NBA Totals for Feb. 10

NBA Totals for Feb. 10 Here is what I got today. The first number is my number and the second number is the average of some big books. Comments after. 851 198 201 853 174-177 174.5 Note: I think Bayless status important right now listed as doubtful. 855 182.5 182 857 182 182.5 859 186 186.5 Note: Game opened 189.5 have to agree with that move in my model. 861 192 192.5 Note: Ramon Sessions in for Kyrie Irving I think. 863 185 187 Note: I have flagged 2 unders in the Nets series but both games went over the total. I had a bet on the first one. 865 184 184.5 867 191.5 191.5 869 184.5 180 871 186.5 184.5 873 202 201.5 Comments I guess that Blazer game vs. New Orleans is a candidate for me to try an over. No Jarret Jack for NO though. However, he isn't an offensive dynamo really (Raptor fans will note that at least I did when he played there.) NO scores so low at home I think and then they put up that puny number on the Bulls the trends are low. The Blazers play with a pace and Gerald Wallace is questionable. If he didn't play, I'd really like the over a little more I think. I think I got to take a shot at the best I can get on the over on this game. It did open 182.5 and has come down. I'd like to take the Thunder under but without Sefolosha their games are just so hot. I think Sacramento had 99 FG attempted. Only a bargain under for me on this game. I kind of like the Knicks over. They're playing very well with Lin at point guard. Kobe loves this building and has had some recent high scoring games. Do they really want another grind it out game like Boston? Maybe they'll go for some O tonight on a Friday night in New York. Noticed the Heat game I'm a little short. There was a move up on that game as it was around my number earlier. Heat could just torch that Washington D coming off a loss. Can't say I love the under but I guess it is in range for an under for me. Good luck.
Can't like that over on Hornets a much. Phew....got to get out of the way of that train under.....Wallace is playing. That does hurt the play but it was already hit a bit. I'll go over 177 (or lower) if it get better....but you probably shouldn't. LOL. No Jack or Landry for NO. Have to admit that seems like a lot of scoring but I don't know. There stats didn't seem to warrant big adjustments but of course they log minutes vs. the better players so have to consider that. I have more confidence in my plays when they bet them my way.