DOH need a clean up on Street Smarts thread! TIA

[carlitosway]

Tia

 

[X-Files]

SS - or someone else - should start a new thread & post his picks.

 

[Biggins]

BEST BET :
Arizona vs. Giants vs. Gausman
UNDER 8 (Full Game) -110 (5*)

Leans:
Mets vs. Cubs Stroman vs/ Hendricks
OVER 7 1/2 (Full Game) -110 (4*)

White Sox vs. Houston Cease vs. Urquidy
UNDER 4 1/2 (1st 5 innings) -115 (4*)
UNDER 9 (Full Game) -120 (4*)
-----------------------------------------------------------

NBA:
OVER 220 Milwaukee vs. Brooklyn -110 (3*)
------------------------------------------------------------

NHL:
OVER 5 Tampa Bay vs. Islanders -120 (4*)

 

[carlitosway]

BEST BET :
Arizona vs. Giants vs. Gausman
UNDER 8 (Full Game) -110 (5*)

^^^^^^^
THAT is a fudging of a line. There was no 8 anywhere on Giants totals that I saw offshore/onshore. StreetSmart replied in the thread that went haywire, saying he got the line from Bookmaker. There was no history on Bookmaker that the total was ever 8. I pointed it out and he quickly backpedaled with a weak response that it was his locals seconds after saying it was Bookmaker. Caveat emptor is all I will say.

 

[gk51]

BEST BET :
Arizona vs. Giants vs. Gausman
UNDER 8 (Full Game) -110 (5*)

^^^^^^^
THAT is a fudging of a line. There was no 8 anywhere on Giants totals that I saw offshore/onshore. StreetSmart replied in the thread that went haywire, saying he got the line from Bookmaker. There was no history on Bookmaker that the total was ever 8. I pointed it out and he quickly backpedaled with a weak response that it was his locals seconds after saying it was Bookmaker. Caveat emptor is all I will say.

Here is my take on this subject. You say there was no 8 anywhere BUT YOU ARE WRONG. I saw 3 books with that number. Pinnacle, William Hill and You Wager and didn't look any further. Since that number was available I don't think that is fudging of a line. I am sure you are a bettor and know that lines can and will change. I am not here to call you out but to let others know that 8 was available.

 

[carlitosway]

Here is my take on this subject. You say there was no 8 anywhere BUT YOU ARE WRONG. I saw 3 books with that number. Pinnacle, William Hill and You Wager and didn't look any further. Since that number was available I don't think that is fudging of a line. I am sure you are a bettor and know that lines can and will change. I am not here to call you out but to let others know that 8 was available.

Fine...BUT NOT BOOKMAKER as he said.

 

[X-Files]

BEST BET :
Arizona vs. Giants vs. Gausman
UNDER 8 (Full Game) -110 (5*)

Leans:
Mets vs. Cubs Stroman vs/ Hendricks
OVER 7 1/2 (Full Game) -110 (4*)

White Sox vs. Houston Cease vs. Urquidy
UNDER 4 1/2 (1st 5 innings) -115 (4*)
UNDER 9 (Full Game) -120 (4*)
-----------------------------------------------------------

NBA:
OVER 220 Milwaukee vs. Brooklyn -110 (3*)
------------------------------------------------------------

NHL:
OVER 5 Tampa Bay vs. Islanders -120 (4*)

Loss -5.50 units
Loss -4.40 units
Loss -4.60 units
Loss -4.80 units
Loss -3.30 units
Loss -4.80 units
--------------------
0-6, -27.40 units

Is that right?

 

[jamerx]

Thanks for making a pit stop at the forum and spreading the wealth bro.

 

[carlitosway]

I really hope his customers are OK overall.

 

[dylandog10]

Loss -5.50 units
Loss -4.40 units
Loss -4.60 units
Loss -4.80 units
Loss -3.30 units
Loss -4.80 units
--------------------
0-6, -27.40 units

Is that right?

I believe those numbers are correct.
And there was 8 out there.

 

[carlitosway]

I believe those numbers are correct.
And there was 8 out there.

Huge consensus the lines were 7.5 but perhaps I missed a couple. Bottomline though NOT BOOKMAKER.