Anyone think the Saints will move to +3?
gosteelers
Posts: 2,668 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Opinions? I would LOVE it if it moved to 3...
0
Comments
I think the Bears cover though.
<< <i>I'll put a mil on the Bears and move it for you. >>
I don't think a 1/10 of a cent would move the line
<< <i>It's +3 at most places, if not, +2.5 should be at least +110 so you should be able to buy it to +3 for -110.
I think the Bears cover though.
<< <i>I'll put a mil on the Bears and move it for you. >>
I don't think a 1/10 of a cent would move the line
+2.5 +10 and +3 -10 are the same thing (getting on or off the 3 is worth 20 cents), so there isn't any real point in buying up.
A couple 3's may pop up here and there, but not too many. I think the Saints are going to be the side favored by the squares today, and as the square money rains down IMO will probably move closer to PK by gametime.
<< <i>It's +3 at most places, if not, +2.5 should be at least +110 so you should be able to buy it to +3 for -110.
I think the Bears cover though.
<< <i>I'll put a mil on the Bears and move it for you. >>
I don't think a 1/10 of a cent would move the line
Brian calls another one right. Don't you get tired of being right all the time?
<< <i>
Now you're really starting to p*ss me off!
The superbowl line is Indy -7; it opened Indy -6. I was expecting -6.5, LOL
I might bite on Chicago, but I want at least 8. The over/under is 49; that seems waaaaaay too high. I was expecting 44.
<< <i>Thanks Steve.
The superbowl line is Indy -7; it opened Indy -6. I was expecting -6.5, LOL
I might bite on Chicago, but I want at least 8. The over/under is 49; that seems waaaaaay too high. I was expecting 44. >>
I heard that the line was 7 before I had a chance to really think about it. 7 does seem about right though. I might have said Colts -6 or -6 1/2 myself. I just don't have a good feel for this game yet. My basic feeling is that Chicago has no chance to win this game, but they've been surprising me all season.
<< <i>Thanks Steve.
The superbowl line is Indy -7; it opened Indy -6. I was expecting -6.5, LOL
I might bite on Chicago, but I want at least 8. The over/under is 49; that seems waaaaaay too high. I was expecting 44. >>
Why 8? The 8 only hits about 2% of the time, as opposed to the 7 which hits about 5%. If -7 is a 50/50 propostion than getting 7 1/2 will be a 52.5- 47.5% proposition, which makes it slightly +EV against -105.... I agree that 8 would be better, obviously, but I'm going to wait until game time and take the 7 1/2 IF it appears. If it doesn't I'll probably pass on it.
In any case, I lean towards the Bears. You'll hear all kinds of crap this week about 'Good Rex Bad Rex', and how "Manning is finally prepared to take the next step', but the bottom line is that the ML on this game right now is about -240, and you can spin this any way you want but I do not see how the Bears would stand to lose this game straight up 70% of the time.
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks Steve.
The superbowl line is Indy -7; it opened Indy -6. I was expecting -6.5, LOL
I might bite on Chicago, but I want at least 8. The over/under is 49; that seems waaaaaay too high. I was expecting 44. >>
Why 8? The 8 only hits about 2% of the time, as opposed to the 7 which hits about 5%. If -7 is a 50/50 propostion than getting 7 1/2 will be a 52.5- 47.5% proposition, which makes it slightly +EV against -105.... I agree that 8 would be better, obviously, but I'm going to wait until game time and take the 7 1/2 IF it appears. If it doesn't I'll probably pass on it.
In any case, I lean towards the Bears. You'll hear all kinds of crap this week about 'Good Rex Bad Rex', and how "Manning is finally prepared to take the next step', but the bottom line is that the ML on this game right now is about -240, and you can spin this any way you want but I do not see how the Bears would stand to lose this game straight up 70% of the time. >>
A 7 point dog winning straight up 70% of the time? Man, I'd start gambling again if I could get that to happen.
-
The superbowl line is Indy -7; it opened Indy -6. I was expecting -6.5, LOL
I might bite on Chicago, but I want at least 8. The over/under is 49; that seems waaaaaay too high. I was expecting 44. >>
Why 8? The 8 only hits about 2% of the time, as opposed to the 7 which hits about 5%. If -7 is a 50/50 propostion than getting 7 1/2 will be a 52.5- 47.5% proposition, which makes it slightly +EV against -105.... I agree that 8 would be better, obviously, but I'm going to wait until game time and take the 7 1/2 IF it appears. If it doesn't I'll probably pass on it.
In any case, I lean towards the Bears. You'll hear all kinds of crap this week about 'Good Rex Bad Rex', and how "Manning is finally prepared to take the next step', but the bottom line is that the ML on this game right now is about -240, and you can spin this any way you want but I do not see how the Bears would stand to lose this game straight up 70% of the time.[
A 7 point dog winning straight up 70% of the time? Man, I'd start gambling again if I could get that to happen.
///////////////////////////////
At -240 the break even point is about 70%. So, if you lay the 240 you need the Colts to win about 70% of the time to break even, and if you take the 240 you need the Bears to win straight up about 30% of the time to break even.
30% is something like 5-11 over a 16 game season. Anyone think the Colts go 12-4 against a 'normal' schedule, but go 11-5 if they played the Bears 16 straight times? That number seems high to me.
<< <i>Thanks Steve.
The superbowl line is Indy -7; it opened Indy -6. I was expecting -6.5, LOL
I might bite on Chicago, but I want at least 8. The over/under is 49; that seems waaaaaay too high. I was expecting 44. >>
Why 8? The 8 only hits about 2% of the time, as opposed to the 7 which hits about 5%. If -7 is a 50/50 propostion than getting 7 1/2 will be a 52.5- 47.5% proposition, which makes it slightly +EV against -105.... I agree that 8 would be better, obviously, but I'm going to wait until game time and take the 7 1/2 IF it appears. If it doesn't I'll probably pass on it.
In any case, I lean towards the Bears. You'll hear all kinds of crap this week about 'Good Rex Bad Rex', and how "Manning is finally prepared to take the next step', but the bottom line is that the ML on this game right now is about -240, and you can spin this any way you want but I do not see how the Bears would stand to lose this game straight up 70% of the time.[
A 7 point dog winning straight up 70% of the time? Man, I'd start gambling again if I could get that to happen.
///////////////////////////////
At -240 the break even point is about 70%. So, if you lay the 240 you need the Colts to win about 70% of the time to break even, and if you take the 240 you need the Bears to win straight up about 30% of the time to break even.
30% is something like 5-11 over a 16 game season. Anyone think the Colts go 12-4 against a 'normal' schedule, but go 11-5 if they played the Bears 16 straight times? That number seems high to me. >>
Oh now I see the way the 70% was meant. Dam, I was just ready to get on the phone with Calvin Ayre at Bodog and bet a kidney on the game. I figure the going rate for a kidney is probably about 10K - LOL
That is an interesting way of analyzing the game - from a win record perspective against the odds.
-
<< <i>Jeez, I like betting on sports but all this talk seems like rocket science to me. I didn't realize there was such math involved with picking good bets. I usually just throw a couple dollars down on a team I like. But, I usually lose a lot too. Oh well, it's fun. >>
I like to kid around, but I do sincerely wish eveyone here good luck if they are betting. I can't stand bookies and it would be nice if everybody beat them, but alas rooting against bookies is like rooting against a thrown ball not coming back down to earth.
Nobody beats the books in the long-run and I've never seen it properly proven otherwise. We actually had two threads here in the past done by iamthegreatcornholio at the beginning of football seasons. Three seasons ago if I'm remembering right, out of about ten or so regulars here who thought they could beat the spread, only Brian and maybe another was up some fictional money at the end of the season. The season after that, Brian started the thread again and everybody was getting crushed although Brian was hanging in there.
Really fantastic handicapping overall by Brian - some of the best I have ever seen and believe me, I've witnessed a lot of handicappers when I was a gambler. So for a season and a half Brian was the only one up some money.
But around midway through the season the thread stopped being maintained. It's not to figure out why - the juice finally caught up to Brian and he started losing back last season's fictional money, and then lost interest in continuing maintaining the thread. There was no thread done like this during this current season.
There is no doubt in my mind that Brian, and perhaps Boo could out handicap other gamblers. It the gambling entailed no juice pools, heads up against other gamblers, Brian for sure, and I say "probably" about Boo because I haven't analyzed enough of his picks yet, but Brian for sure could probably make a good living at it.
But I've yet to see documented proof that anyone can make money against a bookies juice which of course on point spread games equals a 4.545% edge when the books juice is $10 for every $100 the bettor loses - that "little" 4.545% may seem beatable but it adds up on every bet to the point whereby it eventually crushes a bankroll. Some bookies juice is lower but I haven't seen anybody beat that either as far as documented, audited proof is concerned.
If anyone wants to try to prove me wrong again, then start up a basketball, baseball, or "all-purpose" thread here and document your picks, unedited of course, over the long-run. Unfortunately for the bettors there is no doubt in my mind that after a year, every bettor will be a significant loser. Brian and perhaps Boo will be a less significant loser versus the others, but a loser just the same.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>Jeez, I like betting on sports but all this talk seems like rocket science to me. I didn't realize there was such math involved with picking good bets. I usually just throw a couple dollars down on a team I like. But, I usually lose a lot too. Oh well, it's fun. >>
I like to kid around, but I do sincerely wish eveyone here good luck if they are betting. I can't stand bookies and it would be nice if everybody beat them, but alas rooting against bookies is like rooting against a thrown ball not coming back down to earth.
Nobody beats the books in the long-run and I've never seen it properly proven otherwise. We actually had two threads here in the past done by iamthegreatcornholio at the beginning of football seasons. Three seasons ago if I'm remembering right, out of about ten or so regulars here who thought they could beat the spread, only Brian and maybe another was up some fictional money at the end of the season. The season after that, Brian started the thread again and everybody was getting crushed although Brian was hanging in there.
Really fantastic handicapping overall by Brian - some of the best I have ever seen and believe me, I've witnessed a lot of handicappers when I was a gambler. So for a season and a half Brian was the only one up some money.
But around midway through the season the thread stopped being maintained. It's not to figure out why - the juice finally caught up to Brian and he started losing back last season's fictional money, and then lost interest in continuing maintaining the thread. There was no thread done like this during this current season.
There is no doubt in my mind that Brian, and perhaps Boo could out handicap other gamblers. It the gambling entailed no juice pools, heads up against other gamblers, Brian for sure, and I say "probably" about Boo because I haven't analyzed enough of his picks yet, but Brian for sure could probably make a good living at it.
But I've yet to see documented proof that anyone can make money against a bookies juice which of course on point spread games equals a 4.545% edge when the books juice is $10 for every $100 the bettor loses - that "little" 4.545% may seem beatable but it adds up on every bet to the point whereby it eventually crushes a bankroll. Some bookies juice is lower but I haven't seen anybody beat that either as far as documented, audited proof is concerned.
If anyone wants to try to prove me wrong again, then start up a basketball, baseball, or "all-purpose" thread here and document your picks, unedited of course, over the long-run. Unfortunately for the bettors there is no doubt in my mind that after a year, every bettor will be a significant loser. Brian and perhaps Boo will be a less significant loser versus the others, but a loser just the same.
Steve >>
I couldn't handicap my way out of a wet paper bag. All the money I've ever made from sports betting-- and believe me when I say it's a very modest sum-- has been made by either a) correctly intuiting where a line was going to move, and scalping before game time, and b) betting off-market numbers from shops that don't move their lines 'on air' or are otherwise too slow to adjust to steam. For instance, every book in the world has team 'a' at -3, but one book has them at -3.5. Assuming the -3 is efficient (a fair assumption), taking +3.5 on the dog is one of those slam dunk no-brainers with a 5% ROI.
anyway-Colts will win by at least 10 points- i am leaning towards 17ish - 34-17??
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Jeez, I like betting on sports but all this talk seems like rocket science to me. I didn't realize there was such math involved with picking good bets. I usually just throw a couple dollars down on a team I like. But, I usually lose a lot too. Oh well, it's fun. >>
I like to kid around, but I do sincerely wish eveyone here good luck if they are betting. I can't stand bookies and it would be nice if everybody beat them, but alas rooting against bookies is like rooting against a thrown ball not coming back down to earth.
Nobody beats the books in the long-run and I've never seen it properly proven otherwise. We actually had two threads here in the past done by iamthegreatcornholio at the beginning of football seasons. Three seasons ago if I'm remembering right, out of about ten or so regulars here who thought they could beat the spread, only Brian and maybe another was up some fictional money at the end of the season. The season after that, Brian started the thread again and everybody was getting crushed although Brian was hanging in there.
Really fantastic handicapping overall by Brian - some of the best I have ever seen and believe me, I've witnessed a lot of handicappers when I was a gambler. So for a season and a half Brian was the only one up some money.
But around midway through the season the thread stopped being maintained. It's not to figure out why - the juice finally caught up to Brian and he started losing back last season's fictional money, and then lost interest in continuing maintaining the thread. There was no thread done like this during this current season.
There is no doubt in my mind that Brian, and perhaps Boo could out handicap other gamblers. It the gambling entailed no juice pools, heads up against other gamblers, Brian for sure, and I say "probably" about Boo because I haven't analyzed enough of his picks yet, but Brian for sure could probably make a good living at it.
But I've yet to see documented proof that anyone can make money against a bookies juice which of course on point spread games equals a 4.545% edge when the books juice is $10 for every $100 the bettor loses - that "little" 4.545% may seem beatable but it adds up on every bet to the point whereby it eventually crushes a bankroll. Some bookies juice is lower but I haven't seen anybody beat that either as far as documented, audited proof is concerned.
If anyone wants to try to prove me wrong again, then start up a basketball, baseball, or "all-purpose" thread here and document your picks, unedited of course, over the long-run. Unfortunately for the bettors there is no doubt in my mind that after a year, every bettor will be a significant loser. Brian and perhaps Boo will be a less significant loser versus the others, but a loser just the same.
Steve >>
I couldn't handicap my way out of a wet paper bag. All the money I've ever made from sports betting-- and believe me when I say it's a very modest sum-- has been made by either a) correctly intuiting where a line was going to move, and scalping before game time, and b) betting off-market numbers from shops that don't move their lines 'on air' or are otherwise too slow to adjust to steam. For instance, every book in the world has team 'a' at -3, but one book has them at -3.5. Assuming the -3 is efficient (a fair assumption), taking +3.5 on the dog is one of those slam dunk no-brainers with a 5% ROI. >>
Boo - I'm not kidding about this - I'd like to get your further ideas if you wish to expound on it. Things such as "middling" have been around for years. It may have actually been easier to do in the pre-internet days when a lot of local bookies weren't always privy to right up to date lines. Today's books have right up to the second information whenever they need it. Of course the betting at their particular outlet can determine their particular line.
I know very well the way bookies operate. It is a fallacy for anyone to believe that they "panic" when having too much money on a particular side, as long as they have the capital to absorb bad weeks which most of them do. Thet know that things will even out for them with the juice grinding out the bettors. For example they may not want to move a line to 3.5 to intentionally get more action on the other side, knowing that even if the bettors do win, then the next game with the same situation the odds are the bettors will lose and the bookie wins his juice. I don't think that catching an occasional bet at the 3/3.5 thing can make up for the losses incurred from the juice.
I remember years ago calculating various ways to middle bets, and came up with the clear conclusion that it was a sucker's game to try. The juice prevented any possibility of profit considering the odds of catching a middle which you probably know is tough to do.
Can you go into more detail about that -3 versus -3.5 and how that is a 5% return on investment when there is juice involved? I might draw a different conclusion from your analysis but I won't browbeat you on the study - I do find it interesting. I can see the percentages involved that you may be calculating, but aren't you possibly dismissing the "accumulative" effects of the losses, which is a big mistake many gamblers make when doing analysis regarding gambling.
Bottom line - this just seems way, WAY, WAY too easy a way to make money and if it was this easy, wouldn't this be well known and basically "every" gambler doing this? Perhaps Brian, who I consider an expert with mathematics, could chime in to support or refute your interesting idea.
Always enjoy the discussion!
Steve
From a book, the closest one can get to no juice is -104 on both sides from Pinnacle. To a small-time gambler, the juice really doesn’t mean a huge deal in terms of absolute dollars since the bets are small.
However, even at low juice, trying to make a living off of sports is incredibly hard. I’ll crunch a few numbers to prove it:
This person is really, really good and wins 60% of the time. In order to keep such a great winning percentage, they make very few bets; 2 bets a week on average. There are 20 weeks in football season so at the end, they have made 40 bets: they won 24 and lost 16. Their record in units is (24*1)-(16*1.04) = 7.36 units. Assuming they want to make this full-time, and also assuming they can return to their regular job right after the season, they need 20 weeks of pay; this guy is smart so let’s say that’s $2,000 a week so $40,000. What I’m getting at is their units need to be over 5 grand (40000/7.36) = $5,435. In other words, they’ve got roughly 11K on the line each weekend. Furthermore, due to statistical fluctuations, it’s good practice to never bet more than 10% of your bankroll in a week, thus you’d need $113,00 in cash to make this happen, and you’d need to be damn good; remember 60% of the time. BTW, you would need almost $138,000 compared to $113,00 if the juice was -110 compared to -104.
Most people are neither that good nor that patient. Let’s say someone hits 55% of the time and makes 5 wagers per week at -105 juice. Keeping all other things the same, they’d be risking over $25,000 a weekend to make their $2,000 a week profit. Moreover, they’d need a bankroll of over a quarter million dollars to practice good money management. Winning at 55% is still a great number, but let’s assume this poor slob hits 50% (he's not bad just average); it really doesn’t take much as many bets are decided by a narrow margin. At 50% this guy loses $12,900 over the course of the 20 weeks; and that’s not taking into effect the opportunity cost of sitting on 250K.
<< <i>Why 8? The 8 only hits about 2% of the time, as opposed to the 7 which hits about 5%. If -7 is a 50/50 propostion than getting 7 1/2 will be a 52.5- 47.5% proposition, which makes it slightly +EV against -105.... I agree that 8 would be better, obviously, but I'm going to wait until game time and take the 7 1/2 IF it appears. If it doesn't I'll probably pass on it. >>
I'd take 7.5, but I think if 7.5 appears 8 likely would appear too if I look hard enough. I've seen the Bears kick too many FGs so the final margin of 2 Indy TDs to 2 Bears FGs wouldn't suprise me.
<< <i>Thanks for the compliments Steve. I have heard of people having success at buying and selling lines as it’s about anticipating the public more than actually betting on games. I’ve never tried it since it doesn’t sound very exciting.
From a book, the closest one can get to no juice is -104 on both sides from Pinnacle. To a small-time gambler, the juice really doesn’t mean a huge deal in terms of absolute dollars since the bets are small.
However, even at low juice, trying to make a living off of sports is incredibly hard. I’ll crunch a few numbers to prove it:
This person is really, really good and wins 60% of the time. In order to keep such a great winning percentage, they make very few bets; 2 bets a week on average. There are 20 weeks in football season so at the end, they have made 40 bets: they won 24 and lost 16. Their record in units is (24*1)-(16*1.04) = 7.36 units. Assuming they want to make this full-time, and also assuming they can return to their regular job right after the season, they need 20 weeks of pay; this guy is smart so let’s say that’s $2,000 a week so $40,000. What I’m getting at is their units need to be over 5 grand (40000/7.36) = $5,435. In other words, they’ve got roughly 11K on the line each weekend. Furthermore, due to statistical fluctuations, it’s good practice to never bet more than 10% of your bankroll in a week, thus you’d need $113,00 in cash to make this happen, and you’d need to be damn good; remember 60% of the time. BTW, you would need almost $138,000 compared to $113,00 if the juice was -110 compared to -104.
Most people are neither that good nor that patient. Let’s say someone hits 55% of the time and makes 5 wagers per week at -105 juice. Keeping all other things the same, they’d be risking over $25,000 a weekend to make their $2,000 a week profit. Moreover, they’d need a bankroll of over a quarter million dollars to practice good money management. Winning at 55% is still a great number, but let’s assume this poor slob hits 50% (he's not bad just average); it really doesn’t take much as many bets are decided by a narrow margin. At 50% this guy loses $12,900 over the course of the 20 weeks; and that’s not taking into effect the opportunity cost of sitting on 250K.
<< <i>Why 8? The 8 only hits about 2% of the time, as opposed to the 7 which hits about 5%. If -7 is a 50/50 propostion than getting 7 1/2 will be a 52.5- 47.5% proposition, which makes it slightly +EV against -105.... I agree that 8 would be better, obviously, but I'm going to wait until game time and take the 7 1/2 IF it appears. If it doesn't I'll probably pass on it. >>
I'd take 7.5, but I think if 7.5 appears 8 likely would appear too if I look hard enough. I've seen the Bears kick too many FGs so the final margin of 2 Indy TDs to 2 Bears FGs wouldn't suprise me. >>
Thanks Brian for the extremely informative reply. It's good to see an unbiased "tell it like it is" post about this subject instead of regurgitated spins from "how to win at gambling" books.
Risking that type of money would in my view be far less risky and much more profitable by starting a business or say investing in real estate rental properties.
I think Brian you said you majored in engineering of some type...may have been mechanical engineering. There's no doubt in my mind you are going to be quite successful in whatever job or business you pursue.
Boo brings interesting points to the table as well. Boo always talks "variance" and he's correct to talk variance. But it sure seems that sooner or later with sports betting, and it's usually sooner, that 60% +variance turns into a 60% -variance and the wins/losses even out. But of course the juice never evens out - it eventually levels a bankroll like a steamroller.
Again though...I can't stand bookies so it is hoped you guys do well in the coming weeks. Take some of Calvin Ayre's money - that would be fine by me.
Steve