Thursdays totals

[Valuist]

I've been on fire w/totals lately and both of yesterdays posted plays, over in the Cinc/Char and over in the Virg/NCSt game came in. Here's today's projections and plays:

Illinois @ Michigan: projection 136 line: 143 play: UNDER
Seton Hall/Pitt projection: 136 line 133.5: PASS unless it hits 132
Oregon St @ Cal projection: 122.5 line: 131 UNDER
Oregon @ Stanford projection: 166.5 line 155 play: OVER

 

[nighthorse]

Your totals have been very, very good to me. Hate playing overs, almost always take your recommended unders. (when the books post em). Hard to argue your numbers, probably start throwing a little on your overs too. Thanks for all the good work.

 

[superbook]

Valuist --

Thanks for posting; seems like the books can be beat on totals more easily than sides.

Do you ever look at First Half totals? I had posted a question re: an opinion on PITT/SH First Half total of 61.

Also there seems to be a bigger discrepancy from book to book on totals. For example GCS had IL/MI Over/Under at 144 and Ore St/Cal at 128. They had no line on ORE/STAN.

FWIW GCS had PITT/SH at 131.5.

Thanks.

- Jon

 

[Valuist]

I don't usually play first half totals. I know Teddy KGB pointed out the Big East trend of 1st half under, 2nd half over and its been solid. I'll sometimes play a 2nd half total if the first half has been unusually high or low; playing the 2nd half the opposite way of the first half

Superbook, I've seen that 133 total on Covers site where it posts about 8 different sportsbooks. Its ALWAYS 133 so there's something wrong there. Definitely feel totals are easier than sides. LV spends 95% of their time on Power Ratings for good side numbers then probably uses some lame averages for totals.
Another thing I've noticed is the line moves on CBB totals are often wrong. The Providence game last Sat was bet up something like 5 pts and went under.

Nighthorse, thanks for the props. Never hesitate to bet ACC totals over. I didn't think last nights game would get over, but foul a rama at the end pushed it over.

 

[doc]

I was gonna post a new thread until i read yours about totals..

I was gonna post a new thread until i read yours about totals..

The game that intrestes me the most is the Illinois/Michigan game. I absolutely fell in love with the under, If Illinois is going to win this game it's going to have to be with defence, cause they aren't out scoring anybody, not sure but why. Flecther is right way more than he is wrong, i'm not sure thier coach is smart enough to realize that, illinois needs a win bad and i really dont' think there looking to blow anyone a way, hey a win buy 1 point is a win, and michigan is not gonna let them run and gun, this total looks to good to be true, but i'm gonna take the under anyway. And thanks for insight on the totals. GL

 

[Valuist]

Doc-

You're absolutely right. Numbers aside, Illinois really needs the game, and they can at least play with intensity on the defensive side of the ball. They have a couple of really streak shooting guards, so this game could easily go 115 if they aren't hitting, or 158 if they are. Michigan has been under 120 in 4 of their last 6 games.

 

[infinii]

Valuist,

still here?

SH/Pitt is 131 at my local and 131.5 at most places i believe.

covers.com has it at 131.5 now.

play for you?

 

[Valuist]

Infinii-

I was out so I couldn't respond earlier. My rule of thumb is at least a 4 pt differential between the actual line and my projected line (yes, Seton Hall qualified as an over play). Caught a break on the Stanford game going into OT. Now I'm sweating out this Cal/Oregon State under praying for bricks. Hopefully it can be a 4-0 day.

 

[infinii]

np, caught a lucky break as SH really picked it up for a nice 2nd half which pushed the total over.

thnx for the great work

 

[nighthorse]

The Pac10 picks evened out. overtime might have been lucky, but osu and cal shot better than they should have. The pace of play should have left the game in the low 120's at best. Hope you got that 131....I didn't. Nice work again.

 

[Valuist]

No, I had it at 129. I thought I was going to get a push as Cal looked like they were going to dribble the ball and let time go. Then that a-hole had to do a dunk.