Michigan state line is out +32

[BeaverPoke]

Seattle, the reason USC lost is because they are overrated, have no defense or run game.
Let's not say their 20 rush yards versus the 452 they gave up is a product of flying to the East Coast being in a hangover game unless the running backs and linebackers stayed back in LA.

[seattlecowboy]

Seattle, the reason USC lost is because they are overrated, have no defense or run game.
Let's not say their 20 rush yards versus the 452 they gave up is a product of flying to the East Coast being in a hangover game unless the running backs and linebackers stayed back in LA.

Beaver I have been handicapping sports for 20 years my friend and make good money with it so I do believe I know what I am talking about. You are welcome to your opinion of course but the fact is USC had a major hangover from the week before and that is one of the major reasons they lost that game. USC might be overrated of course but if they wouldn't have had to play such a big game the week before they would have most likely won that game.

CSU didn't play a big game last week so it is a entirely different scenario. Whether CSU covers or not I do not know and I wouldn't bet that game either way as there are better games on the board but if I had to lean a way in that game it would be CSU more so than BC. Just my opinion of course.

[seattlecowboy]

The only reason Boston College beat USC is because USC was coming off of a big win the week before over Stanford and then having to fly all the way to the East Coast and play an early morning game with a hangover from the previous week. Otherwise USC wins that game. Boston College was a good bet in that scenario. I think CSU has a good chance to cover this week against BC as they aren't in the same set up.

How are you doing this year betting, seattlecowboy?

My most confident this week is Nevada ML. Also read this morning Maryland lost a DE.

Hey HIthere,

I am up about 400% on the year so far. How are you doing? I'm still looking over games. Haven't decided what I will play this week yet.

[hithere]

I am up about 400% on the year so far. How are you doing? I'm still looking over games. Haven't decided what I will play this week yet.

Good to see!

First week killed me. I'm clawing back from there.

First half lines have been really good for me the last few weeks.

[BeaverPoke]

Seattle, the reason USC lost is because they are overrated, have no defense or run game.
Let's not say their 20 rush yards versus the 452 they gave up is a product of flying to the East Coast being in a hangover game unless the running backs and linebackers stayed back in LA.

Beaver I have been handicapping sports for 20 years my friend and make good money with it so I do believe I know what I am talking about. You are welcome to your opinion of course but the fact is USC had a major hangover from the week before and that is one of the major reasons they lost that game. USC might be overrated of course but if they wouldn't have had to play such a big game the week before they would have most likely won that game.

CSU didn't play a big game last week so it is a entirely different scenario. Whether CSU covers or not I do not know and I wouldn't bet that game either way as there are better games on the board but if I had to lean a way in that game it would be CSU more so than BC. Just my opinion of course.

Me saying why USC lost has nothing to do with you being a sports gambler.
And you being a gambler doesn't make your hangover reason for USC losing correct.

USC gave up 452 rush yards and only got 20 for themselves. That is why USC lost. It wasn't them beating Stanford, it wasn't the cross country trip. They may have contributed, but the fact is that USC has NO run game on either side of the ball.
Seriously, 452 vs 20.

And the CSU-BC stuff...I'm not interested in that, and again that has nothing to do with why USC lost.
It's because USC is not a Top 10 team in the country, and soon won't be a Top 25 team.

[WestWYOPoke]

Easy Beav, don't let your OSU bias sway you. USC, IMO, is not a Top 10 team, I'll agree there, but I think they are certainly a Top 25 team. If I were to rank them I would put them somewhere in the 15-22 range. So I think there are truths to what both you and Seattle are saying. Yes, the lack of a running game and a running defense killed USC. But also, the hangover effect after the Stanford game and the cross country trip were certainly factors as well.

[hithere]

Me saying why USC lost has nothing to do with you being a sports gambler.
And you being a gambler doesn't make your hangover reason for USC losing correct.

USC gave up 452 rush yards and only got 20 for themselves. That is why USC lost. It wasn't them beating Stanford, it wasn't the cross country trip. They may have contributed, but the fact is that USC has NO run game on either side of the ball.
Seriously, 452 vs 20.

And the CSU-BC stuff...I'm not interested in that, and again that has nothing to do with why USC lost.
It's because USC is not a Top 10 team in the country, and soon won't be a Top 25 team.

Good Lord you're an insufferable little poop sometimes. You're like 22 right? I literally have socks older and smarter than you at the bottom of my closet that don't come across as self righteous and antagonistic as you do. My old locally made neon green and pink fanny pack that I purchased from a local Laramie Wyoming outdoors store in the late 80's may give you a run for your money on priggishness but not the socks. Good old socks that don't offer up their poop, wrong opinions on ridiculously obvious situations.

Can anyone help me out on the name of that store? Those things were awesome. They made kick-ass gaiters too.

Anyway, I know you know this but this is a thread about gambling. You know that in it, people who gamble discuss gambling lines and how those lines were established and how accurate they were. No one in the history of everything that is holy and good (me) gives two and half poop about your incorrect thoughts on a letdown upset game.

Please. Seriously, please. If you can't give me any hot tips about current Wyoming players in your Econ lecture that you think you buddied up to, or don't know or haven't seduced any third stringers on the OSU football team yet, then either help to make me some money or GTFO.

I can't wait for your witty rejoinder. Your generation seems to glorify hot takes and final retorts. But remember what this thread is called. It's about trying to win a little scratch. Not prove how strong your opinion is of a USC loss that occurred almost two weeks ago.

You do have entertainment value though, I'll give you that. And you're a Wyoming fan so you're not entirely horrible. But Jesus f-word Christ you were born around the same time I started masturbating into my socks and throwing them in the back of my bedroom closet. I value your opinion on sports betting almost as much as I value my crazy born again Aunt Doris' opinion of how old the universe is. And she tried to warm up her Pug in a microwave once. The woman signs off on her emails (from an aol account!) with "Blessings, Doris".

Anyway, peace out homie. No offense. I'll go on cringing when I occasionally read your drivel and you can almost certainly think that anything I put to words here is on par with a monkey f-word a football.

Vaya con huevos, muchacho.

Blessings, Doris.

[BeaverPoke]

Me saying why USC lost has nothing to do with you being a sports gambler.
And you being a gambler doesn't make your hangover reason for USC losing correct.

USC gave up 452 rush yards and only got 20 for themselves. That is why USC lost. It wasn't them beating Stanford, it wasn't the cross country trip. They may have contributed, but the fact is that USC has NO run game on either side of the ball.
Seriously, 452 vs 20.

And the CSU-BC stuff...I'm not interested in that, and again that has nothing to do with why USC lost.
It's because USC is not a Top 10 team in the country, and soon won't be a Top 25 team.

Good Lord you're an insufferable little poop sometimes. You're like 22 right? I literally have socks older and smarter than you at the bottom of my closet that don't come across as self righteous and antagonistic as you do. My old locally made neon green and pink fanny pack that I purchased from a local Laramie Wyoming outdoors store in the late 80's may give you a run for your money on priggishness but not the socks. Good old socks that don't offer up their poop, wrong opinions on ridiculously obvious situations.

Can anyone help me out on the name of that store? Those things were awesome. They made kick-ass gaiters too.

Anyway, I know you know this but this is a thread about gambling. You know that in it, people who gamble discuss gambling lines and how those lines were established and how accurate they were. No one in the history of everything that is holy and good (me) gives two and half poop about your incorrect thoughts on a letdown upset game.

Please. Seriously, please. If you can't give me any hot tips about current Wyoming players in your Econ lecture that you think you buddied up to, or don't know or haven't seduced any third stringers on the OSU football team yet, then either help to make me some money or GTFO.

I can't wait for your witty rejoinder. Your generation seems to glorify hot takes and final retorts. But remember what this thread is called. It's about trying to win a little scratch. Not prove how strong your opinion is of a USC loss that occurred almost two weeks ago.

You do have entertainment value though, I'll give you that. And you're a Wyoming fan so you're not entirely horrible. But Jesus f-word Christ you were born around the same time I started masturbating into my socks and throwing them in the back of my bedroom closet. I value your opinion on sports betting almost as much as I value my crazy born again Aunt Doris' opinion of how old the universe is. And she tried to warm up her Pug in a microwave once. The woman signs off on her emails (from an aol account!) with "Blessings, Doris".

Anyway, peace out homie. No offense. I'll go on cringing when I occasionally read your drivel and you can almost certainly think that anything I put to words here is on par with a monkey f-word a football.

Vaya con huevos, muchacho.

Blessings, Doris.

Someone let their feelers out!

Seriously though, your post was hillarious.

[AlphaPoke]

That post made my week. f-word hithere!!

[seattlecowboy]

Seattle, the reason USC lost is because they are overrated, have no defense or run game.
Let's not say their 20 rush yards versus the 452 they gave up is a product of flying to the East Coast being in a hangover game unless the running backs and linebackers stayed back in LA.

Beaver I have been handicapping sports for 20 years my friend and make good money with it so I do believe I know what I am talking about. You are welcome to your opinion of course but the fact is USC had a major hangover from the week before and that is one of the major reasons they lost that game. USC might be overrated of course but if they wouldn't have had to play such a big game the week before they would have most likely won that game.

CSU didn't play a big game last week so it is a entirely different scenario. Whether CSU covers or not I do not know and I wouldn't bet that game either way as there are better games on the board but if I had to lean a way in that game it would be CSU more so than BC. Just my opinion of course.

Me saying why USC lost has nothing to do with you being a sports gambler.
And you being a gambler doesn't make your hangover reason for USC losing correct.

USC gave up 452 rush yards and only got 20 for themselves. That is why USC lost. It wasn't them beating Stanford, it wasn't the cross country trip. They may have contributed, but the fact is that USC has NO run game on either side of the ball.
Seriously, 452 vs 20.

And the CSU-BC stuff...I'm not interested in that, and again that has nothing to do with why USC lost.
It's because USC is not a Top 10 team in the country, and soon won't be a Top 25 team.

You are of course welcome to your opinion. Last time I looked I thought this thread was about the spread on games? Anyways as a sports investor BC was a good bet that week against USC as they were getting anywhere from +15 to +17 points at different times so BC was a good bet.

USC is a top 25 team though. SO I totally disagree with you there. Top 10? No they are not so I agree with you on that point.

[seattlecowboy]

I just read the rest of this thread after I replied to Beav. Funny stuff lol. I'm not here to argue with Beav or anyone else and I value everyone's opinion and everyone is entitled to one. I might not always agree with it but that is fine. Now lets talk football .

Funny stuff though hithere lol

[Asmodeanreborn]

This is why I read all threads here, even the ones on topics I have little to no interest in.


Seriously, though? Socks? I thought that was just a movie thing. Hopefully you washed them yourself rather than making your poor mother do it.

[BeaverPoke]

The only reason Boston College beat USC is because USC was coming off of a big win the week before over Stanford and then having to fly all the way to the East Coast and play an early morning game with a hangover from the previous week. Otherwise USC wins that game. Boston College was a good bet in that scenario.

Okay Seattle, let me try this without being a dick. My bad earlier.

I guess I focused on the part where you said "The only reason BC beat USC".

I get what you are saying about the let down game because of the hangover due to the win @ Stanford and the travel across the country from the very SW to the very NE.
You were looking at more of the set up to the game, and the betting stance; I got that.

I was more focused on the way the game played out with the rush yards specifically as to why USC lost.

[Dutchnation]

Me saying why USC lost has nothing to do with you being a sports gambler.
And you being a gambler doesn't make your hangover reason for USC losing correct.

USC gave up 452 rush yards and only got 20 for themselves. That is why USC lost. It wasn't them beating Stanford, it wasn't the cross country trip. They may have contributed, but the fact is that USC has NO run game on either side of the ball.
Seriously, 452 vs 20.

And the CSU-BC stuff...I'm not interested in that, and again that has nothing to do with why USC lost.
It's because USC is not a Top 10 team in the country, and soon won't be a Top 25 team.

Good Lord you're an insufferable little poop sometimes. You're like 22 right? I literally have socks older and smarter than you at the bottom of my closet that don't come across as self righteous and antagonistic as you do. My old locally made neon green and pink fanny pack that I purchased from a local Laramie Wyoming outdoors store in the late 80's may give you a run for your money on priggishness but not the socks. Good old socks that don't offer up their poop, wrong opinions on ridiculously obvious situations.

Can anyone help me out on the name of that store? Those things were awesome. They made kick-ass gaiters too.

Anyway, I know you know this but this is a thread about gambling. You know that in it, people who gamble discuss gambling lines and how those lines were established and how accurate they were. No one in the history of everything that is holy and good (me) gives two and half poop about your incorrect thoughts on a letdown upset game.

Please. Seriously, please. If you can't give me any hot tips about current Wyoming players in your Econ lecture that you think you buddied up to, or don't know or haven't seduced any third stringers on the OSU football team yet, then either help to make me some money or GTFO.

I can't wait for your witty rejoinder. Your generation seems to glorify hot takes and final retorts. But remember what this thread is called. It's about trying to win a little scratch. Not prove how strong your opinion is of a USC loss that occurred almost two weeks ago.

You do have entertainment value though, I'll give you that. And you're a Wyoming fan so you're not entirely horrible. But Jesus f-word Christ you were born around the same time I started masturbating into my socks and throwing them in the back of my bedroom closet. I value your opinion on sports betting almost as much as I value my crazy born again Aunt Doris' opinion of how old the universe is. And she tried to warm up her Pug in a microwave once. The woman signs off on her emails (from an aol account!) with "Blessings, Doris".

Anyway, peace out homie. No offense. I'll go on cringing when I occasionally read your drivel and you can almost certainly think that anything I put to words here is on par with a monkey f-word a football.

Vaya con huevos, muchacho.

Blessings, Doris.

Mountain Bradley Sports Wear. Was the best!!! I had a few pairs of shorts. Was a unique to Laramie clothing store. Pretty cool.

Takes more faith to believe we are all here by chance than to believe in intelligent design. But that's my conviction. Doesn't have to be yours.

[djm19]

This is why I read all threads here, even the ones on topics I have little to no interest in.


Seriously, though? Socks? I thought that was just a movie thing. Hopefully you washed them yourself rather than making your poor mother do it.

Side note, I had a friend once have an "accident" in his cousin's shirt while at his house.

The next day at school his cousin had that shirt on.

Laughs were had by all.

[NowherePoke]

Me saying why USC lost has nothing to do with you being a sports gambler.
And you being a gambler doesn't make your hangover reason for USC losing correct.

USC gave up 452 rush yards and only got 20 for themselves. That is why USC lost. It wasn't them beating Stanford, it wasn't the cross country trip. They may have contributed, but the fact is that USC has NO run game on either side of the ball.
Seriously, 452 vs 20.

And the CSU-BC stuff...I'm not interested in that, and again that has nothing to do with why USC lost.
It's because USC is not a Top 10 team in the country, and soon won't be a Top 25 team.

Good Lord you're an insufferable little poop sometimes. You're like 22 right? I literally have socks older and smarter than you at the bottom of my closet that don't come across as self righteous and antagonistic as you do. My old locally made neon green and pink fanny pack that I purchased from a local Laramie Wyoming outdoors store in the late 80's may give you a run for your money on priggishness but not the socks. Good old socks that don't offer up their poop, wrong opinions on ridiculously obvious situations.

Can anyone help me out on the name of that store? Those things were awesome. They made kick-ass gaiters too.

Anyway, I know you know this but this is a thread about gambling. You know that in it, people who gamble discuss gambling lines and how those lines were established and how accurate they were. No one in the history of everything that is holy and good (me) gives two and half poop about your incorrect thoughts on a letdown upset game.

Please. Seriously, please. If you can't give me any hot tips about current Wyoming players in your Econ lecture that you think you buddied up to, or don't know or haven't seduced any third stringers on the OSU football team yet, then either help to make me some money or GTFO.

I can't wait for your witty rejoinder. Your generation seems to glorify hot takes and final retorts. But remember what this thread is called. It's about trying to win a little scratch. Not prove how strong your opinion is of a USC loss that occurred almost two weeks ago.

You do have entertainment value though, I'll give you that. And you're a Wyoming fan so you're not entirely horrible. But Jesus f-word Christ you were born around the same time I started masturbating into my socks and throwing them in the back of my bedroom closet. I value your opinion on sports betting almost as much as I value my crazy born again Aunt Doris' opinion of how old the universe is. And she tried to warm up her Pug in a microwave once. The woman signs off on her emails (from an aol account!) with "Blessings, Doris".

Anyway, peace out homie. No offense. I'll go on cringing when I occasionally read your drivel and you can almost certainly think that anything I put to words here is on par with a monkey f-word a football.

Vaya con huevos, muchacho.

Blessings, Doris.

I was reading along with the occasional chuckle, until I hit the Aunt Doris part and then I just lost it. Fantastic stuff hithere.

[hithere]

Mountain Bradley Sports Wear. Was the best!!! I had a few pairs of shorts. Was a unique to Laramie clothing store. Pretty cool.

Bradley Mountain Wear, that was it.

Thanks buddy.

[Asmodeanreborn]

Takes more faith to believe we are all here by chance than to believe in intelligent design. But that's my conviction. Doesn't have to be yours.

I don't see that, and I say that as somebody who is a believer. As believers, we have to believe that God somehow existed before everything else AND that He created something out of nothing.

Seems to me that's far more incredible than interactions of quantum mechanics and energy balance that physicists are getting pretty close to understanding.

[BJC]

Takes more faith to believe we are all here by chance than to believe in intelligent design. But that's my conviction. Doesn't have to be yours.

I don't see that, and I say that as somebody who is a believer. As believers, we have to believe that God somehow existed before everything else AND that He created something out of nothing.

Seems to me that's far more incredible than interactions of quantum mechanics and energy balance that physicists are getting pretty close to understanding.

I would like to know Beave's opinion..since he apparently won a prestigious award recently! hopefully something witty after being compared to a dna rifle juice sock ...ouch

[BeaverPoke]

Takes more faith to believe we are all here by chance than to believe in intelligent design. But that's my conviction. Doesn't have to be yours.

I don't see that, and I say that as somebody who is a believer. As believers, we have to believe that God somehow existed before everything else AND that He created something out of nothing.

Seems to me that's far more incredible than interactions of quantum mechanics and energy balance that physicists are getting pretty close to understanding.

I would like to know Beave's opinion..since he apparently won a prestigious award recently! hopefully something witty after being compared to a dna rifle juice sock ...ouch

I would rather be the person who gets compared to the dna rifle juice sock rather than be the person who blew a fuse and puffed his chest out so bad that he ended up calling someone over the internet a dna rifle juice sock just because he disagreed over the result over a Boston College vs. Southern California football game.

As for the faith thing... I don't believe in intelligent design.