The most difficult aspect to really understand in any type of wagering is the expected return, what is acceptable. It varies depending on the activity. Your return in bingo isn't going to be all that bad, you have a better chance of getting run over by an elephant than winning the national lottery, achieving a net return of $1.22 or higher in horse racing is pretty good and very few players ever exceed 57 percent in sports. So why do sports handicapping services boast win percentages or figures much higher than these levels? Marketing. As a consumer wouldn't you rather go with someone who says he is hitting 70 percent in football than another claiming 56%? Of course. There are some outfits (horses and sports) that will say anything to get your dollar, like a door to door roofing repair salesman, driving a rickety pickup.
Wagering wins and losses come in streaks and I don't know of any way to prevent that sequence. This is why so many use money management, betting a percent of bankroll each day with equal amounts on all games. With this approach, your wagers are higher when winning, lower when losing and you can hang around for a fairly long time even when in a drought. In fact, I have seen many players have 57% seasons and wind up further in the red than a painter that fell into a vat of barn paint. Their universal knowledge of money management is about equal to my understanding why voters keep sending the same politicians back to Washington time and time again when nothing ever gets done. (The realization just hit me that a politicians main goal is not to accomplish anything it is to keep being re-elected.)
In tonight's college basketball contests in New York City and Madison, Wisconsin, only one team (Northern Illinois) is not picked to finish second in either its conference or division. The one school that I thought might sneak through on the oddsmaker, Winthrop, won't have a chance as no line is set on the contest. I felt this would be a good game, even though the Big South team lost three of its better players. The coach is far better than this level.
Last night in New York, the "under" and "dog" was right in both games as Memphis upset Syracuse 70-63 and Alabama won by six over Oklahoma. The Memphis game should have gone over, 77 points in the first half and only 56 in the second. (When one suffers a loss, he searches for any plausible excuse.)
Milwaukee's last two spread losses have been by a total of six points while Indiana has covered its last four by seven to nine points. The pair meet in one of NBA's top games tonight. The Pacers are 5-0 at home ATS, the Bucks 3-0 on the road. Dallas, coming of its first road loss ATS (at Cleveland by 11.5-points) is in Boston where the Celtics have won two of three and are on a three game ATS win streak. The Clippers, the best team in the City of Angels, have won two in a row away from home - edging Orlando 120-117 and slamming Miami 101-82. The Clips are a six point dog in Portland. The other Los Angeles team is 2-6 and picked to beat Golden State by 7.5-points; only Jack Nicholson really cares at this point.
St Louis, in the NHL, has won 10 of its last 12 games - but those two setbacks have occurred in its last three outings. The Blues are in Edmonton, 1-3 at home. Colorado and Dallas could not break a 1-1 tie in their first meeting October 9th in Dallas. An interior voice tells me that thinking this game will be low scoring again might be a mistake. I often pay attention to the voices inside my brain, unless they have contain the phrase, "Trust me."
This guy writes interesting articles everyday and predicts the outcomes of games at Jim Barnes .com