The line on NFL playoff games this weekend
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
in Sports Talk
Jaguars at Patriots
Pats by 13 1/2
Chargers at Colts
Colts by 9
Seahawks at Packers
Packers by 8
Giants at Cowboys
Cowboys by 7 1/2
Pats by 13 1/2
Chargers at Colts
Colts by 9
Seahawks at Packers
Packers by 8
Giants at Cowboys
Cowboys by 7 1/2
0
Comments
The last two years the home teams haven't all been so heavily favored as this year,
but only 2 of the 8 teams covered the spread and 4 of the 8 lost their games outright.
Last year :
San Diego - 4.5 points lost to New England 21 - 24
Chicago - 9 points beat Seattle 27 - 24
Baltimore - 4 points lost to Indianapolis 6 - 15
New Orleans - 5.5 points beat Philadelphia 27 - 24
Previous year :
Chicago - 2.5 points lost to Carolina 21 - 29
Indianapolis - 9.5 points lost to Pittsburgh 18 - 21
Denver - 3 points beat New England 27 - 13
Seattle - 9.5 points beat Washington 20 - 10
The home teams in this round, after their bye weeks, always seem like 'locks' to win and cover,
but the games do need to actually be played and there'll probably be an upset or two this weekend.
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
Betting games against the spread? Might as well flip a coin and call it heads or tails, and place your bet. Call it "heads" the bookie wins...call it "tails" the bookie wins.
BTW...Betting teasers? Teasers are a bookies best friend...a sucker bet in a long list of sports gambling sucker bets.
-
Iamthegreatcornholio (Brian on here) might retort this means the Cowboys will likely win...IE: go against the public.
<< <i>BTW...Betting teasers? Teasers are a bookies best friend...a sucker bet in a long list of sports gambling sucker bets.- >>
Agreed for the most part, but it does give you a better shot than just picking 2 winners outright.
I have a $20 futures bet on the Jags to win it all at 50-1...
If I recall correctly, chalk usually wins this round, but the last two years haven't been so. Despite that trend, the only team I thought would be under a TD favorite is Green Bay - I had 'em at -6.5. Is this Favre's last game at Lambeau? Maybe that alone oughta bump the line up a point or two.
Iamthegreatcornholio (Brian on here) might retort this means the Cowboys will likely win...IE: go against the public.
I think the stronger trend is when the line goes opposite of the public. In the case of the Giants and the Seahawks, the line is moving with the public (by getting smaller).
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Analyzing past sports betting results, although sometimes interesting, has got absolutely nothing to do with being able to make money predicting future results. >>
Actually it was from analyzing past spread results that gamblers were able to learn that if you played teasers on every game that moved past the 3 and the 7 -- most common margins of victory -- you would win money long term. For example, Packers and Cowboys are both more than four to one favories, but teasers would have them at -1.5 and -2, or nearly pick games. Books caught on and changed the juice and lines to make teasers an even worse proposition. But for about two years a few gamblers figured out and did very well having done nothing other than analyze past results
Favre has stated recently that (paraphrase) he will likely be back next season.
<< <i>The smartest bet is $50 on the Jaguars money line. If they win you make $300 and don't feel so sick. If they lose, it's ok, because it meant the Patriots won and you're one step closer to having seen the greatest team in sports history. Either way you win. If I bet on the games that's what I would be doing each week.
<< <i>Analyzing past sports betting results, although sometimes interesting, has got absolutely nothing to do with being able to make money predicting future results. >>
Actually it was from analyzing past spread results that gamblers were able to learn that if you played teasers on every game that moved past the 3 and the 7 -- most common margins of victory -- you would win money long term. For example, Packers and Cowboys are both more than four to one favories, but teasers would have them at -1.5 and -2, or nearly pick games. Books caught on and changed the juice and lines to make teasers an even worse proposition. But for about two years a few gamblers figured out and did very well having done nothing other than analyze past results >>
<<< Actually it was from analyzing past spread results that gamblers were able to learn that if you played teasers on every game that moved past the 3 and the 7 -- most common margins of victory -- you would win money long term. >>>
Never heard that one before. If you have a link or information about this, please post it here and it would be interesting to read, otherwise sorry but I'll have to consider it an urban legend.
Teasers have always been an abominable sucker bet. The books probably changed the rules because the cardinal rule among bookies is never give a sucker an even break, and if you've got a sucker betting on teasers, then why not make the odds even worse because the sucker will likely still play them anyway...if the house edge is say 10% instead of "only" say 8%, the suckers who play teasers probably don't even care so the books figure why not fleece the suckers faster if possible.
Yes, there is internet competition among sports books so the books can't make the odds "too bad" or the suckers may bet elsewhere, but from what I've seen on the major internet sports books, they generally offer about the same type of bets, sometimes with some variation.
-
If there'sone thing that SteveK knows inside & out (other than the Mets are better than than the Phils, that is), it's sportsbook gambling, so I'd have to side with him on this topic.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>TomG,
If there's one thing that SteveK knows inside & out (including that the Phils are better than the Mets), it's sportsbook gambling, so I'd have to side with him on this topic. >>
Jerry - I've corrected your typographical error.
You're welcome.
-
http://www.amazon.com/Man-100-000-Breasts-Gambling/dp/0767904451/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200116673&sr=1-2
Not sure if it was this book, but it was definitely an article from this author. An MIT researcher stumbled upon the idea there is more randomness involved in the final score, then in who wins. And since teams rarely win by only one or two, an NFL team that everyone believes is a more than a TD favorite, the chance of them winning by at least a field goal is pretty good. Some guys did pretty well for a while, then the books changed teasers to 5.5 points instead of six, or charged more juice, and it stopped working.
No different than discovering that single deck blackjack with all other favorable rules can be beated fairly easily. And when the gamblers figured it out, the casinos stopped offering it
If there's one thing that SteveK knows inside & out (including that the Phils are better than the Mets), it's sportsbook gambling, so I'd have to side with him on this topic. >>
Jerry - I've corrected your typographical error.
You're welcome.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i><< TomG,
If there's one thing that SteveK knows inside & out (including that the Phils are better than the Mets), it's sportsbook gambling, so I'd have to side with him on this topic. >>
Jerry - I've corrected your typographical error.
You're welcome.
A little Phils - Mets smack talk and it's only January. LOL
<< <i>Here is a reference, Steve,
http://www.amazon.com/Man-100-000-Breasts-Gambling/dp/0767904451/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200116673&sr=1-2
Not sure if it was this book, but it was definitely an article from this author. An MIT researcher stumbled upon the idea there is more randomness involved in the final score, then in who wins. And since teams rarely win by only one or two, an NFL team that everyone believes is a more than a TD favorite, the chance of them winning by at least a field goal is pretty good. Some guys did pretty well for a while, then the books changed teasers to 5.5 points instead of six, or charged more juice, and it stopped working.
No different than discovering that single deck blackjack with all other favorable rules can be beated fairly easily. And when the gamblers figured it out, the casinos stopped offering it >>
I've heard of the book as it was a best seller I believe. How accurate is the book's information, I have no idea. In any event, I'm just gonna let this go because what's more interesting to me anyway is what is happening currently such as Boopotts and I have had a number of detailed discussions here on sports betting and online poker which were very interesting from my perspective.
I realize you were commenting on my statement about "past results"and I enjoy the discussion. And like your illustration about blackjack, even if it were true that guys such as Ken Uston (RIP) were once able to beat the game, which I've had some doubts about Ken's stories because in my humble opinion and others opinion, Ken was prone to exaggeration - but even if Ken once did beat the game of blackjack, as you implied the gambling houses just change the rules to suit their profits.
That's one thing I think many if not most gamblers don't fully understand about gambling business owners - they don't like anybody, and I do mean anybody, winning or withdrawing money from them and that includes online poker, and especially includes sports betting whereby the gambler is in direct competition with the gambling house.
-