Asking Bad Teams To Cover

[Combato]

I have never liked the idea of asking a bad team to win or cover. I refuse to bet on Dallas, Detroit, or Buffalo regardless of what I or anyone else thinks. I think anyone who bets on bad teams is asking for trouble regardless of whatever the perceived value may be on any particular bad team.

 

[MrMoney]

Great comment. You are spot on with your statment.

MM

 

[phoenix566]

If the linesmaker tells you who the favorite is, no reason they should not win and cover the spread with ease....

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Dallas = 4-4 ATS
Detroit = 3-4-1 ATS
Buffalo = 2-6 ATS

You should have been refusing to bet only on Buffalo all along. And now they'll probably start winning a few ATS as the spread record usually evens out.

 

[Combato]

My problem with asking bad teams to cover is the timing of what weeks to bet them and what weeks to avoid. Bad teams seem to beat a bettor when he needs them the most. I admit this is a subjective thing. If one wants to bet on Buffalo every game from here on out, then be my guest. But I think I will pass on that one.

 

[djv]

Dallas has over achived. I believe. Lets see next two weeks how they do.

 

[iahawk06]

Asking Bad teams to cover for you...exactly!

Thats why I am asking these good teams to win for me and playing their money lines!

<b>
Bears
Browns
Jets
</b>

ALL WINNERS TODAY! TAKE THEM TO THE BANK! ALL MONEYLINE PLAYS!


------------------
GO HAWKS!
iahawk06

 

[iahawk06]

Like I said, play moneylines on good teams,

Bears, Jets, Browns all good teams

Dallas,Carolina,and Lions ,& Bills all bad!

------------------
GO HAWKS!
iahawk06

 

[TexasBC6]

Originally posted by Combato:
My problem with asking bad teams to cover is the timing of what weeks to bet them and what weeks to avoid. Bad teams seem to beat a bettor when he needs them the most. I admit this is a subjective thing.

I don't really understand the significance of this statement. Are you implying that you don't have any problem knowing when to bet favorites and when to avoid them? If you substitute *good* both times you used the word *bad* in the post above, how does the meaning really change?

My point is, you claim that "anyone who bets on bad teams is asking for trouble regardless of whatever the perceived value may be on any particular bad team," and then proceed to support that statement by saying it is hard to figure out when to bet on a team and when to avoid betting on that team. I would say it is difficult to know when to bet on ANY team - good, bad, mediocre, whatever. To say that bettors are asking for trouble by betting on bad teams regardless of whatever the perceived value may be on any particular bad team just doesn't make sense. I would contend that betting on bad teams could actually be the smarter option in many instances simply because Joe Public pushes the lines towards the favorites and therefore leaves value on the underdogs.

Just my thoughts, good luck.