NFL Week 3

I didn't have time to post these prior to the games, but here was my card for Sunday.....which turned out to be a nice continuation of Saturday.

1. Indianapolis @ Houston - Total Under 47 (-110) - 1.1 Units - Loss

2. Miami @ New York Jets (-3 @ -110) - 1.1 Units - Pushed after the Jets squandered a 31-13 lead with 13 minutes left in the game

3. San Francisco (1st Half +7 @ -115) @ Pittsburgh - 1.15 Units - Pittsburgh touchdown pass with :37 left in the first half covered this number against me

4. Cincinnati @ Seattle - 1st Half Total Under 26.5 (-110) - 1.1 Units - Win

5. Detroit (-110) vs New York Jets - 1.1 Units - Loss

6. Oakland (-110) vs Baltimore - 1.1 Units - Push

7. Washington vs Chicago - Total Over 44.5 (-110) - 1.1 Units - Loss

It IS possible to read hands in Limit Hold'Em

I don't think anyone would argue that Limit Hold'Em is a profitable game when playing in a casino. A large part of the reason this is true is because many of the players call bets with hands that can't possibly be good as well as draw with hands that are such statistical longshots that they won't win enough money when their draw hits to overcome how much money they lose the many times it does not. With most everyone at the table playing this way, simply choosing good starting hands and raising when you get them is going to make you a winner in the long run.

However, because everyone's range of hands is so wide, it becomes very difficult to deduce what another player holds. When they call a flop bet, they could have bottom pair, a gutshot straight draw, two pair, a set or even just unpaired overcards that they hope will win if they hit on the turn. It is much more useful to simply give the field a certain hand rather than try to pinpoint each player. For instance, I was playing $3/$6 limit at Harrah's yesterday and limped up front with the Ad4d. It was such a game that there was likely to be no raise before the flop. And even if there was, it was unlikely to thin the field any. On this particular hand, though, a pretty loose old man who had been raising with any suited Ace raised two seats behind me and got four callers. Of course, I called the raise as did the guy between me and the old man.

I knew I was in trouble since he's highly likely to have an Ace with a better kicker but I'm getting over 10:1 to try to outflop him, which I did when the flop came Ac 8h 4h. With the large pot, it was far more important to protect my hand than to try to get extra bets out of anyone. Thinking that the old man has likely paired his Ace, I led into the field with a bet and the old man did not disappoint and raised it to $6. The player on the button called the $6 cold and I chose to simply call the raise. I had to put the third player on a flush draw since we know where three of the four aces are and there were no other draws on the board save for the gutshot straight draw. By flat calling, I thought I could get in a check-raise on the turn should a third heart not fall and make the third player pay $12 to draw. This is a somewhat important concept in that I've turned what is considered the worst position at a hold'em table in which I have to act first on every round and, by reading the old man's hand, have turned it into a situation where I'm acting last and can get two double bets out of both of them. Also, if the third heart does fall, I can check and see if the third player wakes up and also have a good idea of the price I'll be receiving to draw to a full house.

Anyway, the turn came the 2s and I checked, as planned. The old man bet, the third player called and I check-raised, which was unsurprisingly called in both places. The river was the terrible 8s, completely ruining any hand that I had. I just gave up and checked knowing that the old man would call with his now winning hand. The hand checked around and the old man took down the pot with As9s, while the third player showed the 10c10d.

The moral of the story is I severely misread the third player's hand because who would have ever thought that he would take all that heat with a pair of tens. In addition, it became clear to me that the old man does not understand the concept of a "kicker". I know nobody would ever fold top pair to a turn check-raise, but he had to have realized his hand was not good when he has all but told the table he has at least a pair of aces and I'm telling him that I can beat a pair of aces. Evidently the other player didn't hear this message because he obviously thought his tens were good. Whatever logic these players were using to play their hands usually confounds someone trying to figure out what they have.

BUT! I said that sometimes it IS possible to read hands in limit hold'em. There was one player at the table, a kid that looked to be in his mid-twenties, that I had previously pegged as a decent player. And by decent player, I mean not completely and utterly brain-dead. During one of his first hands at the table, he bet the turn and folded to a raise, making a comment that he had "Ace-medium". By folding and saying this, he could not have stood out any more starkly if he were playing without clothes on. Nobody says "Ace-medium" to describe their hand unless they are trying to think about the game logically. Furthermore, for all of the hours I've played poker in the casino, this is probably the third or fourth player I've encountered who can successfully bet and then fold to a raise on the same betting round. I do it when appropriate, but it is truly surprising when I see someone else do it. After seeing and hearing all of this, I made a mental note that I he can probably be moved off of his hand if you can convince him his hand is no good.

So, about 30 minutes later, I get dealt the AsJc in early position and bring it in with a raise. I get the customary four callers and then the player I just described makes it three bets from the big blind. Since he is a decent player, I figure he is three-better from out of position with AA,KK,QQ and AK. I'm not sure whether he would do it with JJ or TT, as a lot of good players will do. I call once again, as does everyone else. We take the flop five handed for three bets ($45) and it comes down Ah 8s 3s. The pre-flop three-bettor checks with a disgusted look on his face, all but telling me that he has a pocket pair and not AK. The guy in front of me checks and I of course bet. The two players behind me fold while the two players in front of me call. The turn comes the 5s, completing the flush draw. I'm still trying to decide whether I will bet or check when the kid wakes up and leads with a bet himself, folding the player between us. Since the player most likely to hold a flush (the in-between player) has folded, and I know what the kid has, I make a fairly easy raise. I am rooting for him to call, hoping that he has the spade of whatever pair he has and will draw at it not realizing that he is drawing dead because I have the As. But, that was all the money I would get out of him as he folded and flashed the 10h10s.

You'll hear people talk about "gaining deception" on a hand by playing it in a non-standard way. Mostly, this applies to people limping in or just calling before the flop when they have pocket aces, but it just as easily means three-betting before the flop with 76 suited. The vast majority of the time, however, people will play the same hand the same way, regardless of the circumstances. By three-betting before the flop, the kid told me with reasonable certainty that he had a big pocket pair or AK. I was then able to apply that knowledge to get the maximum number of bets out of him without fearing his hand. Conversely, I could just have easily had KJ or some other hand in this spot and used the same thought process to move the kid off of his hand. It's not that the kid did anything wrong in the hand, it's that I realized he was a good player before he realized I was.

You certainly don't come across good players very often in those casino hold'em games, but, when you do, it IS possible to read their hands.

The Ol' Ball Coach Always Covers for the Alumni

The Oregon Ducks helped me avert a disastrous Saturday and kept the damage to a manageable extent.  I was 2-4 going into that game, but Oregon covering and the game going over put me at 4-4 today.  Unfortunately, I lost both of my two unit plays as LSU failed to cover and Penn State failed to win altogether.  Naturally, I forgot to bet Michigan State this morning before leaving for the tailgate party and they covered.  The most disappointing thing is LSU failing to cover when they were ahead 28-7 in the fourth quarter, giving up a late touchdown to only win by 12.  Of course, I can't really complain too much since they scored one of their touchdowns on a fake field goal in the 1st half.

The more interesting thing is the end-game strategy of Steve Spurrier.  It's been a constant joke over the years that "Steve Spurrier always covers for the alumni."  When he was at Florida, this was somewhat difficult as those powerful Gator teams were always a substantial favorite.  This has been the funniest explanation of why he liked to run the score up.

BUT......today, he made a questionable decision in the 4th quarter to kick a field goal instead of going for the touchdown.  South Carolina had Fourth-and-goal at the LSU 6 with 7:48 left in the game trailing LSU by the score of 28-7.  Clearly, the only choice in this situation is to go for the end zone.  Being down by 21, there is no combination of 3 scores that includes a field goal that will make up the 21 point deficit.  Sure, a touchdown in this situation against the LSU defense is unlikely, but kicking the field goal makes winning next to impossible.  Anyway, Spurrier chooses to kick the field goal to make it an 18 point game.

Interestingly enough, the spread on the game had moved to LSU -18 last night.  Choosing to trail by 18 so they could at least push against the spread instead of the more likely 21 point deficit had he gone for the touchdown is the only explanation I can come up with for this decision.  Even Verne Lundquist and Gary Danielson were openly questioning the strategy.  I'm sure they both knew what the number was in this game and simply did not want to open that can of worms.

I wonder if any writers will bring this up this week, especially in light of the fact that South Carolina was able to later score a touchdown (but missed the 2-point conversion) to make the final score 28-16.  Had they scored a touchdown earlier, then they could have kicked the extra point and only trailed by 7 points with 1:48 left in the game.  Certainly still a huge underdog to tie the game, but at least they would have still been alive. 

As it was, the final touchdown meant nothing to anyone other than gamblers.

Lay the Wood on the Fighting Zooks!

I got one of the numbers I was looking for and laid 1.1 Units on Illinois (-2.5 @ -110) @ Indiana.  This is nothing more than the fact that I think Illinois is the better football team and 2.5 points is akin to a pick'em in college football.

I'm still waiting on Michigan State and Wisconsin.

College Football - Week 4

1. Florida @ Ole Miss - Florida (-21 @ -110) - 1.1 Units

Ole Miss has beaten Memphis on the road by 3 points and lost at home to Missouri by 13 points, although they trailed by 28 at one point in the game.  To compare situations, Missouri came into Oxford as 20 point favorites and now Florida is only favored by 21?  This just seems like a lot of value for a team that just beat Tennessee by 39 despite spotting the Volunteers a defensive touchdown.

The Florida defense has come along much faster than anyone imagined and since Ole Miss is nowhere near as good as Tennessee on offense, I don't see the Rebels scoring more than 17 points in this game.  If Missouri can score 38 on this team in Oxford, I'll put money all day long on Tim Tebow and company doing the same.

Florida 48 Ole Miss 14

2. South Carolina @ LSU - LSU (-16.5 @ -110) - 2.2 Units

I really don't believe that South Carolina is the 12th best team in the country, but I suppose I'll go along with it since I can't really say with conviction that another team should be ranked ahead of them.  The only serious game they've played this year was in Georgia where they won 17-12.  USC didn't really do anything impressive in that game outside of simply making fewer mistakes on offense than UGA and allowing Matt Stafford and his receivers to shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly.

Their offense is nothing to write home about and their defense, while pretty good, is not better than Virginia Tech's defense.  Giving South Carolina two touchdowns in this game would be fairly generous, but they'll score 7 points on average.  Betting on LSU to score 4 touchdowns at home is pretty attractive.

LSU 35 USC 7

3. Penn State @ Michigan - Penn State (-3 @ -105) - 1.05 Units

I was waiting all week for this line to move off of PSU -3 so I could take the Nittany Lions -2.5.  It still hasn't happened and, barring an avalanche of Michigan money tomorrow morning, probably won't.  It is currently at Penn State -3 @ +100.  I could have saved the 5 cents by waiting, but I wanted to make sure I got the 3 points and it didn't slip to 3.5.  I will definitely bet it again if it makes it below 3 points.

What else is there to say except that the best team in the Big 10 (not that anyone's bragging) is going to Ann Arbor to play a wounded UM team.  Penn State definitely does not run an offense like App State or Oregon (athletic QB with fast receivers) that gave Michigan trouble earlier, but they do have an outstanding running game and an above average passing offense.  Top that off with a stout rushing defense and Michigan will have to work hard to win this game.

Penn State 24 Michigan 14

4. East Carolina @ West Virginia - 1st Half East Carolina (+14 @ -105) - 1.05 Units

West Virginia has failed to cover the 1st half line in each of its three games this season, while covering the game spread each time.  They were actually losing to Marshall 13-6 at halftime before outscoring them 42-10 in the second half.

East Carolina, meanwhile, is scoring a respectable 20 points per game and moves the ball reasonably well with their version of the spread option. 

West Virginia's defense is allowing nearly 20 points per game, with the majority of those points being scored early in the game before its opponent is forced to give up on the run and try and pass their way back into the game.  If ECU can score 10 points, I think they will have taken enough time off of the clock to keep WVU under 4 scores.

The game will end up being a blowout, but I hope WVU continues its habit of taking a quarter or so to get into rhythm.

5. Troy @ UL Lafayette - Troy (-10 @ -120) - 1.2 Units

It could be a letdown game for Troy after they beat Oklahoma State last weekend, but I still can't resist laying 10 points on a solid team traveling to Lafayette to play a Cajuns squad that lost by two touchdowns to I-AA McNeese State last weekend.

The line is down to Troy -9.5 at the moment and I'm considering adding more action.

Troy 41 ULL 20

6. Oregon @ Stanford - Oregon (-16.5 @ -110) - 1.1 Units

Stanford is much better than they have been in the past, but there is a big difference between shutting out San Jose State at home and scoring enough points to keep up with the potent Oregon offense.

Oregon's defense is anything but stout, their 35-7 victory at Michigan notwithstanding.  After demonstrating their maturity by not letting up after their Michigan win, I can't imagine they'll be unprepared to play their conference opener against the Cardinal.

Stanford's offense is much improved and will score some points, but any team that gives up 45 points to UCLA is not going to be able to keep up with Oregon.

Oregon 52 Stanford 21

7. Oregon @ Stanford - Total Over 59.5 (-110) - 1.1 Units

See the above analysis.  We only need Stanford to score 17 points or so to clear this number.  This bet also has the added benefit of being somewhat of a hedge in that the probability of Oregon failing to cover AND the game going under 59.5 is fairly low while the probability of Oregon covering 16.5 AND the game going over is significant.

Numbers I'm Waiting On

1. Iowa at Wisconsin (Wisconsin -6.5) - The number is starting to drop after sitting at -7.5 all week.  It's at 7 now and likely to go down after Wisconsin allowed 31 to the Citadel last week.  It doesn't matter, though, as Iowa lost to god-awful Iowa State last weekend.

2. Michigan State @ Notre Dame (Michigan State -10) - Regardless of whether the game drops to -10 today, I'm going to wait until kickoff to bet it.  This game opened at -14 and has been steadily dropping all week.  I know Notre Dame is going to win a game eventually and stop getting blown out, but this isn't the week.  I liked this game at MSU -13, but didn't see any reason to bet it if the line will continue downward.  It currently sits at MSU -10.5.

3. Illinois @ Indiana (Illinois -2.5) - This number was available earlier in the week but I was not ready to bet it.  Hopefully I'll be able to get it again.

Season to Date Record (2007.09.18)

2007 NFL Regular Season

	W/L	Units Risked	Units Won	Net	ROI
Sides	5-5	11.05	10.45	(0.600)	(5.42%)
Totals	1-2	3.30	2.10	(1.200)	(36.36%)
Teasers	1-0	1.00	2.80	1.800	180.00%
Parlays	0-0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00%
Props	2-0	2.20	4.20	2.00	90.91%
Total:	9-7	17.55	19.55	2.00	11.40%

2007 College Football

	W/L	Units Risked	Units Won	Net	ROI
Sides	9-9	20.45	21.00	0.55	2.69%
Totals	1-1	1.85	1.05	(0.80)	(43.24%)
Teasers	0-0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00%
Parlays	0-0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00%
Total:	10-10	22.30	22.05	(0.25)	(1.12)%

2007 NFL Preseason

	W/L	Units Risked	Units Won	Net	ROI
Sides	4-6	5.975	6.000	0.025	0.42%
Totals	1-0	0.550	1.050	0.500	90.91%
Teasers	0-0	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.00%
Parlays	1-0	0.500	1.785	1.285	257.00%
Total:	6-6	7.025	8.835	1.810	25.77%

Summary

	W/L	Units Risked	Units Won	Net	ROI
NFL	9-7	17.550	19.550	2.000	11.40%
College	10-10	22.300	22.050	(0.250)	(1.12)%
Preseason	6-6	7.025	8.835	1.810	25.77%
Total:	25-23	46.875	50.435	3.56	7.59%

NFL - Week 2

Not much time to explain the plays, but a big card today.

1. New Orleans Saints (-1 @ -110) @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers (1.1 Units)

I got this line a month ago when they had several games posted over the course of the season.  The line is up to Bucs +4 right now, so it looks like I got some good value here.

2. San Diego Chargers (+3.5 @ -110) @ New England Patriots (1.1 Units)

Same thing with this line (bet it a month ago), but it happens that this is the exact same line that is posted today.  I still think this is the right way to go on this game.

3. Cincinnati Bengals (-6.5 @ -110) @ Cleveland Browns (1.1 Units)

I've pretty much decided that I'm going to go against the Browns any time I can lay less than a touchdown as they may be the worst team in the league

4. Indianapolis Colts @ Tennessee Titans - Total Under 45.5 (1.1 Units)

Both games last year went well under this number and I can't imagine that the Titans are going to try to outscore the Colts, so look for a ton of rushing plays.  Even if the Colts do get out to a lead and force the Titans to pass, Vince Young and his 50% completion rate shouldn't really terrify anyone.

5. Kansas City Chiefs @ Chicago Bears (-12 @ -110) (1.1 Units)

I kind of liked the Over 34.5 in this game, but I think the Bears covering 12 is more likely.  I just didn't want to be in a position where I need the Chiefs to score a touchdown against the Bears defense to get over 34.

6. San Francisco 49ers (-0.5 @ -110) vs New York Giants (1.1 Units)

This is an imaginary matchup where a line has been posted.  Much like fantasy football, i need the niners (@ Rams) to outscore the Giants (vs. Packers).  Word is that Eli will try to play, but I don't think he's going to have a great deal of success against a good young Packers defense.  If he can't go, then they will be rolling with The Battleship Lorenzen and Derrick Ward leading the offensive charge.  I like this bet.

7. Chicago Bears (-0.5 @ -110) vs Philadelphia Eagles (1.1 Units)

Just like the last bet, Philly is playing a decent defense (Washington) on monday night while the Bears are at home against the terrible Chiefs.

8. San Francisco 49ers (+3 @ +100) @ St. Louis Rams (1 Unit)

I don't necessarily like to predict a decent team like the Rams opening up 0-2 at home, but the loss of Orlando Pace is going to seriously stunt their offense while Jim Haslett's defense is going to have a tough time with Frank Gore.