Over the years I\u2019ve heard a common faulty theory \u201cIf you like the big favorite you have to like the over, In a classic illustration, I saw this drivel rear its ugly Game 5 between Of the remaining five games, This is consistent with my observations over the I always handicap sides and totals as separate entities. The domino effect of course is not going to be as A big believer in contrarian handicapping, as explained in Here is the if-then-else truth for sports bettors. If you Joe Duffy is CEO of <\/body> Joe Duffy (www.OffshoreInsiders.com) Over the years I\u2019ve heard a common faulty theory regurgitated when either a game has a large pointspread or even more commonplace when a contest involves two teams that play opposite tempos. It entails an if-then-else statement in which both the side and total are essentially handicapped jointly. \u201cIf you like the … Continue reading Spurs-Suns Series Shoots Down Another Betting Urban Legend<\/span>
\nregurgitated when either a game has a large pointspread or even more
\ncommonplace when a contest involves two teams that play opposite tempos. It entails
\nan if-then-else statement in which both the side and total are essentially handicapped
\njointly.
\nbut if you like the big dog, you have to like the under,\u201d the myth goes.
\nteam to cover, you have to like the over,\u201d and I\u2019m sure you can figure out what
\nfollows. <\/span>
\nhead on gambling posting boards before the Spurs-Suns series.
\nof course plays the chaotic full-court style where the shot clock is almost
\nirrelevant. <\/span>The Spurs play a classic
\nhalf-court style where shots are generally taken with the shot clock at single
\ndigits. <\/span>Even the newspaper hacks and
\ntalking heads on television recited the groupthink that a fast-paced game would
\nbenefit the Suns and a slow-paced game would be to the advantage of the Spurs.
\nand
\nbeing a push. For our purpose, that\u2019s convenient because that was the now
\ninfamous game in which the Suns Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw were suspended,
\nhence from a handicapping standpoint, the results should be thrown out.
\nAntonio<\/st1:place><\/st1:City> won and covered three of them.
\nwon and covered two, both of which went under the total. All five results, of
\ncourse, went against the conventional so-called logic.
\nyears. <\/span>Unless there is a push, there are
\nfour possible combinations of a side and total: Team A and<\/span>
\nthe under, Team A and the over, Team B and the under and Team B and the over.
\nRandom chance suggests the if-then-else fairy tale has a 50 percent chance of
\nbeing right because it says of the possible four combinations it will likely be
\none of two possibilities. My educated observations says every time I hear this
\ntheory espoused, one of the two alleged to be likely combinations hits less
\nthan 50 percent of the time.
\ncomfortable if I pick the ball control team to cover and the over, or the fast-paced
\nteam and the under. <\/span>
\noverwhelming as the Suns-Spurs series illustrates, but that example is closer
\nto the rule than the exception.
\nprevious articles, I can\u2019t say there is necessarily such an angle here.
\nhandicapping by subscribing to the popular fallacy. <\/p>\n
\nrid of the aforesaid robotic fairy tale, then your chances of winning are much
\ngreater. <\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/b>which now has the best free sports gambling match-ups, free picks,
\ndatabases and more. <\/span>
\n<\/html><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"