NFL week 4

[Banedon]

My fantasy team is called Ed Hochuli's Biceps. I've lost the first 3 games despite having, what I and other league members though, was a very good draft. I'm blaming naming my team after a ref. I figure with the lockout over, I'm due for a winning streak.

[jersey cubs fan]

Anybody that thinks they know the spread better than the oddsmakers is a fool. There is a reason the line is set as it is. To create betting. If a line seems too good, then that is a red flag. There is a reason Vegas is still Vegas and a reason the oddsmakers are oddsmakers.

 

Blackjack is the only thing in Vegas that gives any odds to the gambler.

 

ETA: That is not to say someone can't have a "hunch" about a game. Of course, there are always those types of bets. But no one can reasonably say a line is "crazy" or that betting for or against any set odds is crazy. Nobody knows more than the people setting the lines. It's a crapshoot at best.

 

Nonsense. There's at least a couple games a year that vegas and the general public get completely wrong based on perception. You can't bet every game. But there are easy bets. I rarely make actual vegas bets but a co worker was in Vegas when the Bears were playing the Giants a few years ago and Chicago was getting something like 8 points despite being, in my opinion, the favorite to win the game outright. It was easy money.

[Guest]

Anybody that thinks they know the spread better than the oddsmakers is a fool. There is a reason the line is set as it is. To create betting. If a line seems too good, then that is a red flag. There is a reason Vegas is still Vegas and a reason the oddsmakers are oddsmakers.

 

Blackjack is the only thing in Vegas that gives any odds to the gambler.

 

ETA: That is not to say someone can't have a "hunch" about a game. Of course, there are always those types of bets. But no one can reasonably say a line is "crazy" or that betting for or against any set odds is crazy. Nobody knows more than the people setting the lines. It's a crapshoot at best.

 

Nonsense. There's at least a couple games a year that vegas and the general public get completely wrong based on perception. You can't bet every game. But there are easy bets. I rarely make actual vegas bets but a co worker was in Vegas when the Bears were playing the Giants a few years ago and Chicago was getting something like 8 points despite being, in my opinion, the favorite to win the game outright. It was easy money.

 

I was in Vegas last year for the Eagles Monday night game when the Bears were getting like 8 or 9 points for some baffling reason. I made a killing right before my Monday night redeye betting both that and the moneyline.

Edited September 27, 2012 by David

[Guest]

Anybody that thinks they know the spread better than the oddsmakers is a fool. There is a reason the line is set as it is. To create betting. If a line seems too good, then that is a red flag. There is a reason Vegas is still Vegas and a reason the oddsmakers are oddsmakers.

 

Blackjack is the only thing in Vegas that gives any odds to the gambler.

 

ETA: That is not to say someone can't have a "hunch" about a game. Of course, there are always those types of bets. But no one can reasonably say a line is "crazy" or that betting for or against any set odds is crazy. Nobody knows more than the people setting the lines. It's a crapshoot at best.

 

 

That's silly. Vegas beats the general public but that doesn't mean there aren't bettors who are better at reading games and are long term profitable.

 

And blackjack does not give odds to the gambler unless you can count through multiple decks in an autoshuffler, which is basically impossible.

 

You're comparing a game that is designed, mathematically, to be profitable long term to the house. There is no way that any casino game is more beatable than sports, especially now that counting is nearly impossible in the vast majority of casinos.

 

The best odds you can find in a casino are at the craps table, and they still don't favor the player over the house long term. If they did, they wouldn't be there.

Edited September 27, 2012 by David

[jersey cubs fan]

I was in Vegas last year for the Eagles Monday night game when the Bears were getting like 8 or 9 points for some baffling reason. I made a killing right before my Monday night redeye betting both that and the moneyline.

 

I think I got something like 9 points on that one from an Eagles fans I was attending the game with.

[Guest]

Poker is something you can obviously profit on, but there is no house interest there (other than the rake). You just have to play better than the other guys.

[Guest]

I was in Vegas last year for the Eagles Monday night game when the Bears were getting like 8 or 9 points for some baffling reason. I made a killing right before my Monday night redeye betting both that and the moneyline.

 

I think I got something like 9 points on that one from an Eagles fans I was attending the game with.

 

Yea, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the actual line was somewhere in that neighborhood. I remember that I couldn't believe it when it came out.

[CubColtPacer]

There was an oddsmaker on one of the behind the bets podcasts that ESPN has that I caught a little bit of. It was interesting to hear him say that oddsmakers aren't hoping to make the bets even (which he said wasn't really possible even if they wanted to). He said even if they could do that, there wouldn't be enough profit involved to make it worth it. They're trying to make money by getting the public to bet one side and the sharps to bet the other. Since there is much more public money than sharp money, they tend to win whenever the sharps do. He said they know they've really messed up the line when the public and the sharps bet the same side.

[Guest]

There was an oddsmaker on one of the behind the bets podcasts that ESPN has that I caught a little bit of. It was interesting to hear him say that oddsmakers aren't hoping to make the bets even (which he said wasn't really possible even if they wanted to). He said even if they could do that, there wouldn't be enough profit involved to make it worth it. They're trying to make money by getting the public to bet one side and the sharps to bet the other. Since there is much more public money than sharp money, they tend to win whenever the sharps do. He said they know they've really messed up the line when the public and the sharps bet the same side.

 

Exactly.

[DivineBovine]

Anybody that thinks they know the spread better than the oddsmakers is a fool. There is a reason the line is set as it is. To create betting. If a line seems too good, then that is a red flag. There is a reason Vegas is still Vegas and a reason the oddsmakers are oddsmakers.

 

Blackjack is the only thing in Vegas that gives any odds to the gambler.

 

ETA: That is not to say someone can't have a "hunch" about a game. Of course, there are always those types of bets. But no one can reasonably say a line is "crazy" or that betting for or against any set odds is crazy. Nobody knows more than the people setting the lines. It's a crapshoot at best.

 

 

That's silly. Vegas beats the general public but that doesn't mean there aren't bettors who are better at reading games and are long term profitable.

 

And blackjack does not give odds to the gambler unless you can count through multiple decks in an autoshuffler, which is basically impossible.

 

You're comparing a game that is designed, mathematically, to be profitable long term to the house. There is no way that any casino game is more beatable than sports, especially now that counting is nearly impossible in the vast majority of casinos.

 

The best odds you can find in a casino are at the craps table, and they still don't favor the player over the house long term. If they did, they wouldn't be there.

 

 

Yeah, Blackjack gives no odds to the gambler unless they are counting- made impossible by continuous shuffle. I thought he meant "blackjack" paying 3 to 2 when it hits.

 

Regardless, I don't think Sports are really beatable, unless you are a professional who does more that just look at a line and say- "that's not right. I'm betting". I understand the logic that casino lines are influenced by the action, and if you can outsmart people (who often bet on "public perception") you can potentially make money.

 

But here are some caveats-

First- The casino is taking their cut. So you have to do much better than being right 51% of the time.

Second- There are professionals, who are smart gamblers, that account for much of the action. Not some stupid homer betting on his own team. They are the ones triaging all the casinos, finding the best lines, betting the middle, religiously following injury reports, doing research that you and I would never ever do. If a line is "wrong", these guys make sure it isn't "wrong" for long.

This is no different than arbitrage on Wall Street. When a company agrees to acquire another for a 2 to 1 stock swap, the stocks immediately begin trading at a 2 to 1 ratio. Any deviation from 2 to 1 reflects the probability the deal falls through.

 

So I think that betting on sports can be fun. And placing a $100 bet on a game, even more, is much better for your wallet in the long run than bringing $100 to the blackjack table. The money will last a lot longer. But to think that odds can frequently be "wrong" is just wrong. I would never bet thinking I could beat a game. It's a trap.

[Guest]

Anybody that thinks they know the spread better than the oddsmakers is a fool. There is a reason the line is set as it is. To create betting. If a line seems too good, then that is a red flag. There is a reason Vegas is still Vegas and a reason the oddsmakers are oddsmakers.

 

Blackjack is the only thing in Vegas that gives any odds to the gambler.

 

ETA: That is not to say someone can't have a "hunch" about a game. Of course, there are always those types of bets. But no one can reasonably say a line is "crazy" or that betting for or against any set odds is crazy. Nobody knows more than the people setting the lines. It's a crapshoot at best.

 

 

That's silly. Vegas beats the general public but that doesn't mean there aren't bettors who are better at reading games and are long term profitable.

 

And blackjack does not give odds to the gambler unless you can count through multiple decks in an autoshuffler, which is basically impossible.

 

You're comparing a game that is designed, mathematically, to be profitable long term to the house. There is no way that any casino game is more beatable than sports, especially now that counting is nearly impossible in the vast majority of casinos.

 

The best odds you can find in a casino are at the craps table, and they still don't favor the player over the house long term. If they did, they wouldn't be there.

 

 

Yeah, Blackjack gives no odds to the gambler unless they are counting- made impossible by continuous shuffle. I thought he meant "blackjack" paying 3 to 2 when it hits.

 

Regardless, I don't think Sports are really beatable, unless you are a professional who does more that just look at a line and say- "that's not right. I'm betting". I understand the logic that casino lines are influenced by the action, and if you can outsmart people (who often bet on "public perception") you can potentially make money.

 

But here are some caveats-

First- The casino is taking their cut. So you have to do much better than being right 51% of the time.

Second- There are professionals, who are smart gamblers, that account for much of the action. Not some stupid homer betting on his own team. They are the ones triaging all the casinos, finding the best lines, betting the middle, religiously following injury reports, doing research that you and I would never ever do. If a line is "wrong", these guys make sure it isn't "wrong" for long.

This is no different than arbitrage on Wall Street. When a company agrees to acquire another for a 2 to 1 stock swap, the stocks immediately begin trading at a 2 to 1 ratio. Any deviation from 2 to 1 reflects the probability the deal falls through.

 

So I think that betting on sports can be fun. And placing a $100 bet on a game, even more, is much better for your wallet in the long run than bringing $100 to the blackjack table. The money will last a lot longer. But to think that odds can frequently be "wrong" is just wrong. I would never bet thinking I could beat a game. It's a trap.

 

If the professionals can beat the house, you just conceded that it's beatable. How proficient a casual gambler is at doing so is a separate issue.

 

But yea, I generally agree with that stuff you posted.

[Cubswin11]

All of this talk of betting reminded me, didn't there use to be a pick em' pool/thread on here for NFL games for all the posters to pick games each week?

[DivineBovine]

There was an oddsmaker on one of the behind the bets podcasts that ESPN has that I caught a little bit of. It was interesting to hear him say that oddsmakers aren't hoping to make the bets even (which he said wasn't really possible even if they wanted to). He said even if they could do that, there wouldn't be enough profit involved to make it worth it. They're trying to make money by getting the public to bet one side and the sharps to bet the other. Since there is much more public money than sharp money, they tend to win whenever the sharps do. He said they know they've really messed up the line when the public and the sharps bet the same side.

 

Exactly.

 

I totally disagree with this part. They still want to minimize risk. They make profit anyways regardless.

 

Yes, its impossible to make the bets even because when the line moves, they honor the the line that was bet on. In other words, you bet a team +3 points on Monday, and someone gets injured and the line moves to even, you still get +3.

 

Still, the line moves based on the action. If the smartest oddsmaker comes in at a certain line, and still thinks that line is the right one, he's still going to move the line if all the action comes in on one side to even it out. If he didn't, he'd expose himself to a ton of risk.

 

You always here about games where Vegas gets killed or does well. That's because even by moving the lines, they are still exposing themselves to risk based on how the action came in. But all in all, they make money in the end by taking bets. Not by being invested in the outcome themselves. I completely disagree that they are trying to do much more than take bets and take their cut.

[Banedon]

http://pro32.ap.org/content/goodell-apologizes-fans-replacement-games

 

Goodell says: "Something like this, it's painful for everybody. Most importantly, it's painful for fans. We're sorry to have to put fans through that."

 

He added: "Sometimes you have to go through something like that in the short term for the right agreement for the long term."

[Smack]

Wow. Josh Cribbs just got hammered. Knocked out cold.

[DivineBovine]

Wow. Josh Cribbs just got hammered. Knocked out cold.

 

 

A helmet to helmet is illegal, but I guess clocking someone with a shoulder directly to the helmet is OK.

[Smack]

Wow. Josh Cribbs just got hammered. Knocked out cold.

 

 

A helmet to helmet is illegal, but I guess clocking someone with a shoulder directly to the helmet is OK.

 

Helmet to helmet is legal if it's a runner with the ball (not considered defenseless). It's defenseless receivers and QBs that get that protection.

[Careless]

Wow, is that a stupid personal foul.

[pitchcs]

Browns aren't that bad, just remember that. If WR's come up with a couple catches tonight, they win.

 

+12 $$

[Banedon]

http://i.imgur.com/lAzAO.jpg

[Smack]

haha, is that without the spread?

[Banedon]

Hub Arkush is a moron. He thinks the NFL doesn't really feel that bad about Monday night because they won't give Green Bay the win.

[bukie]

Hub Arkush is a moron. ....

You could've just stopped there.

[jersey cubs fan]

Hub Arkush is a moron. He thinks the NFL doesn't really feel that bad about Monday night because they won't give Green Bay the win.

 

I don't think they feel bad about Monday night.

[Banedon]

Hub Arkush is a moron. He thinks the NFL doesn't really feel that bad about Monday night because they won't give Green Bay the win.

 

I don't think they feel bad about Monday night.

 

Well right, but even if they did, they aren't going to go back and give GB the win after the fact. That's the ridiculous part.