[johncrud]

It is so much easier to pick games and win that way. Of course, I don't bet on any ML that is above -700. Come to think of it, isn't the John Morrison system requires you to have 18 units per each NBA series in order to wager effectively? This is like the cheaper version of the JM system.

And I usually bet on legit teams when they are playing at home court like the Boston, Orlando, or Lakers.

For this weekend, I know the Giants are going to win ML. The ML is only -300

[johncrud]

Tomorrow, I am leaning on Denver ML. I believed it will only cost me 4.4 units to win 1 unit.

Wait till you see college basketball, the fav ML are hitting at an astonishing record of 110 -20

[johncrud]

Tomorrow, I am leaning on Denver ML. I believed it will only cost me 4.4 units to win 1 unit.

[williams22]

Way too risky if you ask me. The general strategy that is, not the pick necessarily.

[greatrace]

I like your strategy. I use it myself to a degree.

I tend to favour the ML bets.

My reasoning is that I am trying to get my aims to align with that of the players. Players go out to win (mostly) and not necessarily be concerned about covering a spread.

I had too many bets of picking the right team that didn't cover the spread and watching them walk off the court or field celebrating, drove me nuts.

Good luck this weekend

[jcygts6]

yea ML is the way to go... spread is a coin toss

[Jak]

I like to go under -300 or buy speed until it with 2 points

[greatrace]

The spread also can come into for me, home or away too. Like I said earlier I am a fan of the ML. But last week the Hawks v the Knicks yelled at me to take the points, and the hawks covered, a very rare bet for me. Was in a parlay so i still lost, but shit happens.

Like was also said its a coin toss, like the totals, thats why you get even money I guess.

The other thing is if you like the underdog to win outright and you get can a few points in the NBA, or a touchdown in the NFL, why not take those odds and give yourself a buffer, that is if you like the dog.

I guess it works both ways, a team can never ever look like losing, but not cover the spread (i.e. Cavs v the Knicks) or look like losing, but beause of a 2 minute burst cover the spread and win (i.e. Saints v Dolphins).

In my opinion it depends on the individual, what you prefer, what kind of appetite you have for risk. What your opinion on the risk is.

It has been mentioned that risking more to win a unit is riskier than risking a smaller amount on a bet that has less chance of paying out? It is all about where you perceive the greatest risk to lie.

Does anyone actually have any data on a compariosn between winning/losing on Ml vs Spread? Rather than just opinions that ML hurt you in the long run.