Mattress Mack

[Roman]

Runhappy must have covered a lot of mares!
https://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/33211981/texas-salesman-mattress-mack-places-45-million-bet-cincinnati-bengals-spring-super-bowl-lvi-upset

[prist]

I think he bet on a winner. Joe Burrow looks like the real deal.

[jbelfior]

Bad bets win sometimes.


Good Luck,
Joe B.

[toppled]

I\'m expecting to take a (very) small % of Mack\'s money when Caesars pays off my Rams -3.5 bet. I also got a free bet before the conference championshp that pays +210 on the Rams winning the Super Bowl.
People are really underestimating the huge advantage the Rams have sitting home at nights in the Super Bowl city & never having to travel. That\'s 3 weeks at home (they last traveled for the Tampa game)versus no home games for the Bengals this postseason. While the crowd won\'t provide a typical home field advantage, just the far less hectic 2 weeks before the game for the 2nd straight home team in the Super Bowl will make the Rams very tough to beat.
Last year I thought Tampa was a lock for the same reasons & I didn\'t bet the game. I\'m not making that mistake 2 years in a row.

[confused]

The Bengals coaching staff formed a new defensive game plan at halftime against the Chiefs and almost completely shut them down.  They\'ve got a big edge in coaching.  They should win.

[statuette]

100%

[P-Dub]

toppled Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'m expecting to take a (very) small % of Mack\'s
> money when Caesars pays off my Rams -3.5 bet. I
> also got a free bet before the conference
> championshp that pays +210 on the Rams winning the
> Super Bowl.
> People are really underestimating the huge
> advantage the Rams have sitting home at nights in
> the Super Bowl city & never having to travel.
> That\'s 3 weeks at home (they last traveled for the
> Tampa game)versus no home games for the Bengals
> this postseason. While the crowd won\'t provide a
> typical home field advantage, just the far less
> hectic 2 weeks before the game for the 2nd
> straight home team in the Super Bowl will make the
> Rams very tough to beat.
> Last year I thought Tampa was a lock for the same
> reasons & I didn\'t bet the game. I\'m not making
> that mistake 2 years in a row.

TB won because the KC OL was a mess.

Being at home is nice, but teams lose all the time playing at home. Its a 2 week break from the last game, Cincinnati will get to LA in plenty of time. Travel will be a non-issue.

Travel didn\'t bother them last week in KC, in fact they dominated the 2H.

SF played 6 of 8 games on the road going into the LAR game. Travel didn\'t really affect them either.

[P-Dub]

confused Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Bengals coaching staff formed a new defensive
> game plan at halftime against the Chiefs and
> almost completely shut them down.  They\'ve got a
> big edge in coaching.  They should win.


Super Bowl teams that have won fewer games than their opponents are 13-2 ATS since 2001.

The 2 losses were the Oakland meltdown in SD when their center went AWOL and the other coach knew their signals (I was there, that entire week for me is a story in itself), and Atlanta who blew the biggest lead in SB history.

9 of the past 12 have gone Under, 5 of the last 6 with the lone Over being the Atlanta meltdown which went Over in OT

[Strike]

Go RAMS! Very exciting in Los Angeles these days. Both coaching staffs are young and aggressive. Neither will be caught flat-footed in the second half.

[TGJB]

I took 10-1 for decent money on the Rams about a month before the end of the season, based on the premise that they were built to beat top QBs (they can get pressure without having to blitz). As it turned out they didn't have to deal with Rogers or Mahones, and Brady had no weapons. And all of these playoff games have really been coin tosses anyway. So I'm not claiming to have been right.

Anyway, it's an easy hedge from here if I want it.

Full disclosure— took a little Titans back then too.

McVay can't possibly have that bad a game again... right?

[statuette]

I know a "bungles" fan who took them @ 150-1 before the season

[P-Dub]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I took 10-1 for decent money on the Rams about a
> month before the end of the season, based on the
> premise that they were built to beat top QBs (they
> can get pressure without having to blitz). As it
> turned out they didn't have to deal with Rogers
> or Mahones, and Brady had no weapons. And all of
> these playoff games have really been coin tosses
> anyway. So I'm not claiming to have been right.
>
> Anyway, it's an easy hedge from here if I want
> it.
>
> Full discourse— took a little Titans back then
> too.
>
> McVay can't possibly have that bad a game
> again... right?

Horses......and coaches...can be perplexing........even with the best data.

Decent money sounds like hedge time.

If you do hedge, do you grab +175 or +4.5 for a possible scoop??

[TGJB]

I've had that conversation with some friends. I'm inclined to bet less and take it as a straight up hedge. In general,I don't like points, I try to find occasional dogs that I think have a good chance yo win outright. Which has the obvious benefit of limiting the number of games I bet.

And the guy who never uses visual observation with horses does 90% that with football.

[relgan1]

I know you like and watch basketball. Do you ever bet?

[TGJB]

I barely even watch it any more, pretty much just March Madness and the playoffs.