Gamblers Anonymous: YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME...unless you're betting!

It’s playoff time in the NFL and from a gambler’s perspective it’s time to dig deep. The lines are too good – too right on to make any bet with the same certainty you would have had betting say the Colts to cover against the Rams early season. A few things to think about:

• Go with your gut off the bat and never look back. If you try to analyze a three point spread in an obvious tight playoff game, you’ll likely go on tilt and lose your mind way before kick-off.


• The masses are asses. Bet the opposite of where the action is going. Last week when the Packers-Cardinals line moved from the Pack being a 3 point underdog to a 3 point favorite…that should send off a red flag. Arizona at home getting 3 is a solid bet to begin with, but throw-in the public heavily betting the Packers? It was a lock.


• Opposite theory. Everyone has a tendency to bet the favorite because hey, they are favored to win who says they can’t cover 3 points? Just go the opposite of your gut and don’t look back.

So basically my advice is bet your gut, bet against the public and bet the opposite of your gut. Maybe #1 and #3 cancel out, thus giving you #2 (bet against the public). If everyone could now please print the first part of this post and light it on fire…I think we can move forward.

Now that you thoroughly have no idea which way to pick this week, here are my picks:

Cardinals +7 over Saints – Anyone who thinks the Saints defense is going to slow down Arizona is dreaming. The Saints D declined significantly toward the end of the year and the Packers last week were one of the best defenses in football and got dismantled by Kurt Warner and company. Throw in the fact the Saints stopped covering their big spreads late in the season, and this one to me is a no brainer. The Cardinals are not 7 points worse than the Saints.

Jets +8 over San Diego – Are the Jets due for a classic “stink up the joint performance?” Absolutely. But this is the playoffs and any team with a defense as good as theirs, it’s hard not taking the points. Does this team remind me a little of the 2000 Ravens with Trent Dilfer at QB? (Sadly, I think Dilfer might be better than Sanchez right now) A little - that’s the scary part. Jets money-line anyone? (And yes, you can blame me for ‘smushing’ the Jets chances in this paragraph – Ronnie from Jersey Shore style.)

Colts -7 over Ravens – I think the Colts are going to come out on a mission. The Spurs of the NFL cruised into the playoffs and will now turn up the intensity. Considering the Ravens haven’t beaten the Colts since 2002, I think there is a solid chance this game gets blown open early. As well as the Ravens are playing, Manning is on a mission. This is probably the game I would stay away from, but if you ‘have a problem’ – when in doubt take the Colts.

Vikings -3 over Cowboys – I think the Cowboys, after beating up on an uninspired Eagles defense the last two weeks, will run into a buzz saw Sunday. The ‘Boys are not this good people…the Eagles were just that mediocre. Everyone likes the Cowboys in this game…so I’m going the other way.

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.....HELLLO? YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!

-Steve Lugerner

Big Mac, Lane Kiffin, and Vacationing on Revis Island

Few thoughts on the big stories in sports this week:

• I missed the Mark McGwire interview with Bob Costas, but caught the interview with Bob Ley yesterday on Outside the Lines. I found myself getting angrier and angrier as I watched McGwire's responses. When I first heard the story hit, it was a breath of fresh air. Years of obvious suspicions confirmed from the source, without some investigative reporting banging down the door. But here was McGwire, apologizing over and over again for his actions, but yet kept saying it was his "God given talent" that hit all those home runs. So what are you apologizing for Mark? Bob Ley asked this exact question, and McGwire gave some gibberish answer of "I just wanted to apologize Bob...blah blah blah." The more I actually think about it, I'm not sure steroids alone would make you hit 9 additional home runs in a season. We honestly have no clue if McGwire could have hit 62 in 1998 without the help of steroids. However, it is an absolute joke that he can't admit it helped increase his strength and performance in some unknown measurement. His Xs and Os to very obvious questions just didn’t add up in a very awkward and insincere interview. Why would you call and apologize to Roger Maris' widow if you didn't deep down know you disgraced baseball by ruining the most precious record in American sports? It makes no sense. I for one completely reject all this garbage about McGwire being "sincere in his apology." What this really was? A former steroid created superstar trying to get back into baseball as a coach and needing to get rid of the monkey on his back before doing so. Completely selfish - if he cared about the game and the damage he did, he would be more open about invalidating his 1998 season as far as public perception, rather than credit his "God given talent." EDITED: 1/13 - 10AM Check out this SI article from David Epstein about what steroid experts think of McGwire's logic: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/david_epstein/01/12/yesalis.mcgwire/index.html
• Just when Nick Saban was solidifying his spot as the biggest schmuck in college football, Lane Kiffin stole the title right back. I can’t for the life of me figure out how Kiffin has gotten this far in life looking and acting like an asshole. Does he look like the guy who ‘nails’ a job interview? I guess leaving Tennessee for USC is no brainer – but I can’t respect a coach who bails on an unfinished job. Even in the worst of times (JIM ZORN!), I respect a coach that goes down with the ship rather than quitting on a team or organization. Kiffin now lands back at the place that gave him his big name status, with the best job currently in college football. By the way, I've got the 3rd quarter of Week 5 of the 2010 NFL season in the Pete Carroll Regretting his Return to the NFL Office Pool, right after Seneca Wallace throws his third INT with Matt Hasselbeck on crutches throwing his clipboard in disgust.
• SPRING BREAK '10 ON REVIS ISLAND EVERYONE!!!!! Playoff picks coming Friday…

-Steve Lugerner

Dexter Season 4 Review

(MAYBE I’m 2 months late on this article…but with On Demand ruling the world these days, wanted to let a few more people finish the season. DISCLAIMER: If you watch Dexter and don’t want to know about Season 4 just yet, do not read this. And if you don’t watch Dexter, you are an idiot – read this to punish yourself.)

First off, what a season. I’ll openly defend/argue with anyone that Season 4 was the best season of Dexter. The ‘middle seasons’ for a drama series of this nature usually end up being the best looking back. It is the right combination of established characters, running plot lines/twists, and no end to the series in sight, which can cause a series to compromise itself in an effort to wrapping things up in a nice and neat manner (and screw you David Chase I’m still NOT OK with that ending). Think about it – how many shows that you were truly invested in did the last season blow away the pervious?

That brings us to Season 4 of Dexter. I’ve never seen so many people legitimately disturbed by a TV show. My initial thoughts:

• Holy CRAP! I knew after a relatively week ending to Season 3 (all loose ends tied off for the most part – no real cliff hanger) that Season 4 was going to end with something crazy. What I love about Dexter is they do a good job of disguising twists and turns in the plot. I’m one of those annoying people who predict what is going to happen, often ruining the surprise for myself. My first instincts when Dexter found Rita’s phone in the house was that Rita had witnessed something that was going to blow Dexter’s secret life wide open. Couldn’t have been more wrong.
• I’ve raved about Lithgow’s performance as the Trinity killer in this blog, but I’ll do it again. Unbelievable performance that honestly sent chills down my spine. I’ve re-watched that last scene with Dexter, and as Lithgow and Michael C. Hall mention right after the end of the season in their interview, the scene is really wild to watch the second time around.
• Rita was on a long list of people who died in Season 4 because Dexter got sloppy and left Trinity alive. I’m curious, after Dexter’s newfound love for his family and a desire to ditch his dark passenger, how can he rationalize all these deaths? He glossed over it in his pursuit of Trinity, but it certainly sets an interesting plot line for Season 5. He has no one to avenge for Rita’s death. The startling revelation that Dexter wants to get rid of his dark passenger (spurred on by his new emotional feelings for his family and others) will also be a key start to Season 5. Never before has Dexter approached this type of radical change, and it remains to be seen whether it can be done.

With the recent events of Rita, Trinity, Deb, and the disintegration of his family, where does Dexter go from here? I’ve had people argue that this will likely not be the end of this plot line, essentially making Season 5 more like a Season 4B. 1) Dexter left too many loose ends and evidence all over the place that can be traced back to him (Trinity’s family, fingerprints in their house) and 2) Rita’s death creates a whole new very personal investigation for the Miami Homicide Department that will have them ratchet up their investigation on Trinity.

I’ve had a very different thought about Season 5 and everyone knows I’m willing to make bold predictions for the sake of blog traffic! The show has a very solid reoccurring premise/theme (although shakable to create tension at times): Dexter is smarter than everyone and can get out of anything allowing him to kill time after time without getting caught. Kind of the same thought in 24 where we know Jack Bauer can’t possible die (although he was dead for a little in one season…don’t know how to rationalize that). I really don’t think this is the time to shatter this premise – not yet. I actually see season 5 taking place 4-5 years down the road. I think the ending with Dexter’s son in the blood is key. The show is really focused on the relationship between Dexter and his dad, and what better way to bring it full circle than accelerate the age of his son to the point where he becomes a focal point of the show. Maybe he shows early Dexter-like tendencies that lead Dexter struggling with how to advise his son in the same way his father struggled.

The only flaw with this is taking an infant child to say age 6 and then down the road age 15 or 16 might be tough to ‘age’ the other characters, but certainly could be done.
The other plot lines I see jumping back into the fray are A) the evolution of Dexter’s dark passenger we’ve touched on earlier B) any fallout with Deb discovering Dexter’s mother and brother and C) one thing glossed over was Cody getting into a fight with a kid who saw Dexter leave the campsite inexplicably in the middle of the night. My final prediction: Someone else will learn Dexter’s secret life next season and unlike Miguel Prado in Season 3, I think it will be of an accidental nature. My guess would be Deb considering how excellent a detective she is and with her approaching deeper aspects of Dexter’s past.

-Steve Lugerner