Cleveland Cavs vs Oklahoma by Khum

Tip based on Asian handicap. Not familiar with handicaps? Read our Asian handicap betting guide
After the tonight's weird change in Aldrige's status the Blazers knocked the odds and my NBA record became 6 wins - 2 losses.


Let's see what do we have for today:


Blockbuster: LeBron vs Durant!


Big clash today in Cleveland: the marching for the playoffs OKC comes to the home court of the rejuvenated Cavs.


As of late the Thunder succeded to put up a 4-1 SU streak with 4-1 ATS too. Kevin Durant and Russ Westbrook are fighting hard to overcome the gap in the rankings. They're doing a good job lately but not impressive for me. They have beaten a GSW which was resting the most important defensive players, the Heat and the Magic which were supposed to be beaten and the only good win I see is the one in Washington, in overtime. Though, the Hawks showed us that the guys from Oklahoma are not as scary as some would think. They strive a lot, no doubt, but they have obvious limits in their game, in my opinion.


At the other end of the court we have the Cavs that really impressed me once LeBron came back.


They are a lot better than they were before his injury break, both in terms of numbers recorded and of how their play looks. The additions of JR Smith, Shumpert and, the most impressive for me, Mozgov are paying interest sooner than I expected. It seems that David Blatt is able to use Timofey Mozgov more efficient than any other ex coach he had in NBA. They've worked together before, in Europe, so he knew exactly why he wanted him a few weeks ago.


OKC is far from being a trustable team against the spread when they're playing on the road. As tempting as it is to back their climbing in the rankings, I'm too aware of how dominant LeBron uses to be when playing against OKC and for today's game which is nationally broadcasted I expect him to make a statement once again.


I completely trust the Cavs in this one.


Let's go green!

$200 Bonus

Play now US Players are welcome
Tip Bookmaker Odds * Stake Result
Cleveland Cavs -3.5 Marathonbet 2.00 8 108-98 WON (+8 units)
* Odds as of post published time and are subject to change.
0 0
Comments (21)
Jessica Pare
I like ur bet!

What about under 211,5 at odd 1.91?

01/25/2015 - 19:19
@Jessica Pare I wouldn't bet much on that. Both teams have really good offense, although if OKC and Durant play as bad like last time against the Hawks then you have a shot, a really close one cuz even if they play bad they manage to get away with at least 90points.
01/25/2015 - 21:13
Jessica Pare
@ Khaleem thanks for reply!

Finally i back cavs! :) fingers crossed here!
01/25/2015 - 21:59
As Cavs look lately I wouldn't pay 2 cents on a under. It's possible, but I wouldn't spent money for it.
After the new guys came and LeBron came back they looked stunning offensively, but I'm not sure they're already assembled defensively.
So I think they if they feel they can outscore OKC they will have no reasons to fight a lot in defense.
It's sunday, it's broadcasted on a national television, so they have to give people a show ;)
01/25/2015 - 22:10
Hi Khum,

One question totally unrelated with this bet... You have said today that you watched last night Groenefeld's mix double game? Was the loss about her game? Want to stake tonight on Errani/Vince, so the question is what was Groenefeld's serve and play last night? Thanks a lot, hope you see this on time. :)
01/25/2015 - 23:44
Groenenfeld was pretty ok. She had some awkward misses but they were just a few. Actually she also had a couple of game s she won almost only by herself.
The trojan horse was Rojer ... the guy has a suspect behaviour.
In my opinion Errani/Vinci will win with no problems tonight. Though, quite small value in their odds, as usual.
01/26/2015 - 00:17
Thanks a lot for quick reply, really thanks!

Though, it's not something I actually wanted to hear. :) You are correct about the value, but combined with Keys and Raonic, I find it quite valueable treble. At least it's how I bet.

Thanks again, best of luck.
01/26/2015 - 00:45
I preffer Wawrinka -1.5 sets, Hingis/Pennetta, Azarenka and over 36.5 at Ferrer - Nishikori.
01/26/2015 - 00:48
Yeah, I forgot Wawinka also. Hingis gave me enough scare this morning with her performance in doubles mix. Thanks for the feedback :)
01/26/2015 - 00:53
Mixed doubles are different ... unless you have a long time partnership as Mladenovic and Nestor fave. At the first game, you wanted them to have the chemistry? Still, they won straight sets.
With Pennetta the chemistry is there ... as a matter of fact, it was exactly the subject of the last interview I've seen with them.
01/26/2015 - 01:06
Jessica Pare
Domi vs Vika is my torture! I just cannot read the match, anything can happen even if Vika seems to be back the tiger of the past!

Cavs vs Okc look under ;)
01/26/2015 - 01:22
Didn't expect them to have chemistry, but didn't expect also two Aussie kiddos who never played mixed doubles in their career, neither ever played at Grand Slam, to have set point against them. Anyway, not saying it's a bad bet Hingis/Pennetta, on contrary, just in my oppinon some other selections will be on my tennis combo this time! ;)
01/26/2015 - 02:06
Though, you cannot tras the home favourites ... at least by courtesy reasons and especially when you are such stars as Martina and Leander are :)
So it's perfectly ok what they did last night.
01/26/2015 - 02:13

The scoring is a little above the average needed for the over, and that's how it's been for the whole match :)
01/26/2015 - 02:29
There is a huge difference between trashing someone and being one point away from the ten points tiebreak roullette. But okay, if that's perfectly okay for you. :)
01/26/2015 - 02:39
When you have the quality they have, the super tie-break is no roulette at all.
It's a roulette only for the bettors, 'cause we are stressed of not having any control on that :))
I have a word about this matter: "The good doubles players are those who know how to win super tie-breaks an are doing it in high percentage."

Think about the fact that it's easier to focus for a few minutes than for an entire set. It's all about the mental consumption and some choose the cheaper way for them, their tennis quality making it affordable.
01/26/2015 - 03:38
Jessica, I went on Vika -2.5 @ 1.85.
01/26/2015 - 04:11
Jesus Christ, you are now close to say that they actually wanted to go to a super-tie break.

"The good doubles players are those who know how to win super tie-breaks an are doing it in high percentage." - Exactly. And why in a "high percentage" and not "always"? - Exactly cause it's something close to a roullette, something fishy and less reliable.

Who cares if it's easier to keep yourself together mentally for a minute or for an hour? This can be something what the bettor thinks when he believes the game is one sided. Quality of mental power is keeping yourself up to task at mos
01/26/2015 - 05:33
I'm not responsible for what you chose to understand :))

I said that they're not always very focused on a set because they rely on their ability of wining super tie-breaks.

You say it's a roulette because it's not 100% sure? C'mon, let's throw the probabilities from school to the garbage. We've just stated the options: what it's not 100% sure it's roulette. In this scenario of yours we should never bet anymore, because every bet is a roulette. So what are you relying when betting? Why were you even curious on Groenenfeld's form? :))
It doesn't make sense anymore. You're play
01/26/2015 - 10:41
Roullette - cause it's a common phrase from tennis players. As for other words, I used less reliable and fishy. It's interesting that you are using "100% phrase", when I never did it - shows how much you look at everything with "black or white" oppinion, just what I stated in a comment prior to yours.

I know what you are saying and what you are saying is in a direct opposition of what the great champions are being thought from the day one. Not with me, with the sport's logics.

I'm relying on my calculated probability (many factors) in comparison with the odds (probability from b
01/26/2015 - 13:58
If you would of talk precisely about her individual performance we would not have this debate.
But you missleaded me when you said " didn't expect also two Aussie kiddos who never played mixed doubles in their career, neither ever played at Grand Slam, to have set point against them" you have made it like talking about the couple's performance.

So we're on different pists in this talk.

Anyways, I don't see why you feel the necesity to give betting behaviour lessons :))
Just because I didn't agree with you seeing the tie-breaks as roulette?
Roulette, for me, meant something that
01/26/2015 - 15:39
Leave a comment

Name Please, no foreign characters (required)

E-mail (Will not appear online)

Comment (Your comment will be published once it has been approved by our moderators)