fat_slice said:
For Cal games I always bet with the heart to get double the pleasure. That said, I am also not a fool so I bet very small.
I bet with my head, not my heart, on Cal games, but I always bet small whether Cal is playing or not. I will always root for Cal to win, even if it means losing money (especially since it will be small). But I will lay off with my heart.
I prefer to avoid the double loss (Cal loses the game and I lose the bet), and I like the possibility of a double win (Cal wins the game and I win the bet).
Therefore, the best bet on a Cal game is to bet on the opponent when Cal is favored (assuming, of course, you think that Cal is favored by too much and it is a good bet). In that case, there is no possibility of a double loss -- if Cal loses the game I win the bet, if I lose the bet, Cal wins the game. And there is the possibility of a double win, Cal wins the game but the opponent beats the spread.
The worst bet is to bet against Cal when Cal is an underdog. There is the possibility of a double loss, Cal beats the spread and loses the game, and no possibility of a double win, if Cal wins the game I lose the bet, and if I win the bet, Cal definitely loses the game.
If I think it is a good bet, I'll bet on Cal as either a favorite or an underdog, but more often as an underdog, since winning a bet will take a little of the sting off a close heartbreaking loss. Not enough of the sting, but some. There is the possibility of either a double win or a double loss when betting on Cal, plus the possibility of a split, although there is a possibility of a double loss, there is no conflict, I just root for Cal.
The only time I can remember betting the opponent when Cal was favored and ending up slightly annoyed with Cal winning but not beating the spread was the 2009 Arizona-Cal football game. I bet Arizona, I believe +2.5. It was the Nick Foles double pass game, where Arizona was down 18-16, the double pass took Arizona out of FG range so they had to go for it on 4th and 17, Foles pass was incomplete, with 1:30 left and Arizona had 2 timeouts. Perfect, one first down for the Bears secures a double win. Then on Cal's first (and only) play of the drive, Vereen goes 61 yards for a TD. If he goes down before the end zone, Cal can take knees and secure my double win, but since the Bears would go up 9 with the PAT, I was OK with the TD, it was worth losing $55 to see that TD.
Except Tavecchio missed the PAT, and now Arizona had a chance to win, so Vereen really should have gone down and I'd have been $50 richer instead of $55 poorer and I wouldn't have had to sweat out the last 1:21 of the game. There was a decent return but a holding call moved the ball back to the Arizona 35, Foles threw for 12 yards on the first play but then an incomplete and a sack put the Wildcats in a hole they couldn't climb out of and the Bears win. By 2.
But that's the only time I remember wishing the Bears hadn't scored when I had bet on the opponent. I did have a friend who bet St. Joe's as a 1.5 point favorite in the Pete Newell Classic at the Coliseum, and with the Bears down 4, Ubaka hit a 3 at the buzzer. Ouch. The only way he takes a double loss is for Cal to lose by 1, and they did. He kind of wished Ubaka missed that shot.
My head says the way to bet on tonight's game is to bet SC. But I won't do that, I won't risk being mad that Shepherd hits a 3 at the buzzer to cut the lead from 8 to 5, or worse yet, really, really upset that SC hits a shot at the buzzer to win the game. No, tonight is a good time to lay off, even if financially, a beat on SC might be the good move.
