#BolekBestBets - NFL Week 2/NCAA Week 3

Week 2 NFL Theme - Redemption Song


Yikes!

Looking to sing the Redemption Song this week after a bad start to my NFL gambling  in Week 1

I hope you didn't follow my bets from the blog last week, at least the NFL ones. I went 3-1 on the NCAA picks, but my overall NFL record was a perfect mess.

On the Sunday bets, I recorded an 0-6 record. I didn't end up betting the Colts (which was obviously a good thing).

Here's a rundown of my bets from Sunday and how bad they lost by the spread:

KC Moneyline (lost to Atlanta 40-24) -16
Ten +5 (lost to New England 34-13) -16
NO -8 (lost to Washington 40-32) - 16
GB -6 (lost to San Fran 30-22) - 14
Car/TB over 45.5 (26 combined points) - 19.5
Pitt/Den under 45 (50 combined points) - 5

If you average those out, I lost my bets by over two touchdowns PER BET. I admit it was easier to stomach being completely wrong on most of these than to squeak out losses on the games.

Luckily, MNF I was up a little bit, going 3-2 with my bets (won first half Cin/Balt over, SD/Oak under, SD in-game next-score; lost Cin +7, in-game Cin/Balt under).

The good thing is - I remain confident and am not just firing bets out there at random. No steam bets, no large wagers to chase losses, none of that shit. Too many times, I used to do that, only to dig myself a bigger hole.

Let's look at next week, shall we?

Fool's Gold - Week 2

All right, all right, all right!

Last week's fool's gold highlighted (or in retrospect, lowlighted) Tennessee Titans as having a good shot of covering/beating the Patriots, who much of the public was craving to bet. That, of course, is the theme of Fool's Gold. This is meant to highlight a particular game that the average Joe Public bettor thinks is "just too good of a line to pass up", only to realize he was wrong in his assessment.

Looks like my foolish ass was wrong in Week 1, but I look to change that in Week 2. There are several good candidates this week. I considered Jacksonville +7 vs. Houston; Seattle +3.5 vs. Dallas; and St Louis +3.5 vs. Washington, but this week, I want to highlight the ultimate Fool's Gold pick, a rare road underdog that has the love of the general public.

Baltimore enters Week 2 as a popular pick with Vegas spotting them 2 points against the Philadelphia Eagles, who struggled to beat a Cleveland Browns team considered by many to be one of the worst teams in the league. On paper, you're thinking, "What the hell? The Ravens are +2 after their impressive win on Monday Night Football versus a team who barely beat the Browns?"

Several reasons to reconsider your Ravens pick

1. Isolated Game Perception. The Ravens played under the lights of Monday Night Football, which definitely helps shape people's perspective than your average Sunday early game. This goes for any isolated game, which is the only game in town - thus, the average person is likely to consume that game than any particular game on Sunday before the NBC game. What you saw was the Ravens look great, and likely, all you saw of the Eagles game (unless you watched it on DirecTV) was the final score and the stats, which clearly disappointed you since you own a couple Eagles in fantasy football.
2. Letdown Game. Similar theory to 1, except this includes the fact that last week, besides being Week 1 on MNF, was that it is a division game. I expect there to be a letdown playing an out-of-division foe  (like the Ravens experienced in Week 2 last year after destroying the Steelers in Week 1).
3. The Eagles are good. The Eagles aren't favorites for no reason. The Eagles were still in division contention last year despite their pitiful 4-8 start. Entering this year, they were considered the second or third best team in the NFC based on chance to make it to the Super Bowl. They got great talent at all of the skill positions. Vick is probably over-rated (not an elite QB), but he's still better than most QBs overall. They also have a pretty good defense. I attribute the offense's struggles in Week 1 more to the imbalance of the offense (2:1 pass/run ratio, despite having one of the most talented RBs in the league). I expect McCoy to get more carries this week, which should open up the pass game a little.
4. Short Week for Ravens. Granted, this is probably one of the weaker reasons for backing the Eagles, but it could come into play.

Fool's Gold Pick: Philly -2 over Baltimore

Fool's Gold YTD: 0-1

Elimination Pool Pick: I forgot to add this feature last week. Week 1, I squeaked out a Detroit Lions win over the Rams. Week 2, I'm going with the lay-up pick: New England

Elimination Pool Pick(s) to Avoid: I believe that Dallas & Houston will be challenged this week.

Other NFL Week 2 Picks

Jax +7 vs Houston - Gabbert has a new "I may actually not suck" aura about him now. MJD should be sharper. I have a great gut feel for this one. May even take Jax money line.

Seattle +3.5 vs Dallas - Everyone is hammering the Cowboys after their impressive win in the league opener in Week 1 (possible isolated game perception by the public). Seattle is an improved team this year, plus their stadium, known for the 12th man for their loud crowd noise, is a hard place to place.

StL +3.5 vs. Wash - Who got the most coverage this past week in the NFL? RGIII. Who currently has one of the highest percentage of bets placed for this week? Washington. St. Louis had Detroit, a playoff team, on the ropes in their road opener. The Rams are an improved team (QB is healthy, experienced coach, good 2012 draft). I expect the public to be way wrong on this one.

Considering...Denver +3 at Atlanta; New Orleans/Carolina Over; KC +3 at Buffalo

Week 1: (4-9, -5.215 units)

NFL YTD: (5-11, -6.315 units) - includes GB/Chi bets

(Check my Twitter for my latest picks) @BrianBolek

NCAA Week 3 picks

Ohio State -16.5 over Cal - Urban Meyer is a covering monster in his coaching career for nonconference games (35-8 record - 81%). Plus, this is a really early game for Cal (9am Pacific time). I expect OSU to roll by 3+ scores. Already bet this (1.07 to win 1 unit)

Northwestern -3.5 over BC - Both teams are closing their non-conference schedules out. Both are coming off of impressive wins. I like NU's wins better (at Syracuse, who looked good against top-ranked USC, vs Vandy, who looked good against highly ranked South Carolina) compared to BC's only win last week. I'm gonna wait on this game and see if it goes down to -3 (always want to get the best line if possible). If not, I'll likely take it at -3.5 or 4.
UL-Monroe +16.5 over Auburn - Some people might be afraid that UL-Monroe was a fluke and could have a letdown here, but if you look at the stat sheet, they just flat out beat Arkansas everywhere (yards 550-377, first downs 30-21, almost a 2/1 possession ratio). I haven't seen Auburn play this year, but everything I've read/heard about Auburn is that they're just not that good this year. Auburn will likely win, but I think it will be a struggle.

Might add a few more NCAA games - haven't looked too closely at the schedule yet. I'll be at a family function tomorrow, so I may not bet too many games tomorrow outside of those.

Week 2: (3-1, +2.93 units)

NCAA YTD: (11-5, +6.035 units)

Football combined: (16-16, -0.28 units)

Enjoy the football weekend everyone.

Rocking the Vote: How I Went From Politically Disengaged to Actually Giving a Crap About Politics

Starting back in January when I wrote a little bit about SOPA, the law that could essentially give government the right to control the Internet and censor a good chunk of it, is when I started to become political. Probably for the first time in my life.

Disengaged from Politics

I have voted in two elections in my lifetime, with my first ever vote being for the wonderful Rod Blagojevich for Illinois governor in 2002 and my last vote in 2004 for the ever-charismatic John Kerry for US President (among other candidates on the ballot). Admittedly, I knew little about the people I was voting for. I grew up in a liberal household, so naturally, my tendencies of voting were Democrat-Centric.

When I placed those votes, I don't remember having any feeling of "Hey, my guy is gonna make a difference" or "I'm proud of myself for voting for a guy whose views I respect and generally agree with". I placed these votes mainly because of my upbringing - which many people do. And trust me, there was absolutely nothing wrong with my upbringing, but my impression of "the other party" was not as favorable with what they stood for and what they wanted out of government.

After the 2004 election, I became disillusioned completely with government processes. When I moved back home with my parents, I never renewed my voting information from the time I voted as a senior in college. The limited stuff I read about politics in-between 2004 and January 2012 was basically such garbage on both sides that it made it impossible to follow for someone who just doesn't care.

And that's where they get you! All those negative ads that both parties run, it's not necessarily to get you to vote for the candidate who is funding the commercial. It's to get people to not vote for the opponent or just not vote at all! At the end of the day, one non-vote for someone's opponent is just as good as a vote for the candidate engaging in the negative ad campaign.

I'm sure there's books on all this stuff, with people who are smarter than me and more engaged in these processes that could better explain how these two parties seem more focused on negative campaigning against their opponent rather than actually presenting their own views - of which the main parties share way way more than either party could ever admit. The negative campaigning does its job a lot of times in keeping people who were unsure of who they were voting for (but maybe leaning a certain way) out of the voting booth altogether. I can say it honestly worked on me - I haven't gave a crap about politics my whole life, particularly the past 7 years before 2012.

Obama ran on a platform of "Change", which was wildly popular and very effective in its messaging of moving on from the presidency of George W. Bush. I don't know why I didn't bother voting in 2008 - maybe it was because I knew Obama was going to win our state and electoral votes anyways, or maybe there was a skeptical part of me that thought this guy was too good to be true. (Now I've realized that local elections are probably more important than the Presidential vote due to their more personal, direct effect on your everyday life, so my attitude has changed on this for sure).

In his four years as President, I wouldn't say he's been the worst president we've ever had (as some Republican folks would tell you - although I'm not politically savvy enough to rank presidents from best to worst), but I certainly would say he's fallen way short on a lot of the campaign change he promised. Guantanamo never closed, unfettered executive powers expanded (including indefinite imprisonment of Americans without trial), and withdrawing from Afghanistan - what happened with that? All of this was definitely not the "Change" that he promised from George W. Actually, it was pretty much more of the same.

What Changed for Me

When the SOPA/PIPA stuff started trending in January, I decided to write our US senators Mark Kirk and Richard Durbin about how in its current form, SOPA would be a dangerous bill that would hinder many of the freedoms that the Internet allows. You can say all you want that the government would enforce it strictly along the lines of copyright, but do you really buy that?

I was encouraged to get a response from Senator Mark Kirk in a relatively quick manner. He expressed his distaste with SOPA in its current form as well as the same worries I had about censorship of the Internet and stifling the innovation that the Internet creates (I later learned he voted for the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a direct violation of the Sixth Amendment for the right to a trial by jury - so much for being about freedoms).

I got a response from Dick Durbin, who I later found was one of the senators pushing for this legislation, that basically gave a cookie-cutter explanation for why SOPA/PIPA needed to be passed to protect copyrights and all that jazz. Durbin has a stranglehold on his Illinois Senate seat, so he doesn't need to worry about supporting legislation like this.

This is the problem! Guys like this shouldn't just be able to stay in power for unlimited terms, presenting the same stale ideas that didn't work before, won't work now, and will not work in the future. Certain areas of the country will always be Democrat while some will be conservative - I get that. But I also don't get it at the same time. When politicians know that their seat in government is essentially protected based on whatever district/ward/state they live in, they don't have as much incentive to do their due diligence when it comes to representing the people that voted him or her into office.

If people who voted for Durbin and are against SOPA/PIPA actually knew what Durbin stood for (and who he stands with) on this issue, do you think they'd be less inclined to vote for him in the future? Perhaps, or perhaps it's a case where we'd rather have Durbin in there because he is "the lesser of two evils", with the potential "worse" evil being another Republican Senator.

Lesser of Two Evils - What Garbage

That term has always cracked me up - lesser of two evils. It's as if you're knowingly and willingly voting for a shit head who you know is probably not going to live up to half of the stuff he or she said on the campaign trail. It's one thing if you actually like the political views of Obama and Romney and actually want to vote for them (hint: I do not). I respect the voting process and believe people should vote for the candidate that they believe best represents what their vision is for the most ideal government for America. However, I cannot stand, and will not stand for, people voting for one of the two major parties based on the notion that they're voting for the guy who seems less evil. In many ways, I'd rather people who vote like this not vote at all. But really, I'd just like people to find another candidate to vote for.

Why I Am Voting Now

If you've read this far, I appreciate your interest in my renewed interest (or you could say my initial interest) in politics. With this interest, I will likely tout some of the stuff of people who I plan on voting for from time to time. However, my goal is not necessarily to get you to vote for the guy(s)/gal(s) I'm voting for - I can't lie, that may end up being an implicit message when I express these views. I will also refrain from the vicious name-calling and other negative attacks that really have nothing to do (or should have nothing to do) with the political process.

I will be looking to inform my friends and family - the people I care deeply for - about policies and ideas that candidates who I am interested in represent.

I get it - I know many of  the folks in my social group and social network sites who will likely be unswayed and will stick to the candidate who represents their party, and that's perfectly fine. I just want to make sure that different views are at least being presented, perhaps a new way of looking at something that may open your eyes on a particular issue.

Based on my research of the candidates in the Presidential election, I will likely be voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. I'm willing to bet many people who are voting this year haven't even heard of Johnson, yet alone know all of the ideas and views that he represents. I recommend doing some Internet research on Johnson, former Republican governor of New Mexico who is well-known for his vetoing of bills and being elected twice as governor in a predominately Democratic state.

A Wasted Vote? Nope.

Some might say I am wasting my vote because Johnson won't win, but my viewpoint on this has changed 180 since I was voting initially. Why the hell should I vote for a guy who won't win? No one wants to vote for a guy who is going to lose - what's the point?

This viewpoint is likely held by many who may actually agree more with a third party candidate like Johnson (or perhaps Bob Barr, Ralph Nader or Ross Perot, et al.) in other elections but decide to vote for a Democrat or Republican because a third-party vote is a waste. This falls right into the hands of the two-party system, which is set up in such a way that third parties have a very limited platform to express their views and often fight legal battles just to be on the ballots in some states. Democrats and Republicans want to keep it a two-party system to keep the cycle of politics going.

While Johnson will be hard-pressed to make a run for the White House, I will be voting for a candidate who represents who I am and what I want out of government the best. At the end of the day, I can live with myself knowing that I voted for a guy (win or lose) that I believed would be the best guy to run our country's executive branch for the next four years. Personally, I see too many similarities between the major parties to vote for either one of them. You may disagree, but that's the way I see it.

Vote how you will, and I encourage people, especially those who feel disengaged from the process and hate politics, to take the time to look into these candidates a little and make an effort to vote. I just hope people vote for the right reasons.

If you vote for Romney, vote for him because you believe in him and what he stands for, not because "Obama is evil" and/or "Romney is the lesser of two evils".

If you vote for Obama, likewise, vote for him because you believe in him and what he stands for, not because "Romney is evil" and/or "Obama is the lesser of two evils".

And any other candidate you vote for, especially in your local elections, carry the same attitude with you. Just be as smart and educated as you can be before entering the voting booth in November. I have a lot to read up on in the meantime myself, so I'll be right there with some of you (hopefully).

Any who, I'm done with this political brouhaha for now. I hope you got something out of this.

In the meantime, let's try being as civil as we can this election season. Easier said than done, I know.