AFC -6.5 and 48 (1 Viewer)

[Blackjacks]

Right now that is what Vegas is estimating.

I can see that changing only f the Bears are playing the Patroits. I can see the spread going down and probably the total as well. If the Colts play the Saints I could see the total going up but these are the current lines as listed on vegasinsider.com. Of curse this isn't in stone but just to start getting some ideas. I would take the Saints against New England +6.5 all day!!!!!!!!!!!!! However I'm thinking it is going to be NO and Indy and the spread sounds about right but I would think that total would jump up to about 52 or 53.

 

[rockbottom895]

I see someone is a big gambler! Haha, so am I. Who you like this weekend?

 

[Blackjacks]

I see someone is a big gambler! Haha, so am I. Who you like this weekend?

Colts -3Saints +3I'll probably buy the 1/2 point on both games though and take the Colts down to 2 1/2 and bring the Saints up to 3 1/2.I did however hear something interesting the other day on the Dan Patrick show. I heard that in the last, I believe 15 years, that atleast 1 of the underdogs that plays to go to the superbowl has gone. Basically saying for the last 15 years or so (sorry can't remember) that if you bet on both dogs atleast 1 will cover if not both. That is intriguing I think.

 

[Gr00vus]

Somewhat related, but when was the last time this season the Pats didn't cover? The Miami game?

 

[Dynasty]

I did however hear something interesting the other day on the Dan Patrick show. I heard that in the last, I believe 15 years, that atleast 1 of the underdogs that plays to go to the superbowl has gone. Basically saying for the last 15 years or so (sorry can't remember) that if you bet on both dogs atleast 1 will cover if not both. That is intriguing I think.

I hope you realize that this information is only interesting or intriguing (your words). It has absolutely no value whatsoever in making a good bet.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I see someone is a big gambler! Haha, so am I. Who you like this weekend?

Colts -3Saints +3I'll probably buy the 1/2 point on both games though and take the Colts down to 2 1/2 and bring the Saints up to 3 1/2.I did however hear something interesting the other day on the Dan Patrick show. I heard that in the last, I believe 15 years, that atleast 1 of the underdogs that plays to go to the superbowl has gone. Basically saying for the last 15 years or so (sorry can't remember) that if you bet on both dogs atleast 1 will cover if not both. That is intriguing I think.

Kind of a dubious stat. 2 years ago the Eagles were a 7 point favorite over Atlanta. Initially the Pats were a small underdog to Pittsburgh at Pitt but by gametime, the Pats were the favorite. So if you are defining favorite and underdog by gametime, that stat above is incorrect.

 

[Blackjacks]

I did however hear something interesting the other day on the Dan Patrick show. I heard that in the last, I believe 15 years, that atleast 1 of the underdogs that plays to go to the superbowl has gone. Basically saying for the last 15 years or so (sorry can't remember) that if you bet on both dogs atleast 1 will cover if not both. That is intriguing I think.

I hope you realize that this information is only interesting or intriguing (your words). It has absolutely no value whatsoever in making a good bet.

It is called a trend which is something you should bet on. Trends follow each other. Not guaranteeing anything but usually they have a very high percentage. In my case I'm taking NO and Indy, not based on this theory, but it does match it. With my luck, the trend will continue but for Chicago and NE.

 

[Dynasty]

I did however hear something interesting the other day on the Dan Patrick show. I heard that in the last, I believe 15 years, that atleast 1 of the underdogs that plays to go to the superbowl has gone. Basically saying for the last 15 years or so (sorry can't remember) that if you bet on both dogs atleast 1 will cover if not both. That is intriguing I think.

I hope you realize that this information is only interesting or intriguing (your words). It has absolutely no value whatsoever in making a good bet.

It is called a trend which is something you should bet on. Trends follow each other.

Trends are not something you should bet on. It's a fool's bet. Even if this stat has been true for several years in a row, there is no reason to believe it will continue to be true going forward. The past occurences of this stat don't impact the probability of it happening in the future.For example, if a roulette wheel comes up black for six spins in a row, it's a fool's bet to bet on black on the seventh spin just because black is the trend.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

My best guesses:

New England -6.5

New Orleans 44.5

Indianapolis -3.5

New Orleans 48

New England -5.5

Chicago 41

Indianapolis -4

Chicago 44

We'll see how this fares.

Take your own guesses.

 

[David Yudkin]

For example, if a roulette wheel comes up black for six spins in a row, it's a fool's bet to bet on black on the seventh spin just because black is the trend.

Posting the results for prior spins was a genius move by casinos and has earned them megabucks. The probability of any result in roulette is the same on every spin.

 

[PahtyTom]

Right now that is what Vegas is estimating.I can see that changing only f the Bears are playing the Patroits. I can see the spread going down and probably the total as well. If the Colts play the Saints I could see the total going up but these are the current lines as listed on vegasinsider.com. Of curse this isn't in stone but just to start getting some ideas. I would take the Saints against New England +6.5 all day!!!!!!!!!!!!! However I'm thinking it is going to be NO and Indy and the spread sounds about right but I would think that total would jump up to about 52 or 53.

I think NE-CHI would be the only scenario that would actually have the ability to produce a LARGER spread. I could see it at 7 or 7.5. I think NE would blow out Chicago and the perception(probably correct) of NE's defense destroying Rex could possibly inflate the line to over 6.5.

 

[PahtyTom]

I did however hear something interesting the other day on the Dan Patrick show. I heard that in the last, I believe 15 years, that atleast 1 of the underdogs that plays to go to the superbowl has gone. Basically saying for the last 15 years or so (sorry can't remember) that if you bet on both dogs atleast 1 will cover if not both. That is intriguing I think.

I hope you realize that this information is only interesting or intriguing (your words). It has absolutely no value whatsoever in making a good bet.

It is called a trend which is something you should bet on. Trends follow each other. Not guaranteeing anything but usually they have a very high percentage. In my case I'm taking NO and Indy, not based on this theory, but it does match it. With my luck, the trend will continue but for Chicago and NE.

Sorry, but NE is the dog on Sunday.

 

[Blackjacks]

A trend in gambling on sports is basically learning where Vegas is going light on #'s For example since 2000 over 85% of team that are a home underdog coming off a bye cover the following week. Does this still make it luck, well ya. My point is Vegas usually underestimates home team coming off a bye week. Does this guarantee anything....yes. It guarantees that Vegas is making the lines too low for that situation. That's what this trend is stating. It is stating that Vegas is not giving enough respect to the underdogs in the championship series. I would be shocked this weekend if one of the dogs don't cover this TREND says one of them will.

 

[Blackjacks]

I did however hear something interesting the other day on the Dan Patrick show. I heard that in the last, I believe 15 years, that atleast 1 of the underdogs that plays to go to the superbowl has gone. Basically saying for the last 15 years or so (sorry can't remember) that if you bet on both dogs atleast 1 will cover if not both. That is intriguing I think.

I hope you realize that this information is only interesting or intriguing (your words). It has absolutely no value whatsoever in making a good bet.

It is called a trend which is something you should bet on. Trends follow each other. Not guaranteeing anything but usually they have a very high percentage. In my case I'm taking NO and Indy, not based on this theory, but it does match it. With my luck, the trend will continue but for Chicago and NE.

Sorry, but NE is the dog on Sunday.

I was implying that I'm going with the wrong dog. I'm going with NO and Indy which means if NE and Chi cover I will lose both my bets.

 

[AB in DC]

My best guesses:New England -6.5New Orleans 44.5Indianapolis -3.5New Orleans 48New England -5.5Chicago 41Indianapolis -4Chicago 44

If AFC is -6.5 now, at least one of these matchups would have be greater than 6.5

 

[culdeus]

For example, if a roulette wheel comes up black for six spins in a row, it's a fool's bet to bet on black on the seventh spin just because black is the trend.

Posting the results for prior spins was a genius move by casinos and has earned them megabucks. The probability of any result in roulette is the same on every spin.

Bet with the streak and you can be wrong at most once. Bet against the streak and you can be wrong forever.

 

[culdeus]

My best guesses:New England -6.5New Orleans 44.5Indianapolis -3.5New Orleans 48New England -5.5Chicago 41Indianapolis -4Chicago 44We'll see how this fares.Take your own guesses.

NE - 4.5 NO 47.5IND -7.5 NO 51NE -3.5 CHI 38.5IND -5.5 CHI 42.5Any way you look at it NFC + = Value

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

My best guesses:New England -6.5New Orleans 44.5Indianapolis -3.5New Orleans 48New England -5.5Chicago 41Indianapolis -4Chicago 44

If AFC is -6.5 now, at least one of these matchups would have be greater than 6.5

The above are my picks, and I never said I claimed to be in line with the chalk.

 

[newteech]

NE - 4.5 NO 47.5

IND -7.5 NO 51

NE -3.5 CHI 38.5

IND -5.5 CHI 42.5

Any way you look at it NFC + = Value

If NE wins I think you're going to see much higher numbers than these.Superbowl experienced coach and MVP quarterback - makes for a deadly combination. Frankly I don't see how you can take the NFC if New England is there. Both Chicago or NO will be giddy to be in the Big Game, whereas NE will be all business

 

[David Yudkin]

NE - 4.5 NO 47.5

IND -7.5 NO 51

NE -3.5 CHI 38.5

IND -5.5 CHI 42.5

Any way you look at it NFC + = Value

If NE wins I think you're going to see much higher numbers than these.Superbowl experienced coach and MVP quarterback - makes for a deadly combination. Frankly I don't see how you can take the NFC if New England is there. Both Chicago or NO will be giddy to be in the Big Game, whereas NE will be all business

Assuming the Pats make it, they've won three titles all by 3 points. The Eagles and Panthers never had been to the big dance either. I'm not so sure that NE would be huge favorites.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I did however hear something interesting the other day on the Dan Patrick show. I heard that in the last, I believe 15 years, that atleast 1 of the underdogs that plays to go to the superbowl has gone. Basically saying for the last 15 years or so (sorry can't remember) that if you bet on both dogs atleast 1 will cover if not both. That is intriguing I think.

I hope you realize that this information is only interesting or intriguing (your words). It has absolutely no value whatsoever in making a good bet.

It is called a trend which is something you should bet on. Trends follow each other.

Trends are not something you should bet on. It's a fool's bet. Even if this stat has been true for several years in a row, there is no reason to believe it will continue to be true going forward. The past occurences of this stat don't impact the probability of it happening in the future.For example, if a roulette wheel comes up black for six spins in a row, it's a fool's bet to bet on black on the seventh spin just because black is the trend.

I don't necessarily think this is a good comparison. While the roulette result is 100% random, football games are not. It could be that (this is a pure hypothetical) New England has won 5 straight over Indianaplois because Belicheck manages to outscheme Dungy, or that Brady performs better in big situations than Manning, or the Patriots strengths simply match up well with Indy's weaknesses. Those types of influences make trends more than simply random occurrences, so I don't think they can be dismissed as easily as past roulette results.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

BTW - I'd play both the dogs this weekend on the ML and play a portion of your overall bet on a parlay with those same two teams. Asd far as SB Sunday goes, you're going to be VERY hard pressed to give me a line big enough to bet on either Chicago or New Orleans. I'd need +7 or better.

ETA : Unless it ends up New Orleans / Indy, in which case, I think the Saints could possibly present value.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

[ While the roulette result is 100% random, football games are not. It could be that (this is a pure hypothetical) New England has won 5 straight over Indianaplois because Belicheck manages to outscheme Dungy, or that Brady performs better in big situations than Manning, or the Patriots strengths simply match up well with Indy's weaknesses. Those types of influences make trends more than simply random occurrences, so I don't think they can be dismissed as easily as past roulette results.

If there is a good reason behind the trend, and the teams/coaches haven't changed too much, this is a valid point. But I will agree that many trends are worthless/outdated.

 

[slimflop]

Anyone have the line yet?

 

[mcjc4]

Just saw Indy -7 O/U 48

some website.. don't remember which one

 

[Chase Stuart]

Just saw Indy -7 O/U 48 some website.. don't remember which one

Bet Indy hard.

 

[radballs]

Just saw Indy -7 O/U 48 some website.. don't remember which one

Bet Indy hard.