Be Careful NFL (1 Viewer)

[Sweetsie]

So watching the Giants/ Packers game the other night I could not help but to notice multiple calls that seemed to blatantly go the way of the packers. First, most obvious example would be the Giants challenge of the fumble in the first half. Replay showed the packers player was CLEARLY not down when the ball started to move. The announcers almost seemed baffled by the call. There were a couple other calls that seemed pretty fishy. Specifically, on two occasions the Packers destroyed Eli way after he had released the ball and there was no call. Later in the game the Giants hit Rodgers less than a second after his release and they called roughing the passer. While watching the game I could help but think someone was trying to influence this game. Unfortunately for them, the Packers forgot how to catch the ball and they thought it was a good idea to stand 5 feet behind Nicks on a halftime hail mary. So a day went by, Giants won, so really wasn't dwelling on it, until I came across this article yesterday.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/New-York-Giants-now-least-favorite-team-in-Las-Vegas-011712

Long story short: Apparently, because of the size of the markets, NY teams have more futures bets put on them than any other teams to start with. In week 13, the Giants were 6-6, and had just lost four straight. The line on them to win it all was moved all the way to 100-1 odds. The NY faithful took full advantage of this and loaded up. They won their game that week, and the odds went down to 50-1. They loaded up again. Vegas stands to lose A TON if the Giants win it all.

I have always thought there was so much money riding in Vegas that the amount of money it would take to buy a ref was a drop in the bucket. What do you guys think? Did anyone else feel that way? Im I looking to much into this?

 

[metal]

you're looking way too much into this

 

[Leroy Hoard]

So SF should be a lock this week then.

 

[pfalvey]

I understand Vegas may lose more on futures bets if the Giants win....however, they'll still be collecting their winnings from the futures bets of the other 31 NFL teams, which has got to be much, much higher than any loss incurred with a Giants SB win. I only read your summary of the article, so maybe I'm missing some details.

 

[Sweetsie]

So SF should be a lock this week then.

At least to win, not necessarily cover. But there is only so much much they can do as evident in the Packers game.

 

[Sweetsie]

I understand Vegas may lose more on futures bets if the Giants win....however, they'll still be collecting their winnings from the futures bets of the other 31 NFL teams, which has got to be much, much higher than any loss incurred with a Giants SB win. I only read your summary of the article, so maybe I'm missing some details.

Most of that money is already in the bank. If there was an onslaught of bets at 100-1 in week 13, and then again at 50-1. Just saying thats a lot of money. Might be worth throwing a ref a couple million.

 

[dutch]

Which ref is in on it? Which crew member? Head linesman, Referee, Umpire, Field judge,...? The whole crew?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

So SF should be a lock this week then.

At least to win, not necessarily cover. But there is only so much much they can do as evident in the Packers game.

Home teams sometimes seem to get the benefit of doubt, this would be a good way to cover for it.

 

[rizzler]

start of playoffs i got 21:1 on the Giants.

I'm salivating right now....

But expect them to lose this week, somehow.

 

[roadkill1292]

If it thought it could get away with it, I think the NFL would indeed conspire with Vegas to enrich itself further. It has demonstrated time and again that its primary allegiance is to profit.

But I don't think that the NFL thinks that it could get away with it and there's too much to lose if the public has grounds for believing that the fix is in. They're making money hand over fist now and that would all be in jeopardy if the public seriously thought the game was rigged.

 

[rizzler]

The NFL has ZERO need to put in a fix for the SB winner...

They make more from plugging in a damned commercial after EVERY. MOTHER. EFFING. PLAY, then they could in vegas.

I 3/4 hate watching football on TV. Love the game, though.

 

[Sabertooth]

you're looking way too much into this

This, the Giants could have been called for late hits on two of the first three plays.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Got 'em at 33-1 on Nov 7th.

11/7/11 7:59pm $50.00 $1,650.00 Pending 11/7/11 8:35pm Football NFL +3300 Super Bowl XLVI - New York Giants*

 

[Shutout]

I DO think you're buying into a manufactured conspiracy theory that doesn't exist BUT I COULD see there being legitimacy to it.

Someone above mentioned that even if they lose the futures on the Giants they would make the money off the other 31 teams. True, of course, but since this is the New York Giants market and not, say, Houston or Denver or Indy or someone, then depending on how much money was thrown around in these relative markets, maybe New York could dent them pretty badly. There is a LOT of money in one of (if not the) largest markets. Perhaps there is something to it.

Plus, if you look at the other teams that could have had future bets, like Indy or Pitt, and other teams that probably started off with lower odds, then I can see a 100-1 ticket in the largest of markets being potentially a big deal. And demographically, by statistics, I would guess (not sure) that much more betting takes place in New York than San Fran, Green Bay, etc.

All in all, I can't buy a conspiracy and I'm pretty sure those New Orleans fans probably hedged this bet pretty good.

 

[az_prof]

Which ref is in on it? Which crew member? Head linesman, Referee, Umpire, Field judge,...? The whole crew?

Who knows? But the OPs idea occurred to me last week when the refs made that horrible call on the first GB fumble. First, they overturned the initial on the field call, which was the right call, then they didn't overturn it on appeal, when it was clear as a day a fumble. It wouldn't be that hard for Vegas to bribe a ref and we know it has already happened in the NBA.Does the NFL have an investigative team to monitor player and referee contact with Vegas? Has anyone ever been fired in the NFL for bribery and fraud? Do you really think it has NEVER happened? The fact that the NFL has never taken this obvious threat seriously is the most significant proof to me that it is in fact a serious problem.

 

[biju]

I think folks are misunderstanding how odds are created by Vegas. There is *no way* for them to lose money because the odds are generated (and then recalculated frequently) by money received for all bets. They aren't about to put themselves in a position where they could ever lose money.

As a side note, I've seen a lot of people questioning whether the GB player was down and citing that his knee wasn't down when he lost possession of the ball. It's worth mentioning that his ankle was very likely touching the field (or at least it wasn't conclusive whether it was or was not) which counts as being down. (The NFL rules state that touching the ground with anything other than hands or feet count as being down.) It's too bad this wasn't brought up during the broadcast or by the official that ruled on the replay review because that would have cleared things up.

Can't back up any of the other calls however. There were a few shots on Eli that looked a little late to me, but I have the advantage of watching the plays more than once. I do think if it were Rodgers, Brees, Brady or Peyton it probably gets called at least once.

 

[dutch]

I need some things cleared up for me by the folks thinking the fix was in. Do the officials still get paid even though the Packers lost? I mean, how does this work when the fix goes wrong? Do the refs end up sleeping with thew fishes? Broken kneecaps? Car bomb? And does Goddell know about this stuff?

 

[az_prof]

I think folks are misunderstanding how odds are created by Vegas. There is *no way* for them to lose money because the odds are generated (and then recalculated frequently) by money received for all bets. They aren't about to put themselves in a position where they could ever lose money.As a side note, I've seen a lot of people questioning whether the GB player was down and citing that his knee wasn't down when he lost possession of the ball. It's worth mentioning that his ankle was very likely touching the field (or at least it wasn't conclusive whether it was or was not) which counts as being down. (The NFL rules state that touching the ground with anything other than hands or feet count as being down.) It's too bad this wasn't brought up during the broadcast or by the official that ruled on the replay review because that would have cleared things up.Can't back up any of the other calls however. There were a few shots on Eli that looked a little late to me, but I have the advantage of watching the plays more than once. I do think if it were Rodgers, Brees, Brady or Peyton it probably gets called at least once.

You are talking about Vegas a whole. I am imagining one mafia type guy, who has wagered millions of dollars on one team. He has millions at stake and shelling out a 100K to a ref would be nothing to him.

 

[biju]

I think folks are misunderstanding how odds are created by Vegas. There is *no way* for them to lose money because the odds are generated (and then recalculated frequently) by money received for all bets. They aren't about to put themselves in a position where they could ever lose money.As a side note, I've seen a lot of people questioning whether the GB player was down and citing that his knee wasn't down when he lost possession of the ball. It's worth mentioning that his ankle was very likely touching the field (or at least it wasn't conclusive whether it was or was not) which counts as being down. (The NFL rules state that touching the ground with anything other than hands or feet count as being down.) It's too bad this wasn't brought up during the broadcast or by the official that ruled on the replay review because that would have cleared things up.Can't back up any of the other calls however. There were a few shots on Eli that looked a little late to me, but I have the advantage of watching the plays more than once. I do think if it were Rodgers, Brees, Brady or Peyton it probably gets called at least once.

You are talking about Vegas a whole. I am imagining one mafia type guy, who has wagered millions of dollars on one team. He has millions at stake and shelling out a 100K to a ref would be nothing to him.

Eh, maybe. To complete this goofy conspiracy issue though, what happens when two big wagers have happened, one of each side? I just think someone saw a play, didn't like/understand the outcome of said play, and then immediately jumped to "conspiracy" instead of just going and reading the rules.

 

[E_Smith]

I think folks are misunderstanding how odds are created by Vegas. There is *no way* for them to lose money because the odds are generated (and then recalculated frequently) by money received for all bets. They aren't about to put themselves in a position where they could ever lose money.As a side note, I've seen a lot of people questioning whether the GB player was down and citing that his knee wasn't down when he lost possession of the ball. It's worth mentioning that his ankle was very likely touching the field (or at least it wasn't conclusive whether it was or was not) which counts as being down. (The NFL rules state that touching the ground with anything other than hands or feet count as being down.) It's too bad this wasn't brought up during the broadcast or by the official that ruled on the replay review because that would have cleared things up.Can't back up any of the other calls however. There were a few shots on Eli that looked a little late to me, but I have the advantage of watching the plays more than once. I do think if it were Rodgers, Brees, Brady or Peyton it probably gets called at least once.

You are talking about Vegas a whole. I am imagining one mafia type guy, who has wagered millions of dollars on one team. He has millions at stake and shelling out a 100K to a ref would be nothing to him.

so you think a mafia guy would put millions on the Giants not to make the SB? Or do you mean a mafia bookie who accepted bets on the Giants? Sounds unrealistic. Like the poster said, the odds are set such that Vegas gets even money on both sides of bets and they make the commission.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Like the poster said, the odds are set such that Vegas gets even money on both sides of bets and they make the commission.

This is the case with individual games, but not with futures.Having said that, Vegas makes a killing with futures regardless

of who wins the Super Bowl.

A KILLING.

 

[roadkill1292]

Did any of you actually go and read the article?????????? Multiple Vegas sources said that if the Giants win it all it would cost Vegas tons. Small books, big books, Im not talking about Mob guys who made a 100,000 bet. I was merely saying I watched that game with no knowledge of any of this and couldn't believe how one-sided those calls were. Highlighted by that fumble that did not get overturned. No part of that player was down and ball was moving, it was obvious. I will try to get the video and post it.

It's not like Vegas has never lost money on a sporting event before. Besides, you can bet that lots of New York money on the Giants and Jets is always figured into the odds.

 

[Sweetsie]

Here is an animated gif of the fumble. Tough with out the ability to stop it.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2012/1/15/2709645/giants-vs-packers-greg-jennings-fumble

 

[biju]

Here is an animated gif of the fumble. Tough with out the ability to stop it.http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2012/1/15/2709645/giants-vs-packers-greg-jennings-fumble

I guess what I'm seeing is the ball coming out of his hands right at or just before his hip/thigh hits the ground. Anything before that would just be the Giant pulling at his arm and there is nothing conclusive that the ball is not in the Packers' control. The issue again here is that his ankle/calf is definitely on the ground before this point. Too many people know about knees and elbows as being down, but it's more than simply that and I believe this is what the refs were looking at.I certainly could be wrong, but given the footage we have that is the best (easy for me to say since it's my argument) explanation.

 

[cvnpoka]

I think folks are misunderstanding how odds are created by Vegas. There is *no way* for them to lose money because the odds are generated (and then recalculated frequently) by money received for all bets. They aren't about to put themselves in a position where they could ever lose money.

they lose money often enough. most notably the patriots super bowl. vegas is often willing to gamble it up with the best of it.

 

[yellowdog]

Which ref is in on it? Which crew member? Head linesman, Referee, Umpire, Field judge,...? The whole crew?

Bill Leavy was the referee this past weekend in Green Bay. He was also the referee in the Seattle-Pittsburgh Super Bowl. If he shows up in San Francisco this weekend, bet the house on the 9ers. ETA: Looks like Hochuli will be on the field in San Fran

 

[Avery]

Here is an animated gif of the fumble. Tough with out the ability to stop it.http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2012/1/15/2709645/giants-vs-packers-greg-jennings-fumble

I guess what I'm seeing is the ball coming out of his hands right at or just before his hip/thigh hits the ground. Anything before that would just be the Giant pulling at his arm and there is nothing conclusive that the ball is not in the Packers' control. The issue again here is that his ankle/calf is definitely on the ground before this point. Too many people know about knees and elbows as being down, but it's more than simply that and I believe this is what the refs were looking at.I certainly could be wrong, but given the footage we have that is the best (easy for me to say since it's my argument) explanation.

The strange thing about the call is that two officials called it a fumble and then a third came rushing in, who I believe was behind the play and had the worst angle, to overrule them on the field and call it "down by contact".

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I understand Vegas may lose more on futures bets if the Giants win....however, they'll still be collecting their winnings from the futures bets of the other 31 NFL teams, which has got to be much, much higher than any loss incurred with a Giants SB win. I only read your summary of the article, so maybe I'm missing some details.

Most of that money is already in the bank. If there was an onslaught of bets at 100-1 in week 13, and then again at 50-1. Just saying thats a lot of money. Might be worth throwing a ref a couple million.

My guess is that Vegas would love for the Giants to get in. The bets placed on the game would likely double over what SF would bring in.

 

[humpback]

I think folks are misunderstanding how odds are created by Vegas. There is *no way* for them to lose money because the odds are generated (and then recalculated frequently) by money received for all bets. They aren't about to put themselves in a position where they could ever lose money.

Sorry, but this is just plain incorrect.

 

[biju]

I think folks are misunderstanding how odds are created by Vegas. There is *no way* for them to lose money because the odds are generated (and then recalculated frequently) by money received for all bets. They aren't about to put themselves in a position where they could ever lose money.

Sorry, but this is just plain incorrect.

Ah I see your point with well backed up data. Congrats, you win.

 

[cstu]

Futures bets are for suckers...says the guy who has bets on the Pats winning the AFC and SB.

 

[humpback]

I think folks are misunderstanding how odds are created by Vegas. There is *no way* for them to lose money because the odds are generated (and then recalculated frequently) by money received for all bets. They aren't about to put themselves in a position where they could ever lose money.

Sorry, but this is just plain incorrect.

Ah I see your point with well backed up data. Congrats, you win.

You mean like all the data you gave in your post? It doesn't need "data" to back it up, I didn't realize anyone could possibly think what you said is actually true. Here's one article for you though.

 

[monk]

Which ref is in on it? Which crew member? Head linesman, Referee, Umpire, Field judge,...? The whole crew?

The one who changed the ruling on the fieldThe call was original ruled a fumble by one ref then changed to no fumble

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I understand Vegas may lose more on futures bets if the Giants win....however, they'll still be collecting their winnings from the futures bets of the other 31 NFL teams, which has got to be much, much higher than any loss incurred with a Giants SB win. I only read your summary of the article, so maybe I'm missing some details.

Yes, my bets on both the Bucs and Texans to win the Super Bowl are all theirs now.

 

[RUSF18]

I'm pretty sure most books have limits on the amount of money they take in on single futures bets to limit the exposure in long shot scenarios. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, can't google this at work.

 

[RUSF18]

On a semi-related note, Vegas may have been hurt by this weekend's NFC results regarding the NFC/AFC bet. Believe the NFC has been a 1-2 point favorite much of the year, increased to NFC -4 heading into this weekend, and now we're at AFC -1 or so. I've read that the conference line is a pretty popular bet through the season by the serious gamblers.

 

[Modog814]

A couple things to keep in mind on this:

1) Future Wagers are very highly juiced. Come first week in the playoffs, you're almost always better off just parlaying a team each week vs playing them via a futures bet.

2) Some of the losses are offset by other teams losses each week on the futures book. They probably made a good chunk of change on the Packers and Saints losing this past weekend.

3) Most importantly, Wagering is still open. They have the ability to adjust lines in order to encourage action on other teams to get a more balanced book. In addition, you could have a good amount of people who have the Giants in a futures wager, decided to hedge a little to lock in a smaller profit.

The combination of these factors probably won't cover their losses in the event that a long-shot ticket cashes, but it definitely won't be as bad as you think.

 

[Wombat1]

You realize the percentage of the money they will pay out on the Superbowl on those futures bets is a very small number... Also they will cash in on 31 other teams futures bets as well, there is a reason they offer these bets. Futures bets are fun and I make them sometimes myself but in reality they aren't very smart from the gamblers perspective, your far better off just betting that team each week.

 

[[icon]]

I think folks are misunderstanding how odds are created by Vegas. There is *no way* for them to lose money because the odds are generated (and then recalculated frequently) by money received for all bets. They aren't about to put themselves in a position where they could ever lose money.

Sorry, but this is just plain incorrect.

Ah I see your point with well backed up data. Congrats, you win.

You're very very wrong. Vegas has great games and bad games. They balance the line to attempt to get cash down but they can't move the line too much or they open up for massive middles and expose themselves to even bigger losses.

 

[houndirish]

While the Giants future's bet is now looking pretty good from an odds point of view. I have to assume that SF - Super Bowl Champ prior to the season was a pretty big longshot too.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

While the Giants future's bet is now looking pretty good from an odds point of view. I have to assume that SF - Super Bowl Champ prior to the season was a pretty big longshot too.

True, but the amount of NY money bet should outweigh the SF money.

 

[The Redbeard]

What is this, the NBA?

 

[humpback]

I think folks are misunderstanding how odds are created by Vegas. There is *no way* for them to lose money because the odds are generated (and then recalculated frequently) by money received for all bets. They aren't about to put themselves in a position where they could ever lose money.

Sorry, but this is just plain incorrect.

Ah I see your point with well backed up data. Congrats, you win.

You're very very wrong. Vegas has great games and bad games. They balance the line to attempt to get cash down but they can't move the line too much or they open up for massive middles and expose themselves to even bigger losses.

Pfft. Where's your data?

 

[cvnpoka]

You're very very wrong. Vegas has great games and bad games. They balance the line to attempt to get cash down but they can't move the line too much or they open up for massive middles and expose themselves to even bigger losses.

they attempt to balance lines based on sharp vs square money. they want to set a line where they maximize the amount of square money. if it gets too far out, the sharps will hammer it. they dont really care if the bets are unbalanced so long as its casual money.

 

[ldizzle]

guess vegas didnt pay the refs enough, or ny mafia payed Williams more...

 

[BassNBrew]

start of playoffs i got 21:1 on the Giants.I'm salivating right now....But expect them to lose this week, somehow.

Or you could have bet the games individually.vs atl -150vs gb +280vs sf +115vs pats +135$100 at 21:1 nets $2100$100 vs atl nets $67 + $100$167 vs gb nets $468 + $167$635 vs sf nets $730 + $635$1365 vs ne nets $1843 + $1365 = $3208

 

[rizzler]

start of playoffs i got 21:1 on the Giants.I'm salivating right now....But expect them to lose this week, somehow.

Or you could have bet the games individually.vs atl -150vs gb +280vs sf +115vs pats +135$100 at 21:1 nets $2100$100 vs atl nets $167$167 vs gb nets $468$468 vs sf nets $538$538 vs ne nets $727In this case the futures provided much better value.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Did Vegas go out of business yet?

 

[BassNBrew]

start of playoffs i got 21:1 on the Giants.I'm salivating right now....But expect them to lose this week, somehow.

Or you could have bet the games individually.vs atl -150vs gb +280vs sf +115vs pats +135$100 at 21:1 nets $2100$100 vs atl nets $167$167 vs gb nets $468$468 vs sf nets $538$538 vs ne nets $727In this case the futures provided much better value.

Just editted my post as I forgot to add back in the amount wagered. Looks like you got hosed. Please check my numbers.

 

[rizzler]

start of playoffs i got 21:1 on the Giants.I'm salivating right now....But expect them to lose this week, somehow.

Or you could have bet the games individually.vs atl -150vs gb +280vs sf +115vs pats +135$100 at 21:1 nets $2100$100 vs atl nets $167$167 vs gb nets $468$468 vs sf nets $538$538 vs ne nets $727In this case the futures provided much better value.

Just editted my post as I forgot to add back in the amount wagered. Looks like you got hosed. Please check my numbers.

I didn't get hosed. At all.