Matt Leinart: Hall of Famer
stevek
Posts: 29,027 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I'm almost not kidding. The kid looks very good out there in a Monday night game against an undefeated team that was favored at this point to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
0
Comments
<< <i>I'm almost not kidding. The kid looks very good out there in a Monday night game against an undefeated team that was favored at this point to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. >>
I have to think being under the utmost of pressures in running the USC program like he did, and also learning from a great QB like Palmer helped tons as well.
<< <i>He'll be a franchise QB. I still can't believe where he was picked in the draft. >>
Wasn't like he was any "secret" either - I mean early in the year he was being seriously talked about maybe going #2 behind Bush in the draft. He was rated by far the best quarterback "ready to start" in the NFL.
Fisher and Chow wanted him and you can see why.. Imagine if he was with them he would have their offense mastered
<< <i>Titans will regret not taking him...
Fisher and Chow wanted him and you can see why.. Imagine if he was with them he would have their offense mastered >>
Also the raiders could've had him, instead they have a no impact Michael Huff.
As Axtell pointed out, it wasn't like the guy was playing at East Carolina.
Leinart played in a pro style offense, on the biggest of stages, for 3 years. I'd suspect he doesn't get the 'jitters' that a rookie QB normally would.
TThank God there are people out there who will take -14 when the same team was available at -10 all week. They make life for the rest of us a lot easier.
Gotta push that line up to get action on the AZ side...14 points in ANY nfl game I would have to think is a ridiculous bet.
<< <i>Hopefully everyone jumped on AZ at +14 just before kickoff. If anyone here was wondering whether or not sports betting can win you money over the long haul you need look no further than this game. Bears open at -9.5, and steam up to -13.5 to -14 before kickoff as every square out there figures this will be a romp. Now, assuming -9.5 was at least a reasonable efficient line (i.e., neither team was much more than a 50% favorite to cover that line), where does that put -14? I'll tell you where that puts it-- at about a 44% chance of covering.
TThank God there are people out there who will take -14 when the same team was available at -10 all week. They make life for the rest of us a lot easier. >>
Yea...but where was this prediction here BEFORE the game started.
I do agree that the "public" is usually wrong but as far as beating the point spread - it doesn't matter. The Bears bettors lost at -9 or -14...didn't matter. The Arizona bettors won at +9 or +14 - didn't matter. And it usually doesn't matter. Bottom line - there has never been an audited, documented case of anyone ever beating the bookies in the long-run. Not one! It can't be done.
You can bet against the "wrong" public everytime, but the juice will still grind out a bankroll just like the above example illustrates. Yes of course sometimes an Arizona bettor would win a game like this when a line moves and say the Bears win by 10 points. And if the Bears won by 15, again the move of the line wouldn't come into play - the Arizona bettor still would have lost the bet despite getting an extra 5 points. This type of winning because of a line move doesn't occur nearly often enough to overcome the juice and beat the bookies in the long-run. Sports betting is a sucker's game - plain & simple. There's only one way to beat the sports bookies - and that is to stay away from them.
One final thing on sports betting. Bookies already offer teaser bets whereby you receive an extra amount of points, so in theory you can get extra points on games anytime you wish. As longtime sports bettors already know - teaser bets are even bigger sucker bets than against the spread bets.
-
<< <i>
<< <i>Hopefully everyone jumped on AZ at +14 just before kickoff. If anyone here was wondering whether or not sports betting can win you money over the long haul you need look no further than this game. Bears open at -9.5, and steam up to -13.5 to -14 before kickoff as every square out there figures this will be a romp. Now, assuming -9.5 was at least a reasonable efficient line (i.e., neither team was much more than a 50% favorite to cover that line), where does that put -14? I'll tell you where that puts it-- at about a 44% chance of covering.
TThank God there are people out there who will take -14 when the same team was available at -10 all week. They make life for the rest of us a lot easier. >>
Yea...but where was this prediction here BEFORE the game started.
I do agree that the "public" is usually wrong but as far as beating the point spread - it doesn't matter. The Bears bettors lost at -9 or -14...didn't matter. The Arizona bettors won at +9 or +14 - didn't matter. And it usually doesn't matter. Bottom line - there has never been an audited, documented case of anyone ever beating the bookies in the long-run. Not one! It can't be done.
You can bet against the "wrong" public everytime, but the juice will still grind out a bankroll just like the above example illustrates. Yes of course sometimes an Arizona bettor would win a game like this when a line moves and say the Bears win by 10 points. And if the Bears won by 15, again the move of the line wouldn't come into play - the Arizona bettor still would have lost the bet despite getting an extra 5 points. This type of winning because of a line move doesn't occur nearly often enough to overcome the juice and beat the bookies in the long-run. Sports betting is a sucker's game - plain & simple. There's only one way to beat the sports bookies - and that is to stay away from them.
One final thing on sports betting. Bookies already offer teaser bets whereby you receive an extra amount of points, so in theory you can get extra points on games anytime you wish. As longtime sports bettors already know - teaser bets are even bigger sucker bets than against the spread bets.
- >>
1) If you can get an NFL dog at 4 points or more from where the game opened you will win money-- and lots and lots of it-- over the course of your betting life. If you don't believe me go through and chart how NFL dogs-- in particular home dogs-- would have done ATS if you had gotten an extra 4 points on every game.
2) If you take a six point teaser you have to take two teams-- not one-- at -110 (or+100 if you're lucky), which means each team has to cover the 'new' spread around 77% of the time to break even-- as opposed to having to cover at 53% if you just take one team. And yes, you can beat 6 point NFL teasers at -110 if you only tease up teams that are 1.5-2.5 point dogs, or tease down teams that are 7.5-8.5 point favorites, since you're now capturing two key numbers (the 3 and the 7) with each team.
I hope this doesn't come off as sounding combative or condescending, but this isn't a topic that I'm particularly keen on arguing unless we're all working from the same set of data. So, if you or anyone else has the desire to cull the data and discuss this then I'll be happy to pursue this further. Otherwise I'll sit back with my AZ +14 ticket and wish that every game was this easy.
<< <i>Leinart deserves better than this choke ass team!
It's official-- The Cardinals are the Michigan State Spartans of the NFL. Every time they come on to the field the PA guy should start playing circus music.
Well, even saying if that is possible Boo, as you know that is a rare situation when an NFL line moves 4 points, and I doubt if virtually all sports bettors would have the patience to wait just for betting situations like that, even if it were true that money could be made this way, which frankly I doubt. Sports bettors like action too much, and that thirst for action destroys all bankrolls.
<<< 2) If you take a six point teaser you have to take two teams-- not one-- at -110 (or+100 if you're lucky), which means each team has to cover the 'new' spread around 77% of the time to break even-- as opposed to having to cover at 53% if you just take one team. And yes, you can beat 6 point NFL teasers at -110 if you only tease up teams that are 1.5-2.5 point dogs, or tease down teams that are 7.5-8.5 point favorites, since you're now capturing two key numbers (the 3 and the 7) with each team. >>>
Come on now Boo...beat teasers? Even most hard-core gambling magazines will state to stay away from teasers as extreme sucker bets - which they absolutely are.
<<< I hope this doesn't come off as sounding combative or condescending, but this isn't a topic that I'm particularly keen on arguing unless we're all working from the same set of data. So, if you or anyone else has the desire to cull the data and discuss this then I'll be happy to pursue this further. Otherwise I'll sit back with my AZ +14 ticket and wish that every game was this easy. >>>
I never mind your opinion Boo. We've had our differences on the topic of gambling and I guess we always will, but I respect your viewpoint and enjoyed the discussion.
Steve
<< <i><<< 1) If you can get an NFL dog at 4 points or more from where the game opened you will win money-- and lots and lots of it-- over the course of your betting life. If you don't believe me go through and chart how NFL dogs-- in particular home dogs-- would have done ATS if you had gotten an extra 4 points on every game. >>>
Well, even saying if that is possible Boo, as you know that is a rare situation when an NFL line moves 4 points, and I doubt if virtually all sports bettors would have the patience to wait just for betting situations like that, even if it were true that money could be made this way, which frankly I doubt. Sports bettors like action too much, and that thirst for action destroys all bankrolls.
<<< 2) If you take a six point teaser you have to take two teams-- not one-- at -110 (or+100 if you're lucky), which means each team has to cover the 'new' spread around 77% of the time to break even-- as opposed to having to cover at 53% if you just take one team. And yes, you can beat 6 point NFL teasers at -110 if you only tease up teams that are 1.5-2.5 point dogs, or tease down teams that are 7.5-8.5 point favorites, since you're now capturing two key numbers (the 3 and the 7) with each team. >>>
Come on now Boo...beat teasers? Even most hard-core gambling magazines will state to stay away from teasers as extreme sucker bets - which they absolutely are.
<<< I hope this doesn't come off as sounding combative or condescending, but this isn't a topic that I'm particularly keen on arguing unless we're all working from the same set of data. So, if you or anyone else has the desire to cull the data and discuss this then I'll be happy to pursue this further. Otherwise I'll sit back with my AZ +14 ticket and wish that every game was this easy. >>>
I never mind your opinion Boo. We've had our differences on the topic of gambling and I guess we always will, but I respect your viewpoint and enjoyed the discussion.
Steve >>
The only subset of teasers which can be beaten are the ones I illustrated above, and that's because of the two key numbers involved. A team that's -2.5 will win by exactly 3 points 10% of the time, 4 points about 4% of the time, 5 points 3% of the time, 6 points about 4% of the time, and 7 points 5% of the time. If you add these up you get 28%, which if you add this 28% to the 50% chance that the team already has of covering gives you 78%. Thus, two teams teased in this fashion will both cover the new spread about 53% of the time, which gives you a fractional advantage at -110 and a 3% advantage at +100.
I totally agree, however, that no teasers other than the ones I outlined above are profitable in the long run, and that even these teasers aren't really worth playing at -110 unless you're looking for some break-even bets to help clear the bonus at a book. And of course all NFL totals, all NCAAF and NCAAB sides and totals, and all NBA sides and totals are never profitable if you tease them.
And you're also correct when you say that games like this one don't pop up very often (the last one in the NFL occured last year, when Indy steamed up from -2.5 to -5.5 against the Pats in Foxboro). But when they do they're worth betting on.
Another point I would agree with you on (and you haven't mentioned it explicitly, although I'm pretty sure you believe it) is that handicapping is essentially a waste of time. The market for most games is efficient, which means a solid handicap will usually just get you the same number that the books have put out. Where you can make money betting sports is in finding outlaw numbers (this is becoming increasingly difficult to do, esp. for North American sports) and finding inefficiencies in the money line vs. the point spread (this is somewhat easier to do, although you need to go through the trouble of compiling a database AND making sure that the opening and closing numbers on which your research is based are accurate).
For example, a team that's -3 will usually be around -155 on the money line, with a small adjustment one way or another depending on the total (a game with a lower total will, obviously, result in a higher price on the ML for the fave). If you shop around hard enough you can find books that do not move their point spreads and money lines concurrently. Thus, while a book may be dealing worthless market numbers on the point spread you can find a stale number on the money line and take advantage of that. However-- and here's the caveat-- in order for any of this to be worthwhile you need to a) spend many, many hours a day in front of the computer watching line moves, b) understand what distinguishes a 'sharp' line move from a 'square' line move, and c) have a very big bankroll. Even if you bet 500$ a game your edge, at best, will only be $15 on that bet, so you have to really move some dough around to make it worthwhile. And, of course, if you DO have that kind of bankroll there aren't that many shops which will take your action, so the number of outs available to you is limited.
The bottom line is that there are far more easier and socially productive ways to make money than by betting sports. However, that doesn't mean it can't be done. If any of this interests you, steve (from an academic perspective, since I know you don't gamble) you should get your hands on a copy of "Sharp Sports Betting" by Stanford Wong, which lays out much of what I've mentioned here in greater detail. Also, check out www.fezziksplace.com, where Steve Fezzik, a Las Vegas sports bettor, is operating a fund he calls the "FezzDAQ", which gives a day by day, blow by blow account of the 'low roller' bets he makes and a running tally of the ups and downs.
Edit to add: I know this is a topic that touches a nerve with you steve, and I wanted to say that I respect and admire the fact that you're able to put your personal feelings on this subject aside for the benefit of having a calm and rational discussion.
Yea, why are we doing that...that ain't no fun!
Well the basic "problem" with guys who come up with these ideas of how to make money at gambling, is that they basically constantly fail with making money at gambling ideas, and then they scrap those ideas. But then they come up with new ideas...and given enough so-called gambling pundits with enough new ideas, then sooner or later some of them are going to come up with a winning streak and perhaps a nice winning streak. Sort of like giving a million monkeys a million typewriters and with the chimps banging non-stop on the keys, given enough time then sooner or later one of the chimps types out a page of legible text.
Those winning statistics with those gambling "studies" could very well simply be random numbers which just happen to be falling right for them for awhile. I believe that's what they are. Over so many years of me gambling, and checking out and analyzing literally many hundreds of different systems and betting techniques, and never seeing any audited documented proof in this regard to the ideas being factual...I think it's easy to draw the correct conclusion that winning money against any gambling house/industry cut, edge, vig, etc., is just not possible in the long-run.
The only exception is hitting something for example like a super lottery, or winning or placing high in a major poker tournament. It certainly would take Jamie Gold a long time to lose back that WSOP $12.5 million jackpot, but if he gambled large enough and long enough against house cuts, edges, vigs, etc., there is no doubt he would eventually lose it all back.
You do bring up some interesting points Boo, and I think your implication which I would agree with that even if someone could make money like you stated with a big enough bankroll grinding it out, there are most likely opportunities in say real estate rental properties which are safer and likely much more profitable, especially as you noted given the amounts of time needed to find these possible winning gambling opportunities.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm almost not kidding. The kid looks very good out there in a Monday night game against an undefeated team that was favored at this point to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. >>
I have to think being under the utmost of pressures in running the USC program like he did, and also learning from a great QB like Palmer helped tons as well. >>
You're dead on here Ax. The USC program is run like a pro-franchise but with the best assets a deep college program can give you. Lets them bring along the QBs and replace them as they leave. The Cards got it right this time in the draft with Leinart and Pope.
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff