Yes, those are the games where you want to take advantage of live betting. They aren't all going to be like that.
If I recall correctly, Stanford wrote about playing them at -120, which was the industry standard back then. As more people started winning, books started pricing them at -125, then -130 (plus adding "teaser protection" on so many of their lines, putting a team up at -9 +100 rather than -8.5 -110). As it gets to -135, I'm quite sure that any potential edge is gone (I'm pretty sure it's mostly gone at -130 if playing Wong teasers blindly).
The Tarleton coach has an interesting bio.
Wish I would have put some on the money line!
Yes, other books offer these. You're not going to love this answer, but I pretty much never play parlays unless they are correlated. Typically, the book takes a bigger cut on parlays and makes a lot of money on them. A correlated parlay would be something like taking an underdog and under a low point total, thinking that in order for the dog to cover they will most likely have to keep the score low.
I anticipated your response on parlays in general. Just wondering what other books do. Florida and HR are different than anywhere else. It's just not a good sports book and there's nothing that can be done about it.
At least you get CFB. Oregon legalized sports betting but for pro only. Really annoying.
My 20 year old son spent his summer in Montana. He was very excited when he got there because the legal gambling age is 18. He quickly found out that you can only wager on sports through the Bet Montana app (it's run by the state lottery commision) and you have to be located physically at a licensed sports betting location. He didn't make any bets all summer.
makes no sense.
It was 72.5 on FanDuel when I looked at it. That was too many points for me. I glad I left it alone.
A couple of nice winners the first two weeks. He definitely drove some of that CLV too…moved a point 10 seconds after I played it and stayed there.
I classify it differently. In a league by itself. When we meld a coach's post-game comments - on his in game decisions - w/ gambling, we are in a different world.
I agree with psujr. Ole miss wasn’t really a bad beat. Kentucky was covering the entire game until the last minute and change.
Do you think KY was going to spike the ball had Lane not called TO? If so - to kick a FG or try to throw a TD pass? It's usually TD first (unless you're out of downs) and FG after the onsides, isn't it?
Franklin got sucked into it a few years ago when asked about the final score after a game. I just don't think it should be discussed - ever. espn has their own book now. What grad assistant (or his pals/roommates) isn't booking bets based on what he sees or hears? Certainly not today's version of Mike McQueary. They're probably weaker than even he was b/c sports gambling is everywhere and accepted now.
If you need 9-11 points with very limited tome left, you always kick the FG first (assuming you’re in range, of course), because you’re 1) saving time and 2) setting up a Hail Mary, to satisfy the necessary TD component.
Fewer items with which to wallop the opposition (or snarky commentators) over the head, making it much more difficult to score that TD on the next play, so secure the FG when you can.
