NCAA BB Game of the Century - Louisville +2 vs. Kentucky

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foul trouble is so much more likely than a usually healthy star NFL player getting hurt that I really can't believe you're using that as an analogy. Btw the NFL is profitable exactly because of randomized but foreseeable events, it is historically better to take dogs when in doubt because the randomness of the events you mention favors teams getting points. 2005 is a strong outlier to this tried and true method.

The issue here is that a game of the century or whatever should basically nullify virtually all risk probability, foul trouble in an NCAA game being one of the more likely risk situations you'll encounter. If both of the star players got into early foul trouble then you'd have a better leg to stand on as that's much more unlikely, but it was just one of them. The team never enjoyed a lead in 40 minutes.

I don't care about losing the bet, I just think your (lack of) inclination toward covering all the bases is faulty enough to warrant the question of whether you're participating in a profitable activity in the long run. Live and learn, or just stop.