Best bet of week

yeah, I would take Carolina there if I was picking it. Thinking it over.

Also Green Bay tonight.

I'm deciding in Survivor between Baltimore, Seattle, and KC.

I think I'll take Baltimore, because I wouldn't be taking them the next three weeks anyway.

The advantage to taking Seattle is there aren't many situations to take them in.

 

San Diego -2 (-110)
Chicago -3 (-107)

 

What a horrible week. I was doing really well until now.

 

the chargers pick was so frustrating because of how they kept killing themselves with unforced errors, despite the fact that they were the superior team yesterday.

 

But you did stick your head up a cow's anus after Trent Edwards was released, right?


Anyway:

Well, this was a particularly frustrating sequence on Sunday, as both a Bears fan and a bettor.

Early in the third quarter, with the Bears ahead 14-10, they faced a first-and-goal from the Redskins' 1-yard line. Jay Cutler tried a quarterback sneak, an acceptable call by the Bears when your quarterback is 6-foot-3, 233 pounds and has a propensity for throwing to the other team when he is within 20 yards of the goal line.

But an unacceptable call when your quarterback has fingers made of Crisco.

Which is why Cutler fumbled the ball. It was recovered by the Skins. Two plays later, Donovan McNabb fumbled inside his own 10, and recovered it. On the next play, McNabb threw a pick-six to D.J. Moore. Yeah, the Bears take a big lead and, since neither offense merited an annoying Tiny Football League highlight, they were an extra point away from an eight-point cushion on a three-point cover.

Alas, the Skins were called for a delay of game before the snap. No touchdown. Seven plays later, after a Redskins punt, the Bears have a first down at the Washington 47 and Cutler ... throws a pick. Next series, after another Redskins punt, the Bears have a third down at Washington's 13. Protect the ball, get the field goal, cover the spread!!! Or, Jay, throw a 92-yard pick-six the other way to DeAngelo Hall. Skins go up 17-14, a lead they would never relinquish.

Statistically, the Bears were the right side of this selection. They outgained Washington by nearly a half-yard per play. And, from a contrarian perspective, this was the smart choice, too. Only 40 percent of the action was on the Bears.

If you don't read the column regularly -- shame on you -- then a contrarian play is taking the side against the majority of bets. This past weekend, 75 percent of wagers were on the Baltimore Ravens over the Buffalo Bills. Same with the Niners over the Panthers. And more than 70 percent were on the Steelers over the Dolphins. In all three cases, the dogs in these games covered. "We won with the Dolphins," says Hilton bookmaker Jeff Sherman. "And that game had by far the biggest reaction from fans in our book yesterday. Most of the people were cheering when Roethlisberger scored and were then completely deflated after the touchdown was overruled."

For the day, most books won because the big favorites -- the Saints, the Ravens -- and the biggest public team, the Steelers, didn't cover. Overall, dogs were 7-5-1, a sure sign that books turned at least a small profit, while contrarian bettors went 7-6. But things could have been so much better, for both groups, if some other "right" sides had come in.

For example, the Chargers' loss to the Patriots was particularly heartbreaking. The Chargers outgained the Pats by nearly 200 yards. Unfortunately, they also had four turnovers. The fact that San Diego came within a doinked field goal of tying it should be as frightening for Pats fans as it is frustrating for Chargers fans, who are stuck rooting for a squad that has quickly become the Lindsay Lohan of the NFL: unable to get out of its own way and full of wasted potential. (As an aside, I truly believe that what A.J. Smith has done with this team is negligent and more egregious than anything Al Davis has ever done with the Raiders.)

I wrote last week that this San Diego team was giving handicappers fits. A lot of readers commented that making a number for the Chargers was actually simple: They stink on the road and are great at home. So now what? San Diego played as sloppy a game as it's played all year -- on its home field. Yet it was still dominant in some of the areas that matter most to handicappers, like yards per play, outgaining New England 5.1 to 3.1. "San Diego has been tough to gauge," says Pete Korner of the line-making consulting group The Sports Club. "Setting the opener has been a coin toss."

For what it's worth, late on Sunday night, Pete and his guys sent out San Diego minus-2 over Tennessee. The game is being played at Qualcomm on Halloween.

I wonder who the Chargers will go as.

 

Mon 10/25 429 New York Giants -3.5 -116
05:35 PM 430 Dallas Cowboys +3.5 +105

 

pinnacle went from -3 (-115) to -3 (-149) in like 4 minutes.

It actually came back down, though.

5 Dimes had it way up at 6, -110 both ways, but brought it back down to 4.5 before betting closed

If I could use Pinnacle, I could've arbed this huge. Pound -3 right away, knowing that's where the action will be coming in, and then simply buy it back 5 minutes later.

Weak opener. Anyone could've told you the first bets would be Giants -3.

 

Terrible loss for you.

DSI gave me great value on Dallas, so I had to take it.

It looked brutal, but the Giants allowed Dallas to get in a backdoor second half cover.

I got +4.5 (+110), +5 (+105), and +5 (+110) when 5 Dimes was offering +4.5 (-110). Also got +4 (+135) at Bodog.

My second game trying in play betting, and in play betting had unbeatable lines again. The advantage came at halftime.

It would've been sick had Witten landed between 54 and 69 yards, but oh well. Big time 4th quarter stats for him, so I couldn't hit that middle.