Here we go again

[eyesofhawk]

Do I gotta be on drugs for this thread to make sense? So dude says two other teams bowl results are what we should base Iowa's season on last year, even though Iowa actually got the shit kicked out of them in their bowl game 35-0. Then carries that over into this season based on the first half results of a bowl game of a team Iowa didn't even play. That team then blows a lead, dude loses a bet, but then doubles down on it saying he that even though he literally lost money, he didn't really lose the bet. Then basically calls everyone else an idiot. Am I missing anything?

No, you've pretty much summed it up.

Except the only thing you should base the '23 season on is 10-4.

And again, my point that Iowa's success has been undervalued remains. Rutgers was a 7 point dog because of inaccurate public perception. They were also a quality team when Iowa manhandled them, 22-0, as I recall, last season.

As were other teams that Iowa has beaten in the last few years, quality teams

 

[spiderland]

This thread is actually aging much better than expected. I’m thinking it has a chance to go legendary. At least 1 out of 3 times this thread gets created, I’m betting that it does.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Just hear me out – don’t you think that when you’ve gotten to the point that you feel like you need to explain the game of football AND sports gambling to guys on a sports message board, that maybe YOU are the one who lacks credibility?

When I've been saying how laughable football fans are for decades? Absolutely not.

And again, I have no expectation that they would have a clue when it comes to sports betting.

I would just be thankful for football fans' passion. But the fact that the combination of passion and ignorance/uninformedness makes up a huge majority of football fans makes this board and every football board out there pure comedy

 

[Gonzo Bloor]

This thread is actually aging much better than expected. I’m thinking it has a chance to go legendary. At least 1 out of 3 times this thread gets created, I’m betting that it does.

Maybe even less than 1 time out of 3... lol.

 

[spiderland]

Maybe even less than 1 time out of 3... lol.

I have to defer to the experts on that one.

 

[eyesofhawk]

The guy is broken, mentally speaking. You can even see him begging to visit other threads he's spazzing out in as well. Better to just put him on ignore and laugh at his posts. Trying to reason with him or even argue his points results in a confusing word salad.

Says the guy who supposedly ignored me. 😂

Yes, I'm pushing the "line play" thread for reasons that are layed out in that thread. You're welcome.

You're right about one thing. Much is confusing to you

 

[eyesofhawk]

I have to defer to the experts on that one.

At +220, Rutgers winning at 31.25% would be a break even bet. Anything higher would be a winning bet

 

[nu2u]

 

[nu2u]

You're right about one thing. Much is confusing to you

I wouldn’t bet on it.

 

[LarryMullenJr.]

At +220, Rutgers winning at 31.25% would be a break even bet. Anything higher would be a winning bet

I can’t believe I’m getting in to this battle but why don’t you try to state it this way:

You got a decent value on betting on Rutgers at the odds you got. You made the bet based on that value and felt confident but the game didn’t pan out. It happens. I’ve made bets I wasn’t overly confident in before because I got a “good price” on the bet based on the odds. Some have worked and some haven’t.
Yours wasn’t a “good” bet because it lost. It happens. Just own it.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Listen guys, I get that most of you have little familiarity with sports betting.

Perhaps a big part of the hangup is we'll never be able to prove that Rutgers would have won that game at least 31.25% of the time.

But it was an awfully close game. One that Rutgers lead a huge majority of.

And I bet money lines far more than your average bettor, who bets point spreads. And I have no problem with where my history of money line betting has gotten me. Nor my point spread betting, for that matter

 

[eyesofhawk]

I can’t believe I’m getting in to this battle but why don’t you try to state it this way:

You got a decent value on betting on Rutgers at the odds you got. You made the bet based on that value and felt confident but the game didn’t pan out. It happens. I’ve made bets I wasn’t overly confident in before because I got a “good price” on the bet based on the odds. Some have worked and some haven’t.
Yours wasn’t a “good” bet because it lost. It happens. Just own it.

I just don't look at it that way.

If a bet has good value, meaning it beats the juice in the long run, it's a winning bet.

Again, would you fold pocket aces pre-flop because there's a chance the hand will get beat?

It's just a matter of finding those value spots and making the bet.

Of course, this assumes I've handicapped the situation with a winning level of accuracy, which isn't always the case. But again, I have no problem with my long term results.

If playing correctly, and especially if dog money lines are involved, one should not measure success by daily results, but by the long term

 

[2D_]

 

[Heathen Raider]

I clearly made the right bet.

At +220, If Rutgers wins even less than 1 out of 3 times, I make money.

Anyone who knows a thing about sports betting can see that it was a winning bet in the long run.

All you can do is get your money in good. It doesn't always hit for you on that particular iteration.

Keep trying guys.

Plus, the original point, that Iowa's success is undervalued, remains. Rutgers and many in the Big Ten a lot better than they get credit for. Rutgers was a 7 point dog, due to inaccurate perception

I appluad Your creative way of declaring to all of us that You are a fish .

 

[eyesofhawk]

RESPOND TO MY POINTS! Where have we heard this before?

Given that you supposedly ignored me, this will be as much as I ever engage you

 

[JerseyCityHawki]

Understand the thread?

So far, there's one person to listen to

What I do understand is that you like to argue with everyone it seems and can get pretty nasty… sometimes (as we all do) take the L … I have read the original post and understand… I personally don’t have a problem with you but you can get a tad feisty. I have been put into my own when I have posted something dumb and had to eat the crow so I suggest you have a little heap yourself… otherwise you bring some good things and observations to this board … just speaking the truth

 

[eyesofhawk]

What I do understand is that you like to argue with everyone it seems and can get pretty nasty… sometimes (as we all do) take the L … I have read the original post and understand… I personally don’t have a problem with you but you can get a tad feisty. I have been put into my own when I have posted something dumb and had to eat the crow so I suggest you have a little heap yourself… otherwise you bring some good things and observations to this board … just speaking the truth

Well this isn't a time where there is any crow to eat.

If anything, I can recognize that not everyone views my bet the way I do. To that, I again stand by my sports betting results over 30 years. And remind everyone that it's my hard-earned money that has been risked.

I actually don't like to argue. I do have an overall point, that it seems many don't agree with/aren't willing to take into consideration, that I am very willing to fight for.

I am a little too easily offended and too easily let my hatred for idiot fans get to me. And I appreciate your perspective and advice on the matter, as I appreciate you overall, as a poster

 

[JerseyCityHawki]

Well this isn't a time where there is any crow to eat.

If anything, I can recognize that not everyone views my bet the way I do. To that, I again stand by my sports betting results over 30 years. And remind everyone that it's my hard-earned money that has been risked.

I actually don't like to argue. I do have an overall point, that it seems many don't agree with/aren't willing to take into consideration, that I am very willing to fight for.

I am a little too easily offended and too easily let my hatred for idiot fans get to me. And I appreciate your perspective and advice on the matter, as I appreciate you overall, as a poster

Same here! You do bring some great discussions to the table… all good my Hawkeye friend

 

[eyesofhawk]

that guy who counts His money at the table and says 1 more hand and gets dealt pocket aces and gets a bad beat on the river.

Is it a cash game? If so, if it's a good game, I'm at or near optimal level of personal play, and can afford the stakes in the first place (which should be the case), there's no reason to leave the game.

Even in your case, am I supposed to fold the aces pre-flop?

We can talk poker too

 

[dozeman]

If he really made a bet on an obscure, meaningless bowl game in this age of opt outs he needs therapy. It's also possible he lied about the bet and made the post to try and make a point, and got burned. In which case he needs therapy.

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

When I've been saying how laughable football fans are for decades? Absolutely not.

And again, I have no expectation that they would have a clue when it comes to sports betting.

I would just be thankful for football fans' passion. But the fact that the combination of passion and ignorance/uninformedness makes up a huge majority of football fans makes this board and every football board out there pure comedy

Boy, you sure can take a beating.

That only comedy in this thread is you. The fact that you don’t recognize that the reason it’s gotten this long as the entire board laughs at you.

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

At +220, Rutgers winning at 31.25% would be a break even bet. Anything higher would be a winning bet

Your bet lost. That’s not breaking even. Rutgers lost 100% of the time in that game. They were 0-1, just like you. Your fantasy world scenarios don’t make you look smart; they make you look even dumber.

 

[Heathen Raider]

Is it a cash game? If so, if it's a good game, I'm at or near optimal level of personal play, and can afford the stakes in the first place (which should be the case), there's no reason to leave the game.

Even in your case, am I supposed to fold the aces pre-flop?

We can talk poker too

If you want a poker Coach it costs , no free lessons My fishy friend .

 

[Greenway4Prez]

Your process may yield positive results over the long term, but this exact game is never going to be played again. Ever. If KSU led the whole way, but Rutgers rallied late to win, would you say that it was a bad bet? Unlikely.

You sound exactly like Bud Elliott of the Cover 3 podcast. “I’d bet this again..” “This was the right side, but…” “I think I had these games pretty much nailed if not for…” as he rationalizes a 5-8 week. Just take the L, man. Anyone that bets has been there, thinking they had a winner only to have it slip away. And in 30 years of betting, surely you’ve had this happen numerous times.

 

[doughuddl2]

No, you've pretty much summed it up.

Except the only thing you should base the '23 season on is 10-4.

And again, my point that Iowa's success has been undervalued remains. Rutgers was a 7 point dog because of inaccurate public perception. They were also a quality team when Iowa manhandled them, 22-0, as I recall, last season.

As were other teams that Iowa has beaten in the last few years, quality teams

You need your own weekly gambling thread like IowaSlaw does after games.

Of course you should do it before they play, but after is OK too.

 

[InsaneHawkJJP]

Sounds like someone’s got a little gambling addiction. Remember OP, the first step is admitting you have a problem.
1-800-BETSOFF

 

[mvhomerl]

"Except the only thing you should base the '23 season on is 10-4."
Your days of vomiting this are all but over. Schedule, NIL, next year just hope the bowl, and given Iowa's recent bowls that just means more practices.

 

[eyesofhawk]

If he really made a bet on an obscure, meaningless bowl game in this age of opt outs he needs therapy. It's also possible he lied about the bet and made the post to try and make a point, and got burned. In which case he needs therapy.

Bowl season is one of the juiciest times of year.

Yes, you need intel on the opt outs. There is also in-game wagering.

No, it isn't possible I lied. I don't do that

 

[eyesofhawk]

Your bet lost. That’s not breaking even. Rutgers lost 100% of the time in that game. They were 0-1, just like you. Your fantasy world scenarios don’t make you look smart; they make you look even dumber.

This has been answered many times in the thread

 

[eyesofhawk]

Your process may yield positive results over the long term, but this exact game is never going to be played again. Ever. If KSU led the whole way, but Rutgers rallied late to win, would you say that it was a bad bet? Unlikely.

You sound exactly like Bud Elliott of the Cover 3 podcast. “I’d bet this again..” “This was the right side, but…” “I think I had these games pretty much nailed if not for…” as he rationalizes a 5-8 week. Just take the L, man. Anyone that bets has been there, thinking they had a winner only to have it slip away. And in 30 years of betting, surely you’ve had this happen numerous times.

Maybe you aren't as sharp as I thought in sports betting.

You should have stopped after the first sentence.

This Bud Elliot guy; think there might be a reason he has a podcast that you listen to? Sure, he has to sell himself. But I bet a high percentage of the time he tells you he was on the right side, he in fact was. Just like I said earlier in the thread, just because Rutgers+7 won doesn't mean the bet had an edge before the game, although I think it did this particular time.

DrewHawk? Quite the Omaha player as I understand. Surely he understands some sports betting concepts. Care to jump in and send the 7th grade girls' club going to the bathroom back to 3rd grade math class?

 

[eyesofhawk]

You need your own weekly gambling thread like IowaSlaw does after games.

Of course you should do it before they play, but after is OK too.

I'm actually launching a live-betting YouTube channel in the near future. I'll send you a link

 

[eyesofhawk]

"Except the only thing you should base the '23 season on is 10-4."
Your days of vomiting this are all but over. Schedule, NIL, next year just hope the bowl, and given Iowa's recent bowls that just means more practices.

We'll see. Sounds like we could come up with several juice free wagers if you're interested.

And more practice is a phenomenal thing

 

[Georgia_Hawk]

"Essentially, I made the right decision"

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

This has been answered many times in the thread

And each answer is dumber than and makes even less sense than the previous one. But you know that already. But since you’ve lost more money on gambling than anybody else on this board, you really know what you’re talking about. Lol.

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

Maybe you aren't as sharp as I thought in sports betting.

You should have stopped after the first sentence.

This Bud Elliot guy; think there might be a reason he has a podcast that you listen to? Sure, he has to sell himself. But I bet a high percentage of the time he tells you he was on the right side, he in fact was. Just like I said earlier in the thread, just because Rutgers+7 won doesn't mean the bet had an edge before the game, although I think it did this particular time.

DrewHawk? Quite the Omaha player as I understand. Surely he understands some sports betting concepts. Care to jump in and send the 7th grade girls' club going to the bathroom back to 3rd grade math class?

L O L. Greenway comes to the thread at your request. You think he’s here to rescue you. Instead, he puts you in your place. Now you just call him stupid like you do everybody else. You can’t make this shit up. You have truly become the board’s premier dolt.

 

[herkhatescy2]

Rutgers doing work against KSt. 34-17 in the 3rd.

Remember last bowl season when Rutgers manhandled Miami? NW beat Utah. Wisconsin gave LSU all they wanted.

All teams that Iowa beat. 2 away from Kinnick.

Of course those teams never had a pulse, though.

Such a disrespect to how hard it is to win at all at that level, let alone for pretty much over 20 years straight

Who won?..lol

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

I clearly made the right bet.

At +220, If Rutgers wins even less than 1 out of 3 times, I make money.

Anyone who knows a thing about sports betting can see that it was a winning bet in the long run.

All you can do is get your money in good. It doesn't always hit for you on that particular iteration.

Keep trying guys.

Plus, the original point, that Iowa's success is undervalued, remains. Rutgers and many in the Big Ten a lot better than they get credit for. Rutgers was a 7 point dog, due to inaccurate perception

Is it really that hard to admit when you’re wrong?

You should be used to it by now.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

I guarantee I don't know shit

Your sentence and final contribution to the dumbass thread you started should have ended there.

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

No, it isn't possible I lied. I don't do that

Liar

Not only does everyone lie, but compulsive gamblers are the most notorious liars on earth.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

Well this isn't a time where there is any crow to eat.

For you, there most certainly is. Especially since you mentioned nothing about gambling in the OP, and merely defaulted to that to try to save face.

I actually don't like to argue

Self awareness could come in handy right about here.

I do have an overall point

Trust me, you don’t.

I am a little too easily offended

We know.