[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore your bet was weak because a good player getting into early foul trouble certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's ALWAYS true, of any CBB game. It's not outside the realm of possibility, but what is? It happens, although it's not a very likely occurrence. It randomizes the outcomes of the games somewhat, true, but it is what it is. It's one of the many reasons I prefer the NBA to college in general, for betting and as a fan.

If you think the possibility of such an occurrence constitutes a "weak bet," then I can't believe you think betting on the NFL is profitable, the most randomized sport of all IMO. How many games turn on completely subjective holding or, better yet, 50-yard pass interference penalties, or simply the funny bounce of an oblong ball? What is more random than who recovers fumbles, onside kicks, etc.? You think an injury to Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is outside the realm of possibility, or wouldn't hurt their respective teams? Just making a point. (Not to hijack, but I'm starting to agree w/ mrbaseball about the NFL. Even the books have gotten hammered two years in a row.)

I said I thought U of L would win outright here between 60-70% of the time (although not in my OP), and I still believe that's true.

If you're still complaining because I roped you in w/ the title, I'm sorry, I didn't honestly think it offered the biggest edge in sports betting in 100 years. If my argument was so convincing as to lead you to believe that, I apologize. Maybe tech should institute a rule where everyone who posts picks has to quantify their edge to the nearest tenth of a percent to avoid confusion. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]