guaranteed Tournament with unlimited rebuys, which cost me $60 or $80, so my pokerroom.com account continues to dwindle.
In the sports betting side of the house I've experienced some recent dwindling too, going 1-4-1 last week. Ick! I took all road favorites, and one road dog, who I really thought should have been a favorite. It's a little too soon to disrespect a Super Bowl champ by making them a home dog, but PITTSBURGH(-2) implies that Cincy would be favored by 1 at a neutral site....Prediction: Pittsburgh WILL be an underdog at home by the end of the season. I haven't even looked at their schedule, but I am assuming that they play somebody that will look strong enough at whatever point in the year that they will be giving the Steelers points. Hold on--I'll check their schedule.....
Hmmmm. Their schedule doesn't seem that tough for a Super Bowl champ. November 5th vs. Denver, or Baltimore look like their toughest home games, but either of these teams could easily struggle enough to be a dog at Pittsburgh. I think Cincy was Pittsburgh's toughest home game, and if that game was at the end of the season I think the Bengals would have been favored. Of course, this is because I see them going 12-4 or 13-3. If Pittsburgh makes the playoffs it will be as the wild card, possibly the 6th seed again, and prouble ossibly as a 3rd place team behind the Ravens as well as the Bengals. Will 9-7 get them a seed this year? 10-6? Maybe.
I knew I was in trouble when my only NFL pick that agreed with Bill Simmons was the Steeler game. He did the smart thing and took those home dogs. Basically the key question involved the ceilings for the early hot teams. If these teams REALLY were dominant (or if they were really hot) they would handle their divisional rivals on the road.
In college football I only bet on one team. Basically my assumption about the Washington Huskies is that given enough time, Ty Willingham will turn them into winners. Meanwhile, I've been making $$ betting against them.
Well, not this time. Is this the year the Huskies raise their game, or was this just a blip caused by the notoriously suspect UCLA defense? (Note: every game where Pugilant Mick and I have taken the same teams we have lost. Lovely. Say no to Stanford and UCLA....
UCLA was favored by 3 and lost by about 10. Purdue beat Minnesota 27-21, but I bet on the 60.5 point OVER, which was apporoached but not surpassed.
I had a 4/5 vig for the Bears game, but only gave 3 points, while bodog was at 4 and bet365 moved to 4 at the end of the week. Good thing, because I got the push: Bears beat Vikes, 19-16.
The Bengals (+2) beat Pittsburgh 28-20. I've said enough about this.
--I still haven't done a post-Super Bowl blog. Needless to say, picking Seattle didn't get me a cover, but I still think it was a good pick. If you check back, I predicted that Pittsburgh would not be able to consistently move the ball against Seattle, so they would need big plays to win, and that is exactly what happened. That and alot of timely penalties and dropped passes from the Seahawks....
Ironically, after correctly picking against the 'Hawks in the Super Bowl, and predicting the typical next-season collapse for the runners-up, Bill Simmons is currently all over the collective Seahawk jock, rating them the second best team in the NFL currently, not putting them first because of Shawn Alexander's broken foot. I might agree with this at the end of the season, but come on--they beat Detroit 9-6 three weeks ago. What happend, bad vibes from Ford Field? When was the last time a team played in the Super Bowl in a given stadium, then opened the next season in the same place? For now I'm guessing the 49ers and the Superdome, or maybe Miami and the Orange Bowl. I suppose this could mess with the Seahawks a bit. I hope they have an excuse, because the Packers jsut won there by 7.
In any case, I think rating the Seahawks this high makes about as much sense as starting Pittsburgh at the top of the Power Rankings, or picking Carolina to go to the Super Bowl. (The Panthers tend to start out slow, but I still don't see them as THE pick, any more than you can take Atlanta...)
You took Atlanta? Me too, last week against the Saints--oops. I figured I'd take the Falcons because they have a good defense, which could contain Reggie Bush, and they did, but the Saints managed to do a tremendous job using him as a decoy, while their special teams decided the game in the first quarter. I was happy to give 3.5 while most gave 4 on this game, but New Orleans was happy to embarrass the Falcons, 23-3. Conspiracy theories abound that Atlanta threw this game, and while this is probably not true, it sure looks that way. Maybe the Saints will take a dive later on....or maybe they will just play like the Saints we are used to.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that segue into the Monday night game, but before all that, baltimore(-6.5) scored 12 points in the 4th quarter to come back and win at CLEVELAND, 15-14, but did not cover, obviously. And to think I might take the Ravens again this week, though as a home dog. Shame on me.
In the sports betting side of the house I've experienced some recent dwindling too, going 1-4-1 last week. Ick! I took all road favorites, and one road dog, who I really thought should have been a favorite. It's a little too soon to disrespect a Super Bowl champ by making them a home dog, but PITTSBURGH(-2) implies that Cincy would be favored by 1 at a neutral site....Prediction: Pittsburgh WILL be an underdog at home by the end of the season. I haven't even looked at their schedule, but I am assuming that they play somebody that will look strong enough at whatever point in the year that they will be giving the Steelers points. Hold on--I'll check their schedule.....
Hmmmm. Their schedule doesn't seem that tough for a Super Bowl champ. November 5th vs. Denver, or Baltimore look like their toughest home games, but either of these teams could easily struggle enough to be a dog at Pittsburgh. I think Cincy was Pittsburgh's toughest home game, and if that game was at the end of the season I think the Bengals would have been favored. Of course, this is because I see them going 12-4 or 13-3. If Pittsburgh makes the playoffs it will be as the wild card, possibly the 6th seed again, and prouble ossibly as a 3rd place team behind the Ravens as well as the Bengals. Will 9-7 get them a seed this year? 10-6? Maybe.
I knew I was in trouble when my only NFL pick that agreed with Bill Simmons was the Steeler game. He did the smart thing and took those home dogs. Basically the key question involved the ceilings for the early hot teams. If these teams REALLY were dominant (or if they were really hot) they would handle their divisional rivals on the road.
In college football I only bet on one team. Basically my assumption about the Washington Huskies is that given enough time, Ty Willingham will turn them into winners. Meanwhile, I've been making $$ betting against them.
Well, not this time. Is this the year the Huskies raise their game, or was this just a blip caused by the notoriously suspect UCLA defense? (Note: every game where Pugilant Mick and I have taken the same teams we have lost. Lovely. Say no to Stanford and UCLA....
UCLA was favored by 3 and lost by about 10. Purdue beat Minnesota 27-21, but I bet on the 60.5 point OVER, which was apporoached but not surpassed.
I had a 4/5 vig for the Bears game, but only gave 3 points, while bodog was at 4 and bet365 moved to 4 at the end of the week. Good thing, because I got the push: Bears beat Vikes, 19-16.
The Bengals (+2) beat Pittsburgh 28-20. I've said enough about this.
--I still haven't done a post-Super Bowl blog. Needless to say, picking Seattle didn't get me a cover, but I still think it was a good pick. If you check back, I predicted that Pittsburgh would not be able to consistently move the ball against Seattle, so they would need big plays to win, and that is exactly what happened. That and alot of timely penalties and dropped passes from the Seahawks....
Ironically, after correctly picking against the 'Hawks in the Super Bowl, and predicting the typical next-season collapse for the runners-up, Bill Simmons is currently all over the collective Seahawk jock, rating them the second best team in the NFL currently, not putting them first because of Shawn Alexander's broken foot. I might agree with this at the end of the season, but come on--they beat Detroit 9-6 three weeks ago. What happend, bad vibes from Ford Field? When was the last time a team played in the Super Bowl in a given stadium, then opened the next season in the same place? For now I'm guessing the 49ers and the Superdome, or maybe Miami and the Orange Bowl. I suppose this could mess with the Seahawks a bit. I hope they have an excuse, because the Packers jsut won there by 7.
In any case, I think rating the Seahawks this high makes about as much sense as starting Pittsburgh at the top of the Power Rankings, or picking Carolina to go to the Super Bowl. (The Panthers tend to start out slow, but I still don't see them as THE pick, any more than you can take Atlanta...)
You took Atlanta? Me too, last week against the Saints--oops. I figured I'd take the Falcons because they have a good defense, which could contain Reggie Bush, and they did, but the Saints managed to do a tremendous job using him as a decoy, while their special teams decided the game in the first quarter. I was happy to give 3.5 while most gave 4 on this game, but New Orleans was happy to embarrass the Falcons, 23-3. Conspiracy theories abound that Atlanta threw this game, and while this is probably not true, it sure looks that way. Maybe the Saints will take a dive later on....or maybe they will just play like the Saints we are used to.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that segue into the Monday night game, but before all that, baltimore(-6.5) scored 12 points in the 4th quarter to come back and win at CLEVELAND, 15-14, but did not cover, obviously. And to think I might take the Ravens again this week, though as a home dog. Shame on me.
posted by roQQ | 4:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home