Posts by James Taylor3

driftinghawk83 said:I feel the same way—maybe we aren't even sharing much with them seriously. 🤣

Though I haven't really been playing with them lately.

Could be. 🤣

I’ve stuck exclusively to them and Pinnacle lately.

Their odds are excellent—it's just their site design that's a total disaster, but that's secondary. 😁

driftinghawk83 said:What’s your player limit looking like these days?

It's at 83.33—which is pretty much where it started, if I recall correctly.

Works for me. 😁

How about yours?

driftinghawk83 said:You’re lucky—they tend to set limits pretty easily. It doesn't matter how you play; if you're sticking to parlays, it's understandable why they haven't capped you yet.

No, strictly singles.

I placed just one single bet on a local underdog for pennies—and I missed it.

Nicholas Palmer75 said:Sure—but try taking their money and you'll find your account hit with a limit before you can even blink.

As for me, I just quadrupled my starting stake by betting on NBA players over at DraftKings. No limits in sight...

Carol Green6 said:If Dynamo Kyiv wins, they'll be seeded in the Europa League...

That's incorrect.

The top four third-place finishers will be seeded—and even a win doesn't guarantee that for the Kyiv residents.

Joshua Garcia8 said:James Taylor3, go ahead and dig up the latest from the Portuguese camp.

FedEx doesn't have much of an issue with their roster—they're only missing one defender, and that’s about it.

Naturally, they're playing for the win tomorrow, even though a draw keeps them in first place.

If we're looking for a weakness in FedEx, it's definitely the defense. They aren't exactly elite, and they struggle significantly with crosses and aerial duels. A physical striker could really cause them some trouble here.

Both teams scoring seems like the most logical bet. 🤷

There’s going to be quite a few battles for those third-place spots—the four best third-placed teams get seeded straight into the next phase of the Europa League.

It's always a solid bet to look toward clubs from Eastern Europe; they're one of the few groups—alongside the Portuguese—that actually take this tournament seriously.

Nicholas Chase34 said:95 points. I don't think it could have been any easier. 🤣 ☕

Rutinski stripped them down—56 in the first, 36 in the second. 😁

They were down to free throws in the final seconds—otherwise, they wouldn't have even broken 90. 👍

Nicholas Chase34 said:You mean the Trail Blazers have the edge? 🙂

Yeah, I was referring to the Trail Blazers. 😁

Nicholas Chase34 said:True—the Trail Blazers haven't shown much in defense yet, but eventually they'll have to step up.

I went with this pair because the margin felt a bit too wide for my liking—personally, I think it should be 2-3 points lower to be ideal. I doubt the Hawks can cover without getting plenty of free throws, unless they shoot exceptionally well, which seems unlikely during a back-to-back. 🤷

I don't feel like digging through stats right now, but from what I've seen in these early season games, it looks like the Trail Blazers pick up a lot of fouls—they get into foul trouble pretty quickly.

It surprised me when you mentioned that Atlanta isn't drawing many free throws, considering they have Lou Williams, Smith, and even Horford on the roster.

Sure, that back-to-back could be a factor against the over, but I don't know—I don't trust that Portland-esque defense one bit. 😁

Nicholas Chase34 said:Atlanta under 97.5 points — $1.85.

The Atlanta Hawks are sliding. After picking up wins against the Thunder and the Pacers, they just dropped games to Miami and the Clippers—back-to-back. It’s becoming clear that once teams figure out how to neutralize Josh Smith, the wheels come off. Their biggest issue? They rely far too heavily on the three-pointer. They rank fourth in attempts, yet only manage to convert 17 per game. That lack of interior presence is glaring. They aren't getting to the line—they're currently sitting near the bottom of the league with just 16.2 free throw attempts per game (13.2% FT/FGA), paired with a dismal 66.7% conversion rate (#29). It’s hard to draw contact when you aren't attacking the rim, and right now, they're only 24th in field goal attempts at the hoop. Portland isn't exactly an elite defensive unit, but they have a favorable matchup here. Aldridge should be able to contain Al Horford, and Batum can likely keep a struggling Smith in check. Matthews is well-equipped to handle Korver—who remains their only real threat from spot-ups or off-screens—while Teague won't pose much of a problem for the Blazers; Lillard should handle him easily. If Atlanta wants to stay relevant, they have to win through defense. If they try to play in high-speed shootouts, they aren't going anywhere. They were held to a measly 77 points during their last outing at the Rose Garden; I expect perhaps slightly more from them today. ☕

The bar is set relatively high—but even so, the Rockets are the only team this season that haven't managed to drop 100+ points on the Blazers.

Batum might be able to contain Smith—though I wouldn't bet the house on it. While Batum brings solid perimeter defense and athleticism to the table, Smith simply possesses more raw power. The only way the Hawks gain the upper hand is if Batum manages to get him into foul trouble; that’s a vulnerability Smith has shown plenty of times before.

Aldridge has a solid shot at shutting down Horford—but man, that guy has such a soft touch. His mid-range game is basically a specialty.
If I recall correctly, two seasons ago, he was the only big man shooting above .500 from beyond the arc.

While the offense is looking solid, I wasn't particularly impressed with Lillard's defensive effort—though Teague is putting up decent numbers for now.

The Blazers' bench is a complete disaster defensively—Jeffries, Pavlovic, Leonard, and the rest are just completely limp. I suspect Williams and Harris are going to be forced to pick up the slack.

I think Portland has the edge tonight—though I doubt they’ll be able to significantly limit the Hawks, even with that back-to-back schedule.
I’d probably set the line maybe 1–2 points lower—but honestly, I don't know—I'd just avoid that bet altogether. 😁

stormyseal9 said:Philadelphia (-3.5) vs New Orleans 1
- The home team will be hunting for their fourth straight win today—following a 3-0 road sweep where they held opponents to under 82 points per game. Despite missing Andrew Bynum, Paul Richardson, and Tim Brown, they look revitalized because their bench depth is stepping up perfectly. I’m seeing a +6 or +7 margin here, especially since they consistently beat this opponent (7 wins in their last 8, including three straight at home). For the more cautious bettors, I’d suggest the under 188.5—they've gone under in 10 of their last 11 matchups.

That 81.7 defensive average for Philly over the last three games isn't particularly meaningful—mostly because two of those three games were against bottom-tier offenses. New Orleans ranks second to last, averaging just 88.2 points, and they play the slowest pace in the league—dead last in possessions per game. Plus, they faced Philly without their two top guys—Aaron Gordon and Anthony Davis—and without their solid rookie, Doc Rivers. It's hardly surprising they only managed 66 points against a Philly defense that's generally decent.

As for Toronto, they also struggled heading into their matchup with Philly; they were missing their clear best player from earlier this season, Kyle Lowry, who was routinely dropping 20 points a night. Besides, Toronto isn't exactly an offensive powerhouse—they sit 18th in the league, averaging about 94.7 points.

Philly only gave up 66 points in one of those three recent outings, which heavily skewed their defensive average downward; for context, Boston put up exactly 100 against them, and even Boston has been struggling with efficiency early this season.

Philly's defense is solid, but let's not overstate it.

In previous years, Milwaukee played a slow, grind-it-out style built on toughness and grit. But without Andrei Bogut, and with Monta Ellis and Ilyasova offering almost nothing defensively, it makes sense they've transitioned into a run-and-gun squad that puts up high numbers. Past head-to-head matchups don't really carry much weight here.

Keith Moore21 said:http://www.donbest.com/nba/injuries/

http://hoopshype.com/twitter/tag/san_antonio_spurs

Need to take that Portland game 😁

edit: scroll down a bit 😬

Man, I was just looking at Donbest and completely missed it. 🤣

Looks like both Tony Parker and Tim Duncan are playing. Boris Diaw is a marginal piece regardless—now we just see if Kevin Durant sits out.

My money is on a high-scoring affair. Portland's defense is shaky, the Spurs have deep bench depth, and they can knock down threes—both sides could easily hit triple digits.

Matthew Vaughn5 said:Jackson, Boris Diaw, Tim Duncan, and Tony Parker are questionable... they might not play.

Look, if we're talking about our guys, I don't see anyone mentioning them elsewhere.

When you're pulling data from US media outlets or forums, it wouldn't hurt to include a link to the actual story.

By the way, Portland has won seven straight at home against the San Antonio Spurs.

Joshua Gonzalez33 said:LaMarcus Aldridge over 20.5 @ 1.85
-LaMarcus didn't exactly have a standout game—19 points with just 3 rebounds—and he barely even got to the free-throw line. The Los Angeles Lakers defended him well, but tonight he faces Serge Ibaka, who wasn't exactly a defensive wall last season. Plus, the Oklahoma City Thunder have been among the five worst teams at defending the power forward position, and it’s worth noting that Serge Ibaka tends to pick up a lot of fouls. Nicolas Batum stood out against the Lakers, too, but facing Kevin Durant tonight will be a different story; expect LaMarcus Aldridge to carry the load. Worth a shot—I just hope the Thunder don't run away with it early, or LaMarcus might end up on the bench.

Serge Ibaka is solid defensively; he often handles opposing centers when Kendrick Perkins isn't on the floor, while Kevin Durant or Scotty Collison rotate over to the PF spot—so that specific stat doesn't mean much to me.
It’s no coincidence Serge Ibaka was a Defensive Player of the Year candidate last year.

Does Serge Ibaka commit a lot of fouls? 😕

I wasn't sure about that stat, so I went to check—last season he averaged 2.71 fouls per game.

In my view, LaMarcus Aldridge played a very strong game against the Los Angeles Lakers—his shooting remains smooth as usual—while Jeff Hickson handled the rebounding duties.

Joshua Gonzalez33 said:I was just using that stat to bolster my bet—and look, Tim Duncan went out and dropped 20. It’s not like LaMarcus Aldridge wouldn't have done the same, considering he takes way more shots than Duncan does.
He plays well against the Los Angeles Lakers. But as the best player for the Portland Trail Blazers, people expect elite performances—that's the job. Shooting under 50% without contributing elsewhere—rebounds, assists, blocks—just isn't what you'd call an excellent game.

Regarding the fouls, I was speaking from memory based on how he looked in tougher matchups. I actually went back and checked the stats just now; that 2.71 foul average ranks 13th among all power forwards, so he isn't exactly among the low-foul guys either. Regardless, I was pulling that number out of thin air—my apologies if it was misleading.

No, I didn't say it was a bad bet. If I had to choose, I'd take the over on Portland too. I was simply pointing out those specific data points.

Eric Fox7 said:I actually think it isn't even about how much you're betting, but rather the specific types of plays you're making 🤷

With my style—hitting parlays and chasing those high-odds basketball lines—they’d probably have me blocked within a week. 😬

Who knows, though—you might be onto something there. 🤔

Nicholas Palmer75 said:That’s just how they view people from this part of the world. I don't know the official reason—they won't say—but it's clear they aren't thrilled when we play with them. For instance, right after I opened my account with DraftKings, my limits were stuck between $24 and $55. You can't even place a larger bet if you wanted to. Then there was VCbet—formerly Victor Chandler—who shut my account down after literally 2 (!!!) bets at $100 stakes. Here is the proof:

It doesn't even require you to have taken their money; you can be deep in the red and they'll still limit you. I saw the same thing happen with Bet365—a friend of mine was significantly down, yet he still got limited with the excuse that they "aren't interested in players like him." It's a similar story with DraftKings, Stan James, and the rest.

Real shady behavior. 👎

I don't know—I've been with Pinnacle for nearly a year and Bet365 for about six months, and neither has limited or blocked me. 🙂
Then again, I'm not exactly a heavy hitter; my maximum stake is only twice what your upper limit is at DraftKings.

Nicholas Palmer75 said:US bookmakers generally aren't fond of players from the North America—you can expect to hit account limits pretty quickly. Some outfits will even cap you the moment you open an account just because you fall into what they consider a "high-risk" demographic. That said, looking at this list, I'd say William Hill is where you'll make the most money. 🙂

Seriously?

Why exactly are we considered "high risk"?

I don't buy that they kicked you off—it’s more likely a system glitch since both of you are hitting the same wall—or perhaps someone's trying to crack your account.

Why not just give them a call? 🤷

Customer Support — available daily from 7 AM to 11 PM

Toll-free info line: 0800 600 607