Oct. 6-7: NCAA Week 6; NFL Week 5
Last week was another losing week for the bankroll plays, which is especially frustrating as I did well overall but left out several winners. I might have to do what I did in the Form last year and just list all my plays, even if they're at numbers that aren't available any more. But that's my pessimistic side coming out, and I'd rather have faith that my top plays are really my top plays. The bankroll plays were 3-4 last week to drop my overall record here to 13-18 for a net loss of 6.8 units (based on risking 1.1 units to win 1). Continuing my experiment with keeping a separate bankroll if all the same plays were made on the money line, I had Indiana at +340 with four other teams not winning straight up for a net loss of 0.6 units. That puts the ML bankroll at -6 units, which is slightly better than the ATS bankroll, but nothing to brag about. Now, you'll notice that only adds up to five money-line plays for the week and that's because there weren't any money lines available in Vegas (or at least that I could find) on Idaho vs. Hawaii or Auburn vs. Florida. That's a shame, of course, as Auburn upset Florida and there were lines of +900 up to +1200 available offshore on the Gators, which would have wiped out the losses in one well swoop, but I couldn't in good conscience take credit for that since I wasn't able to bet it myself or that wasn't available to most bettors.
If you think that's interesting peek into my little world, how about this story. One of my picks last week was on the Bengals +7.5 vs. the Patriots on Monday Night Football. I thought anyone taking issue with the play would point to the Pats' dominance so far this season or the Bengals' porous defense. Instead, I received an e-mail from David Pollard of Texas that read, "I saved one of your Daily Racing Form articles from last year where you point out "the Bengals had gone 2-16 against the spread in the fourth game of the last 18 seasons." The Bengals are now 2-17 against the spread in the fourth game and I was surprised to see you are taking them +7 1/2 against New England. What gives?" I explained to him that the column he was referring to was a tongue-in-cheek look at how I have had a ton of success in recent years in Week 15 of the NFL season but that it was really a fluke or statistical anomoly. Be that as it may, the Bengals lost and are now 2-18 (10 percent) against the spread in Week 4 over the past 20 years. That loss dropped my NFL plays to 2-3 on the week and dropped the season record to 10-10 for a net loss of 1.1 units. The ML version fared much better as the Browns upset the Ravens at +190 and the Cardinals knocked off the Steelers at +240 to show a net profit of 1.3 units (after subtracting the three ML losers). However, for the year, the ML bankroll is at -2.7 units.
So, it's October and time to turn over a new leaf and find some winners on Saturday's college card:
Duke +7.5 vs. Wake Forest (+250)
Virginia Tech +5.5 vs. Clemson (+190)
Georgia +1.5 vs. Tennessee (-110)
Nevada -3.5 vs. Fresno St. (-140)
Houston +10.5 vs. Alabama (+370)
Florida +8.5 vs. LSU (+250)
Purdue +7.5 vs. Ohio St. (+240)
And now for the NFL, with all plays on Sunday (lines are from Hilton contest, ML available as of Friday):
Lions +3.5 vs. Redskins (+180)...Skins' best chance it to keep it low-scoring, but like Lions in a shootout
Falcons +8 vs. Titans (+330)...line adjusted too high on Titans team not used to being favored
Seahawks +5.5 vs. Steelers (+230)...Steelers exposed vs. Cards; Seahawks should get this many points
Buccaneers +9.5 vs. Colts (+425)...Bucs still flying under radar, until this week...could be upset of the week
Chargers PK vs. Broncos (EVEN)...better team with backs to the wall...Norm has to give LT the ball, right?
If you think that's interesting peek into my little world, how about this story. One of my picks last week was on the Bengals +7.5 vs. the Patriots on Monday Night Football. I thought anyone taking issue with the play would point to the Pats' dominance so far this season or the Bengals' porous defense. Instead, I received an e-mail from David Pollard of Texas that read, "I saved one of your Daily Racing Form articles from last year where you point out "the Bengals had gone 2-16 against the spread in the fourth game of the last 18 seasons." The Bengals are now 2-17 against the spread in the fourth game and I was surprised to see you are taking them +7 1/2 against New England. What gives?" I explained to him that the column he was referring to was a tongue-in-cheek look at how I have had a ton of success in recent years in Week 15 of the NFL season but that it was really a fluke or statistical anomoly. Be that as it may, the Bengals lost and are now 2-18 (10 percent) against the spread in Week 4 over the past 20 years. That loss dropped my NFL plays to 2-3 on the week and dropped the season record to 10-10 for a net loss of 1.1 units. The ML version fared much better as the Browns upset the Ravens at +190 and the Cardinals knocked off the Steelers at +240 to show a net profit of 1.3 units (after subtracting the three ML losers). However, for the year, the ML bankroll is at -2.7 units.
So, it's October and time to turn over a new leaf and find some winners on Saturday's college card:
Duke +7.5 vs. Wake Forest (+250)
Virginia Tech +5.5 vs. Clemson (+190)
Georgia +1.5 vs. Tennessee (-110)
Nevada -3.5 vs. Fresno St. (-140)
Houston +10.5 vs. Alabama (+370)
Florida +8.5 vs. LSU (+250)
Purdue +7.5 vs. Ohio St. (+240)
And now for the NFL, with all plays on Sunday (lines are from Hilton contest, ML available as of Friday):
Lions +3.5 vs. Redskins (+180)...Skins' best chance it to keep it low-scoring, but like Lions in a shootout
Falcons +8 vs. Titans (+330)...line adjusted too high on Titans team not used to being favored
Seahawks +5.5 vs. Steelers (+230)...Steelers exposed vs. Cards; Seahawks should get this many points
Buccaneers +9.5 vs. Colts (+425)...Bucs still flying under radar, until this week...could be upset of the week
Chargers PK vs. Broncos (EVEN)...better team with backs to the wall...Norm has to give LT the ball, right?
Comments