I made 4 bets today.
I agree with DD. How can the Lions be favoured? It looks too easy to take the Vikes plus points, so I took Detroit.
Giants and Denver are home dogs to division rivals with spreads between 7 and 10 (dogs between 7 and 10 cover more than dogs over 10), so I took them.
And in a battle of Texas, the dynamics are similar to a division rivalry and the 16 points is too much to not take along with the fact that AFC covers more than NFC in games between the conferences. Houston.
As always, these are wild guesses with no game analysis. I only analyze the history of spreads.
Actually, I reported my bets wrong. I never bet on the Lions. I ended betting on the Jets instead. I'd been watching the Lions game and was feeling good. I then checked the bets I'd made at the half and discovered my error. At that point, the Bills were ahead of the Jets by a good margin, and I was pissed. As it turned out a very late field goal by the Jets got me under the spread. Only the fucking G-Men crapped out on me today.
So, as it turns out, I was 4 for 5 on my picks (3 for 4 on the actual bets I
did make) without any football analysis of the circumstances surrounding any of the games. All I looked at was the spreads for dogs, home teams, division rivalries, etc. The only exception was the Lions game where the spread seemed illogical. And I went against what logic would dictate. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is. But I still didn't analyse the teams aside from looking at their records.
I'll probably pull an O-fer next week.