While the Capitals didn't quite reach the Puck Line (-1.5), they did cover the spread thereby netting just over $45 on a $100 bet. The moneyline would have been significantly more profitable on Washington with a $130 net. For the novice bettor, this example stresses the importance of considering the odds. If you were in on Washington winning, the moneyline turned out to be a significantly better choice.
I mentioned in the Game 2 article that taking the under was probably the safe bet, not only because of the marginally higher return, but also the quality of the two netminders. A last minute empty-net goal could have changed everything, but it didn't and I came out ahead on this one.
Speaking of coming out ahead, some people no doubt questioned my advice on taking James Neal to produce more points than T.J. Oshie, as the Knights' winger was coming off a three-game goal drought. However, if you put up $100 on both the more points and goalscorer bets, you walked away up $360. Even better if you took the long-shot, first-goalscorer-of-the-game bet at +1200.
Not only did Braden Holtby see more than 28.5 shots, it was significantly more, as he was peppered with 39 pucks – the most he has faced in the last 10 games.
Last, but not least, the game-winner was scored courtesy of Brooks Orpik, a guy with a mere 19 goals in 1128 games (including playoffs). Needless to say, he was