2010 NBA Finals: Lakers Vs. Celtics

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sX6NQbhSAAo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sX6NQbhSAAo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

Boston -3.5

or Lakers + 3.5

 

Go with your gut... because the obvious one is Boston -3.5. Personally, I would go with LA +3.5.

 

lol that was some funny *****. :grin:

 

What does this mean, again? I'm not really a betting man...

Does it mean that the betters who put money on Boston really wants them to lose by 4 points?

 

No. -3.5 would mean that Boston is favored to WIN by at least 3.5 points. +3.5 would mean that the Lakers would need to be within 3.5 points or win the game. It's called a point spread.

 

I think the Celtics will win the next 2 games, then LA will win all the marbles in 7

 

Is that the actual point spread?

I'm surprised Boston is pegged to win, then.

 

Yes, but it changes throughout the day. Why wouldn't Boston be favored to win? They're expected to bounce back at home in a pivotal game. The Lakers on the other hand have shown that they relax after winning a game in the playoffs.

 

I'm watching the pregame show on NBA TV. In response to being told NBA player Chick Reiser shot 0-12 in an NBA Finals game in 1948, Charles Barkley says "I was dead in 1948."

Kenny could not stop laughing enough to move on to the next topic.

LOL. You can't make this stuff up.

 

BTW, the way the spread works is this. The bookies set the initial line based on an analysis of the teams and venue. Then, as the money comes in, the line is adjusted to try to even out the best on both sides. So if the line is Lakers +4 and a bunch of bets come in for the Lakers, it'll be decreased (say to Lakers +3.5) to encourage betting for the Celtics. The idea is that the bookies don't want to care who wins the game-- if they have the same amount of money on both sides they always win because they take a percentage of the bets (so if you bet $11 on the Lakers and they win, you'll win $10; some guy on the other side bet $11 on the Celtics and he loses $11, so the bookies make $1 net). That's called the "juice".

 

I just think that LA with the lead, now, might have the mindset that Pierce has; that the Lakers aren't going back to LA either.

But I can see the counter-argument too; they have the lead in the series, so they might take the quarter / half / night off.

 

Well of course. David Stern is the comish and he is looking to make the most money.

 

Hey look, Ray made an uncontested layup!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You've gotta post more. You're like "Where's Waldo" lately...I enjoy your posts.


Anyway, I'm going for the Celts again. I'd like Derrick Fisher to cry for different reasons...on national tv.

 

gasol to the celtics? "how do you want it? inside or outside, i got them both."

 

Ha.

The innuendos in basketball are great...Hubie Brown makes them the most awkward though.

 

I know you can say this about a lot of games, but it really does seem like the Celtics have had an extreme amount of shots go halfway down and roll out so far in this series. They can't buy a layup.

 

This is more like an NBA Finals game. Fouls only being called on Fouls.. star players being able to play without worrying about touch fouls.

 

A shot going halfway down and roll out is no different than any other kind of miss. The Lakers length has bothered them... it's pretty obvious.