Sentences with phrase «betting public thinks»

Not exact matches

Although we constantly preach the value of betting against the public, contrarian bettors may want to think twice before going against the sharp action tonight.

Make sure to leave your thoughts in the comment section below, and remember to check in with our NFL betting trends for all of the latest public betting data.

just reading around and all if not most rags are saying our net spend is # 46 million how can they tell that when they do nt even know what our real budget is if it was # 100 million then we are in profit by quite a bit i do nt really know what they base there assumptions on this is where you could do with swiss ramble to dissect what really was spent from what i could see most of our 5 transfers were covered by out goings and c / l monies earned debuchy - vela deal, chambers - vermalen deal, ospina - cesc and miquel deals sanchez c / l monies and other monies recovered from wages and old installment based deals this is the same with welbeck i would imagine if not then poldolski will be sold in jan to cover this as i think he was going to be sold and this would have covered welbecks transfer more or less also and people do nt always realize that arsenal have money coming in from more than one source to cover transfers not just puma and emirates deals we have property arm of the club which makes money for transfers also outstanding debts we are owed of old transfers we receive each year on song cesc maybe van persie and all other structured deals in installment payments sales we just flogged miquel as an example and all the monies from released wages and youths sold its a bit to complex to just say we have a net spend of xyz when arsenal do nt even make the budget public so they have no starting point from which to go from i bet you we have broke even or even made a slight profit as we are self sustaining it would make sense that we can break even or at least make the net spend under # 10 million each year at least screw then all we are the arsenal we do thing our way

Please leave any thoughts or questions in the comment section below and don't forget to visit our free NFL odds page for the latest lines and public betting trends.

NCAAF — We'll be adding more as the season moves along, but we've added 2 new college football betting systems to the Think Tank highlighting good rushing teams as well as betting against the public.

I guess this proves that regardless of what the data says, what the public thinks of a particular team / player plays a huge role in betting.

Though the majority of public tickets are taking Washington State, I don't exactly think they're the square side, so definitely keep an eye on those public betting %'s.

[Hint: if you plan on following this system, copy it from the Think Tank and add the Over / Under public betting filter to improve results even further.]

NCAAF — If you haven't already, check out two profitable college football systems we have posted to the Think Tank, highlighting Betting Against the Public and Good Rushing Teams Undervalued.

Do you think there will be buyback on the Seahawks after seeing the public pound the Broncos in early betting?

Personally I think there's tremendous value on Clemson right now while they're below -3, and I would expect this line to rise despite public betting on Louisville.

Public betting has moved the line from +140 to -105 since opening which I think has created some value the other way on Hull.

With Brandon Weeden, Justin Blackmon and the # 1 offense in the country coming to town, the public seems to think this weekend could be a repeat, with more than 9 out of 10 bets expecting # 6 OK St. to take down Texas by 8 points or more.

The short layoff makes it difficult to really analyze the market since there hasn't been a lot of line movement or public betting yet, but I do still think there's value out there.

Now, I know what you're thinking: «If the professionals are betting the dog, shouldn't larger bets balance out the sheer volume of wagers from the public meaning the house actually needs to root for...

If a side is getting a high % of bets (think 70 %), but there is little to no line movement this is often a public or square play.

Now, I know what you're thinking: «If the professionals are betting the dog, shouldn't larger bets balance out the sheer volume of wagers from the public meaning the house actually needs to root for for New England?»

It offers up an important view into how the hockey betting public is thinking.

Who else here is willing to bet that at least SOME of the NCB nutters who think a midwife stimulating a clitoris or groping breasts uninvited is okay are the same ones who bitch and moan about breasts being overly sexualized when it comes to breastfeeding in public?

I would be willing to bet that the standard of living of these folks, and my own as well, is much higher than your own, or what you think might be optimal for the average Joe / Jane public.

I'd like to think The New York Times does a better job of making the news world flatter, but it's clear that, overall, media and the public in the United States (and I'll bet at least a few other wealthy countries) are caught in a circular chase for the familiar and relevant.

Since they denigrate the sceptics so much (the remaining 3 %) and declare publicly that they should not have a voice; I'm betting the politicians also think that 97 % of the public also believe it.

Given the growing mainstream concern over a carbon bubble, and calls to «keep it in the ground» when it comes to fossil fuels, this rejection by councillors — not to mention the huge swell of public sentiment that influenced it — should give investors serious pause for thought regarding where they want to place their bets when it comes to energy.

«I am not totally sure what I think about this tactic, but it does make me wonder whether this is a good use of government resources (possibly, but I would bet there are better uses), whether it is fair to the defendant (no), and whether since I would normally decry a private plaintiff (or defendant, for that matter) who tried to use a lawsuit for a public relations purpose, I should think any differently just because it is a government agency (I don't see why).»