There's only one play for tonight:

[BearDownAZ]

Play the over! I was able to get it at 37. . . there are several reasons for this play:

1. Both defenses are horrible. . .

2. Washington has played teams with excellent defenses which in my opinion explains their inability to score: Giants, Chiefs (for the most part), Green Bay, and San Diego. They should be able to score against a Cowboy defense that is much worse than these four.

3. Dallas has been able to score against teams with decent defenses, but their problem is they are unable to keep their opponents from scoring!

4. Its Monday Night Football!

5. Fletcher rates this as a 5*. . . LOL

If I had to pick a side, I would have to go with the Cowboys. . . but I won't! The over is a VERY reasonble play here and I have decided to play it for. . . surprise. . . 5 units.

 

[BearDownAZ]

Just found another reason:

6. Raymond is on this play as well! Can't leave him out when I've inlcuded Fletcher. . .

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Totally agree w/you on the over, Bear.

 

[djv]

Well the two togeather avg 23 points. They just need to get you 14 more. In some case that is a push. So you need 15 more. That means you realy need 17 more. To hard to get 15. GL.

 

[Never Caught Up]

Anybody want another reason?

Washington has played OVER in 7 of their L8 games after the NY Giants. Washington has played OVER the total in 7 of their L10 division games. (Source: Marc Lawrence's Playbook)

 

[dr. freeze]

not so fast my friend.......

Dallas's defense isn't too bad.....


Washington has gone under 7 of 8 times after playing Giants? I hope no one bases their bet on this info.....

don't think i am gonna play this one....i am a cowboy fan so that gives me enough reason to watch this one.......

sorry about my plays yesterday Bear....things didn't quite pan out how i saw them -- hit the dreaded ofer....will get em next week though......late

 

[djv]

When they had a differant coach then this one. Good old close to the the vest Stoly.
I think they may have had real QB's then to.
Not saying over is wrong. just saying?

 

[Never Caught Up]

dr. freeze,

I have a hard time finding fault with that info . . . and by the way . . . it is over . . . not under. I didn't say play the over. I passed on information from one of the best trend handicappers in America (in my opinion), Marc Lawrence, and to shoot it down and say "I hope no one bases their bet on this info....." is absurd. It is one ingredienent . . . and I am getting tired of passing on tidbits like this and having them shot down by members of this forum.

Play whatever you want, but stop blasting other peoples ideas and information . . . especially when they never put your ideas and info down.

 

[Never Caught Up]

. . . and if anyone cares, OVER was also a "Steam Move" at 35.5 which indicates syndicate action.

 

[dr. freeze]

that info is irrelevant...trends about after they play a certain team.....that is what i am saying....

basing your bets on something that happened 4 or 5 years ago when coaches were different, and almost every player was different IS absurd.

 

[bgold13]

I wait too long for these monday night games always...but here goes... OVER 38.5 BIG

 

[dr. freeze]

the info about Washington hitting the OVER in the last ten games 7 times IS relevant though....thanks for that piece....

 

[Riddler]

Pardon me...But exactly what is syndicate action

 

[scrubbo]

This game has the making of Stephen Davis right and Emmit Smith Left ,then kick the field goal. That puts the under down the middle. Just my opinion.

[This message has been edited by scrubbo (edited 10-15-2001).]

 

[Never Caught Up]

Dr. Freexe, I make a living doing this. I have no other job. This is it . . . as it has been for 35 years. I do find it relevant to some degree, but not as a stand alone. If enough of the small pieces come together then you have a play. I am sure I don't make the kind of money you do betting sports, but it does pay the bills.

 

[dr. freeze]

i bet 10 bucks a unit so you probably make way more than i do....lol

 

[kosar]

Originally posted by dr. freeze:
that info is irrelevant...trends about after they play a certain team.....that is what i am saying....

basing your bets on something that happened 4 or 5 years ago when coaches were different, and almost every player was different IS absurd.

Dr Freeze,

Exactly right. It makes no sense, yet somehow people buy into this stuff year after year. That's what keeps people like Marc Lawrence and Phil Steele in business.

 

[Never Caught Up]

God, I should have expected a comment like that from the one person on this board I have zero respect for.

I have studied Marc Lawrence's Playbook in great depth for years and whether anyone else agrees or not I could give a shit . . . and I certainly would never expect the great kosar to agree with anything I had to say.

 

[Antonio]

Never ur too good for this bro let it go.

 

[ESQAJM]

DrFreeze: I feel the same as you about a lot of the trend information -that it is irrevelent. But I still think that it should be posted and let each individual decide how relevent it is.
You said that Washington's trend record after playing the Giants is irrevelent. Maybe yes, maybe not. It may indicate that Washington gets up for the Giant game(their arch rival) and then has a letdown the next week and their opponent scores a ton of points and the game goes Over.