Can you sit the "STUD" Bulger? (1 Viewer)

[djcolts]

I'd start Bulger. Either the Colts D is a mirage and he gets his stats, or the Colts D is very good but the Rams fall behind early and he gets his stats.

 

[DonnyT33]

Just got the prelim Cheatsheets and Bulger is ranked number 2 overall...

I can't help but think he might be held in check. The Over/Under is a high 51, but the Colts are favored by 13.5.

I try to play by two rules...

ALWAYS start your studs.

ALWAYS trust the Vegas Odds Makers.

In this case, since they are at odds, I think the Odds Makers win. I think Bulger has a sub-par game. I think there are a number of better plays than Bulger. Bledsoe against that horendus Giants D. Collins against that soft SD D. Maybe even Delhomme against Detroit and Hasslebeck against Houston. Bledsoe and Collins have favorable Over/Unders (Around 50 points), so those two stand out...And Detroit and Houston SUCK, so Delhomme and Hasslebeck stand-out.

Personally, I've got Manning ranked as number one this week (Although they might try to run the ball a lot to keep Bulger off the field.) and then Bledsoe and Collins. Followed by Delhomme and Hasslebeck.

If you have one of those guys, especially Bledsoe and Collins, because their Over/unders are SO favorable, do you bench the "Stud" Bulger (Who has an unfavorable Over/Under)?

I think so.

In agree here and think Daivd had Bulger much to high. I Have Bulger and Hasselbeck and will start Hass. I like playing my MNF guys but the Rams may impode against the Indy D. I just dont see how Bulger goes off agaisnt that D(Freeney may kill him)

 

[NYG Endzone]

Just got the prelim Cheatsheets and Bulger is ranked number 2 overall...

I can't help but think he might be held in check. The Over/Under is a high 51, but the Colts are favored by 13.5.

I try to play by two rules...

ALWAYS start your studs.

ALWAYS trust the Vegas Odds Makers.

In this case, since they are at odds, I think the Odds Makers win. I think Bulger has a sub-par game. I think there are a number of better plays than Bulger. Bledsoe against that horendus Giants D. Collins against that soft SD D. Maybe even Delhomme against Detroit and Hasslebeck against Houston. Bledsoe and Collins have favorable Over/Unders (Around 50 points), so those two stand out...And Detroit and Houston SUCK, so Delhomme and Hasslebeck stand-out.

Personally, I've got Manning ranked as number one this week (Although they might try to run the ball a lot to keep Bulger off the field.) and then Bledsoe and Collins. Followed by Delhomme and Hasslebeck.

If you have one of those guys, especially Bledsoe and Collins, because their Over/unders are SO favorable, do you bench the "Stud" Bulger (Who has an unfavorable Over/Under)?

I think so.

In agree here and think Daivd had Bulger much to high. I Have Bulger and Hasselbeck and will start Hass. I like playing my MNF guys but the Rams may impode against the Indy D. I just dont see how Bulger goes off agaisnt that D(Freeney may kill him)

CBS

LATEST NEWS

Seattle's Matt Hasselbeck's a nice quarterback, but sit him against Houston unless your Fantasy league awards points for successful handoffs.

(Updated 10/13/2005).

FANTASY ANALYSIS

The Seahawks could put the winless Texans away early, which could spell trouble for Hasselbeck in Fantasy leagues in Week 6. Make sure your other option at the position has a better matchup.

 

[Raider Nation]

The O/U for the Rams-Colts game is at 51 right now. That's very high for a NFL game. If you're going to go with the trust Vegas theory, then play Bulger. Unless you think the Colts are winning this game 41-10.

Correct...But!Like I posted...The Colts are favored by 13.5. Bledsoe and Collins are both in games that have Over/Unders of 50 points too, but not getting nearly as many points.

I think it will be closer to 41-10 than 26-25.

The Odds Makers are FREAKY correct. Personally, I always trust them.

That's an illusion, my man. People always comment on how sharp the linesmakers are when a game with a 3 point spread ends 27-24, or a game with a 7 point spread ends 21-14. When you push a game, or win/lose a game by a half point, you notice those games. But you tend to forget about the other 11 or 12 games that weekend which had a final score that landed nowhere NEAR the closing line.

 

[pizzatyme]

I'd start Bulger. Either the Colts D is a mirage and he gets his stats, or the Colts D is very good but the Rams fall behind early and he gets his stats.

I'll be at the game and hope to see some fireworks. However, I don't see this happening.

Imagine the stroyline from the game on Monday night...

I see it one of 2 ways:

Colts D shows it can be dominant against a good offense, has 7 sacks, 3 picks and Freeney gets on the horse trailer.

Or

Rams "rally" around their fallen coach and play a miraculous game ending the Colts winning streak. Bulger/Holt share the Trailer award with a combined 6TDs.

I'll take the former to happen here, but it is a homer call.

Colts 31-Rams 20 after a garbage time TD for the Rams.

Colts win, Rams cover. Vegas hits the total.

 

[Bouddha]

The O/U for the Rams-Colts game is at 51 right now. That's very high for a NFL game. If you're going to go with the trust Vegas theory, then play Bulger. Unless you think the Colts are winning this game 41-10.  The spread is at 13.5-14 points. So using that spread and the total, the score should be somewhere along the lines of 35-21 or something like that. There's more then enough room for Bulger to have a decent fantasy day.

35-21 is 56 not 51. So the expected number of points based on Vegas is 32.5-18.5 for the Colts. On the other hand, a guy like Hasselbeck has a much better line. The Seahawks are expected to win 27.5-18.5.

27.5 for the Hawks and 18.5 for the Rams is a big difference when talking about Vegas lines.

The Seahawks might score more on the ground than the Rams. But even looking at the FBG game predictor, the Seahawks passing game will score more TDs than the Rams and throw fewer INTs.

I would think this is common sense, but since it seems to be getting ignored here....Vegas doesn't set lines to accurately "predict" the scores of games. They set lines to get equal money wagered on both ends.

I see all kinds of holes in the logic of this thread, even if you want to agree that the outcome of the game will be 32-18 because oddsmakers are "freaky right" (or whatever that line was).

Even if they only score 2 TDs, odds are pretty good that they will both be through the air. The Rams don't run a whole lot.

Odds are also pretty good that they will be playing from behind, pushing the focus even further toward the passing game. I'd be very surprised if Bulger didn't top 300 this week.

As mentioned earlier, although Indy's D has been pretty stout so far, they haven't played a team with a better than mediocre offense yet. If I owned their D in a league where team D's are worth enough to get good trade value, I'd be shopping them all over the place right now (or maybe after the Houston game next week ). They won't be any more valuable than they are right now.

Comparing this game to the Seattle game doesn't do anything for me either. Seattle is FAR more likely to be scoring on the ground. They are also almost a lock to be up big and working the clock, meaning Hass won't need to throw the ball as much. I don't personally care if the game predictor says Sea will throw for more TDs. I don't buy it.

There are only a couple of QBs I would consider over Bulger this week: Peyton & Bledsoe (and I'd really have a hard time convincing myself on the latter).

I never said the Vegas line is the prediction of what the final score will be. It's the "expected value" of the final score. As you said, it will balance the wagers on both sides. And usually they succeed in evening out the wagers on both sides so that's why they are right. So the expected value score of the Rams is 18 pts. This is much lower than the expected score of other teams like the Seahawks, etc. If we use the Hawks as an expected, their expected score is 9 pts more. As I said before, they run more, so the expected number of TDs in the air is less than 1 apart, not a full 1 TD as the difference in expected score (27 vs 18) seem to indicate.

Where I disagree the most is not expected number of TDs passing, it's the yardage. If anybody thinks Bulger's expected value is 300 or 350 yds are you dead wrong. Does that mean Bulger can't throw for 400? No. It means expected value. If Bulger was to play 16 games at Indy, do you think he would throw for 300*16=4800 yds? N-O - NO.

A QB's expected number of passing yards is rarely 300, against any opponent. Especially not against a defense that has given 29 pts in 5 weeks (against bad offenses, but still very low).

I would probably put Bulger's expected number of yards at 3800 over 16 games at Indy, so 240 yds on Sunday. That being said, I don't think it's a bell-shape distribution. I think he is more likely to throw for 300 yds (60 over expected) than to throw for 180 yds (60 under expected).

You all seem to think he will throw 50 passes. Possible, but again that is not the expected value. If the Colts D has a good game and forces the Rams to punt frequently, and then the Colts run the clock out with E James, the Rams will not get the chance to throw 50 times even if they are behind the entire game. If I was Dungy I would run until the Rams stop me. Run, control time of possession, and the Rams offense is held in check. When they take the field, the Colts D is fresh. This is a possible scenario - you can't ignore it. That's why the Rams throwing for 300 yds is not the expected value.

For the same reason, people who think P Manning's expected number of passing yds is 300 simply because the Rams D is bad are also dead wrong. They fail to consider the possibility that the Colts run all day. Does not mean it will happen, but it's a possibility to consider when calculating expected value.

Edited to add: and I have not even talked about expected number of INTs or fumbles for Bulger... if your league has negative points for turnovers. It's higher than almost every other QB in the league this week.

 

[Bouddha]

The O/U for the Rams-Colts game is at 51 right now. That's very high for a NFL game. If you're going to go with the trust Vegas theory, then play Bulger. Unless you think the Colts are winning this game 41-10.

Correct...But!Like I posted...The Colts are favored by 13.5. Bledsoe and Collins are both in games that have Over/Unders of 50 points too, but not getting nearly as many points.

I think it will be closer to 41-10 than 26-25.

The Odds Makers are FREAKY correct. Personally, I always trust them.

That's an illusion, my man. People always comment on how sharp the linesmakers are when a game with a 3 point spread ends 27-24, or a game with a 7 point spread ends 21-14. When you push a game, or win/lose a game by a half point, you notice those games. But you tend to forget about the other 11 or 12 games that weekend which had a final score that landed nowhere NEAR the closing line.

If the line is -3, that does not mean they think the final score will be favorite team wins by 3. It means they think they will get an equal amount bet on each side so they are guaranteed to make money. It is a very good number to use as the expected number of points scored by each team because there are as many bettors who think the team will score more than X than the number of bettors who think the team will score less than X. It proves accurate very often. If you look at the results over a long period of time, ~50% of the time it's over, ~50% of the time it's under, therefore a good predictor.

 

[Big Fat Clemenza]

The O/U for the Rams-Colts game is at 51 right now. That's very high for a NFL game. If you're going to go with the trust Vegas theory, then play Bulger. Unless you think the Colts are winning this game 41-10.

Correct...But!Like I posted...The Colts are favored by 13.5. Bledsoe and Collins are both in games that have Over/Unders of 50 points too, but not getting nearly as many points.

I think it will be closer to 41-10 than 26-25.

The Odds Makers are FREAKY correct. Personally, I always trust them.

That's an illusion, my man. People always comment on how sharp the linesmakers are when a game with a 3 point spread ends 27-24, or a game with a 7 point spread ends 21-14. When you push a game, or win/lose a game by a half point, you notice those games. But you tend to forget about the other 11 or 12 games that weekend which had a final score that landed nowhere NEAR the closing line.

I don't know about that...I don't bet, but used to have two roomates that were addicts...And that's when I learned the Odds Makers are FREAKY correct.

 

[Canuckleheads]

Great arguments here, but have we really looked at the flip side of this question? That question being, will Manning wind up the top QB this weekend? Its quite obvious the Colts don't need Manning to throw for 300+ yards and 4 TD every game to win this year.No doubt the Rams defense is rotten, but they are rotten against the run and pass. I just see this team becoming more of what Tony Dungy wants. A defense that keeps the score low and let's him run the ball with Edge and not have his defense on the field for an extended period of time. One of the keys to the success of the Colts D is no doubt time of possession. You can just as easily envision Manning throwing a TD or 2 and less than 250 yards while Edge and company control the clock keeping the Rams offense off the field and the defense fresh.Even with my crystal ball is in the shop, I can see this playing out a number of ways. But if trends are what we go by, I can see a number of QBs having a better day than Bulger or Manning.

 

[Big Fat Clemenza]

Even with my crystal ball is in the shop, I can see this playing out a number of ways. But if trends are what we go by, I can see a number of QBs having a better day than Bulger or Manning.

Agreed!As a matter of fact, if I was a betting man, I'd bet the under here.

And, just for fun, I'll go on the record...I now bet $1000.00 FBGs Money on the Under.

Anyone else??



(And you Betters can tell me if I'm wrong, but if I'm confident on the Under here, I should probably be confident the Colts won't cover 13.5 points either? And if that's the case, betting the Under AND taking the Rams and the points in one of those "Double Bets" or whatever they are, that raise your chance at winning more than even money, would also be a good bet?)

And if that's the case...I'll bet the Under and Take the Rams for $1000.00 FBGs Money apeice. Now, can anyone tell me what I stand to win? I know I stand to lose up to $2200.00...

 

[Bouddha]

Even with my crystal ball is in the shop, I can see this playing out a number of ways.  But if trends are what we go by, I can see a number of QBs having a better day than Bulger or Manning.

Agreed!As a matter of fact, if I was a betting man, I'd bet the under here.

And, just for fun, I'll go on the record...I now bet $1000.00 FBGs Money on the Under.

Anyone else??



(And you Betters can tell me if I'm wrong, but if I'm confident on the Under here, I should probably be confident the Colts won't cover 13.5 points either? And if that's the case, betting the Under AND taking the Rams and the points in one of those "Double Bets" or whatever they are, that raise your chance at winning more than even money, would also be a good bet?)

And if that's the case...I'll bet the Under and Take the Rams for $1000.00 FBGs Money apeice. Now, can anyone tell me what I stand to win? I know I stand to lose up to $2200.00...

When one team is heavily favorite, taking the dog & under is called a correlated parlay. In college football, when there are enormous underdogs, those bets are not taken because the book is getting ripped due to the correlation. I think in the NFL it's fine however. If you bet on the 2 separately, both are $1100 to win $1000.

If you take them in a parlay, you have $1000 to win $2645.

 

[Big Fat Clemenza]

Even with my crystal ball is in the shop, I can see this playing out a number of ways. But if trends are what we go by, I can see a number of QBs having a better day than Bulger or Manning.

Agreed!As a matter of fact, if I was a betting man, I'd bet the under here.

And, just for fun, I'll go on the record...I now bet $1000.00 FBGs Money on the Under.

Anyone else??



(And you Betters can tell me if I'm wrong, but if I'm confident on the Under here, I should probably be confident the Colts won't cover 13.5 points either? And if that's the case, betting the Under AND taking the Rams and the points in one of those "Double Bets" or whatever they are, that raise your chance at winning more than even money, would also be a good bet?)

And if that's the case...I'll bet the Under and Take the Rams for $1000.00 FBGs Money apeice. Now, can anyone tell me what I stand to win? I know I stand to lose up to $2200.00...

When one team is heavily favorite, taking the dog & under is called a correlated parlay. In college football, when there are enormous underdogs, those bets are not taken because the book is getting ripped due to the correlation. I think in the NFL it's fine however. If you bet on the 2 separately, both are $1100 to win $1000.

If you take them in a parlay, you have $1000 to win $2645.

So, by betting the parlay at $1000.00 each, I stand to win $5290.00 on the $2000.00 bet??I like that!! And that's my FBGs Money bet for the weekend...

 

[Bouddha]

Even with my crystal ball is in the shop, I can see this playing out a number of ways.  But if trends are what we go by, I can see a number of QBs having a better day than Bulger or Manning.

Agreed!As a matter of fact, if I was a betting man, I'd bet the under here.

And, just for fun, I'll go on the record...I now bet $1000.00 FBGs Money on the Under.

Anyone else??



(And you Betters can tell me if I'm wrong, but if I'm confident on the Under here, I should probably be confident the Colts won't cover 13.5 points either? And if that's the case, betting the Under AND taking the Rams and the points in one of those "Double Bets" or whatever they are, that raise your chance at winning more than even money, would also be a good bet?)

And if that's the case...I'll bet the Under and Take the Rams for $1000.00 FBGs Money apeice. Now, can anyone tell me what I stand to win? I know I stand to lose up to $2200.00...

When one team is heavily favorite, taking the dog & under is called a correlated parlay. In college football, when there are enormous underdogs, those bets are not taken because the book is getting ripped due to the correlation. I think in the NFL it's fine however. If you bet on the 2 separately, both are $1100 to win $1000.

If you take them in a parlay, you have $1000 to win $2645.

So, by betting the parlay at $1000.00 each, I stand to win $5290.00 on the $2000.00 bet??I like that!! And that's my FBGs Money bet for the weekend...

Yes, if it's Rams & under, you win $5290. If it's Colts & under, Colts & over, or Rams & over, you lose $2000. Good luck

 

[Jiggyonthehut]

back to the question at hand...

 

[Big Fat Clemenza]

Even with my crystal ball is in the shop, I can see this playing out a number of ways. But if trends are what we go by, I can see a number of QBs having a better day than Bulger or Manning.

Agreed!As a matter of fact, if I was a betting man, I'd bet the under here.

And, just for fun, I'll go on the record...I now bet $1000.00 FBGs Money on the Under.

Anyone else??



(And you Betters can tell me if I'm wrong, but if I'm confident on the Under here, I should probably be confident the Colts won't cover 13.5 points either? And if that's the case, betting the Under AND taking the Rams and the points in one of those "Double Bets" or whatever they are, that raise your chance at winning more than even money, would also be a good bet?)

And if that's the case...I'll bet the Under and Take the Rams for $1000.00 FBGs Money apeice. Now, can anyone tell me what I stand to win? I know I stand to lose up to $2200.00...

When one team is heavily favorite, taking the dog & under is called a correlated parlay. In college football, when there are enormous underdogs, those bets are not taken because the book is getting ripped due to the correlation. I think in the NFL it's fine however. If you bet on the 2 separately, both are $1100 to win $1000.

If you take them in a parlay, you have $1000 to win $2645.

So, by betting the parlay at $1000.00 each, I stand to win $5290.00 on the $2000.00 bet??I like that!! And that's my FBGs Money bet for the weekend...

Yes, if it's Rams & under, you win $5290. If it's Colts & under, Colts & over, or Rams & over, you lose $2000. Good luck

Not to pick nits, but actually it's $2200.00 I lose. But hey...It's FBGs Money!!

 

[pigskinliquors]

Even with my crystal ball is in the shop, I can see this playing out a number of ways. But if trends are what we go by, I can see a number of QBs having a better day than Bulger or Manning.

Agreed!As a matter of fact, if I was a betting man, I'd bet the under here.

And, just for fun, I'll go on the record...I now bet $1000.00 FBGs Money on the Under.

Anyone else??



(And you Betters can tell me if I'm wrong, but if I'm confident on the Under here, I should probably be confident the Colts won't cover 13.5 points either? And if that's the case, betting the Under AND taking the Rams and the points in one of those "Double Bets" or whatever they are, that raise your chance at winning more than even money, would also be a good bet?)

And if that's the case...I'll bet the Under and Take the Rams for $1000.00 FBGs Money apeice. Now, can anyone tell me what I stand to win? I know I stand to lose up to $2200.00...

When one team is heavily favorite, taking the dog & under is called a correlated parlay. In college football, when there are enormous underdogs, those bets are not taken because the book is getting ripped due to the correlation. I think in the NFL it's fine however. If you bet on the 2 separately, both are $1100 to win $1000.

If you take them in a parlay, you have $1000 to win $2645.

So, by betting the parlay at $1000.00 each, I stand to win $5290.00 on the $2000.00 bet??I like that!! And that's my FBGs Money bet for the weekend...

Yes, if it's Rams & under, you win $5290. If it's Colts & under, Colts & over, or Rams & over, you lose $2000. Good luck

Hey. We have a new Mr. Monday night! I'd bet boatloads of $$ if I were you .

 

[Bouddha]

Even with my crystal ball is in the shop, I can see this playing out a number of ways.  But if trends are what we go by, I can see a number of QBs having a better day than Bulger or Manning.

Agreed!As a matter of fact, if I was a betting man, I'd bet the under here.

And, just for fun, I'll go on the record...I now bet $1000.00 FBGs Money on the Under.

Anyone else??



(And you Betters can tell me if I'm wrong, but if I'm confident on the Under here, I should probably be confident the Colts won't cover 13.5 points either? And if that's the case, betting the Under AND taking the Rams and the points in one of those "Double Bets" or whatever they are, that raise your chance at winning more than even money, would also be a good bet?)

And if that's the case...I'll bet the Under and Take the Rams for $1000.00 FBGs Money apeice. Now, can anyone tell me what I stand to win? I know I stand to lose up to $2200.00...

When one team is heavily favorite, taking the dog & under is called a correlated parlay. In college football, when there are enormous underdogs, those bets are not taken because the book is getting ripped due to the correlation. I think in the NFL it's fine however. If you bet on the 2 separately, both are $1100 to win $1000.

If you take them in a parlay, you have $1000 to win $2645.

So, by betting the parlay at $1000.00 each, I stand to win $5290.00 on the $2000.00 bet??I like that!! And that's my FBGs Money bet for the weekend...

Yes, if it's Rams & under, you win $5290. If it's Colts & under, Colts & over, or Rams & over, you lose $2000. Good luck

Not to pick nits, but actually it's $2200.00 I lose. But hey...It's FBGs Money!!

No, it's a 2-team parlay so the line is not -110 like for a single game. If you bet $2200, you can win $5819 not $5290.

 

[Bouddha]

Hey. We have a new Mr. Monday night! I'd bet boatloads of $$ if I were you .

I only bet when I know I will winExample:

One book offers

Team A -165

Team B +145

Another book offers

Team A -200

Team B +170

In the first shop, bet $1650 on team A to win $1000. In the second shop, bet $1000 on team B to win $1700.

Either I come out even if team A wins, or I win $50 if team B wins. Bet a little more than $1650 on team A to even this out. Guaranteed gain of $19 no matter who wins.



Unfortunately you can't find large differences in odds from one online sportsbook to another as often now From 1995-2003 it was just awesome

Sorry

 

[ericttspikes]

I don't think you bench Bulger unless you have a really solid option B, but this will be a test for him and the Rams for sure. I'm not sure having to put it up 50+ times is a benefit to Bulger against a great pass rushing team. Visions of the ATL playoffs game still fresh in my mind; that was nationally televised too.

 

[PoolShark]

I never said the Vegas line is the prediction of what the final score will be. It's the "expected value" of the final score. As you said, it will balance the wagers on both sides. And usually they succeed in evening out the wagers on both sides so that's why they are right. So the expected value score of the Rams is 18 pts. This is much lower than the expected score of other teams like the Seahawks, etc.

If the line is -3, that does not mean they think the final score will be favorite team wins by 3. It means they think they will get an equal amount bet on each side so they are guaranteed to make money.

It is a very good number to use as the expected number of points scored by each team because there are as many bettors who think the team will score more than X than the number of bettors who think the team will score less than X. It proves accurate very often. If you look at the results over a long period of time, ~50% of the time it's over, ~50% of the time it's under, therefore a good predictor.

I agree with much of what you are saying here, but I still don't see the logic. Referring to the bolded sections...

The fact that they usually succeed in evening out the wagers on both sides does mean that they were right---with the line. It has nothing to do with being right about the final score, or who won the game.

If they even out wagering on the line, it is in fact the opposite of some amazing Vegas guru perfectly predicting the outcome. The only thing they perfectly predicted is what Average Wagerer Joe thought about the game.

In the last quoted section, you more or less reinforce this point, and since most football games finish within a relatively small range of total points, it's not that difficult to imagine them being over 50% and under 50%.

I would venture a guess that I could come up with 16 over/under scores (between say 33 & 51, with the majority closer to the middle of that range), and randomly apply them to the games each week (paying no attention to the actual teams playing), and at the end of large sample (like the full season) wind up pretty close to 50/50 over/under.

Obviously, taking into account the teams that are playing would give you a better chance to be close to the actual totals, but being 50/50 high & low is just the law of averages.

Just for kicks, I wrote down 14 random over/under numbers and blindly applied them to this weeks games. You'll have to trust me that I didn't peek. Here's how it worked out:

atl v no 37

bal v cle 33

buf v nyj 39

car v det 45

chi v min 40

cin v ten 45

jax v pit 49

dal v nyg 51

was v kc 46

tb v mia 44

ne v den 42.5

oak v sd 34

hou v sea 41.5

stl v ind 43

Not being a gambler, the only over/unders I know about this week are the ones mentioned in the thread above. I'll be interested to see how this list works out. Just off the top of my head, from my takes on the games, I would say that a few seem high, a few low, and a few pretty close to what I would expect.

Not trying to break anyone's balls about this, but I just don't think using point spreads and over/unders to chose FF starters is necessarily a wise course of action.

 

[Big Fat Clemenza]

Even with my crystal ball is in the shop, I can see this playing out a number of ways. But if trends are what we go by, I can see a number of QBs having a better day than Bulger or Manning.

Agreed!As a matter of fact, if I was a betting man, I'd bet the under here.

And, just for fun, I'll go on the record...I now bet $1000.00 FBGs Money on the Under.

Anyone else??



(And you Betters can tell me if I'm wrong, but if I'm confident on the Under here, I should probably be confident the Colts won't cover 13.5 points either? And if that's the case, betting the Under AND taking the Rams and the points in one of those "Double Bets" or whatever they are, that raise your chance at winning more than even money, would also be a good bet?)

And if that's the case...I'll bet the Under and Take the Rams for $1000.00 FBGs Money apeice. Now, can anyone tell me what I stand to win? I know I stand to lose up to $2200.00...

When one team is heavily favorite, taking the dog & under is called a correlated parlay. In college football, when there are enormous underdogs, those bets are not taken because the book is getting ripped due to the correlation. I think in the NFL it's fine however. If you bet on the 2 separately, both are $1100 to win $1000.

If you take them in a parlay, you have $1000 to win $2645.

So, by betting the parlay at $1000.00 each, I stand to win $5290.00 on the $2000.00 bet??I like that!! And that's my FBGs Money bet for the weekend...

Yes, if it's Rams & under, you win $5290. If it's Colts & under, Colts & over, or Rams & over, you lose $2000. Good luck

Not to pick nits, but actually it's $2200.00 I lose. But hey...It's FBGs Money!!

No, it's a 2-team parlay so the line is not -110 like for a single game. If you bet $2200, you can win $5819 not $5290.

So you don't have to pay the juice on a parlay if you lose??

 

[Big Fat Clemenza]

Not trying to break anyone's balls about this, but I just don't think using point spreads and over/unders to chose FF starters is necessarily a wise course of action.

I'dd admit, I don't understand what I edited out of your response, but I use the Over/Under each week. I use it as much as anyone's Cheetsheet or Start Em' and Sit Em' list.If my one of my QBs is in a game that has an Over/Under of 34 and the other in a game that has an Over/Under of 51, all else being fairly equal, I'm jumping ALL OVER the QB in the high scoring game.

Again...Knowing that the Vegas Odds Makers are CRAZY correct.

 

[Bouddha]

I agree with much of what you are saying here, but I still don't see the logic.

Referring to the bolded sections...

The fact that they usually succeed in evening out the wagers on both sides does mean that they were right---with the line. It has nothing to do with being right about the final score, or who won the game.

If they even out wagering on the line, it is in fact the opposite of some amazing Vegas guru perfectly predicting the outcome. The only thing they perfectly predicted is what Average Wagerer Joe thought about the game.

In the last quoted section, you more or less reinforce this point, and since most football games finish within a relatively small range of total points, it's not that difficult to imagine them being over 50% and under 50%.

I would venture a guess that I could come up with 16 over/under scores (between say 33 & 51, with the majority closer to the middle of that range), and randomly apply them to the games each week (paying no attention to the actual teams playing), and at the end of large sample (like the full season) wind up pretty close to 50/50 over/under.

Obviously, taking into account the teams that are playing would give you a better chance to be close to the actual totals, but being 50/50 high & low is just the law of averages.

Just for kicks, I wrote down 14 random over/under numbers and blindly applied them to this weeks games. You'll have to trust me that I didn't peek. Here's how it worked out:

atl v no 37

bal v cle 33

buf v nyj 39

car v det 45

chi v min 40

cin v ten 45

jax v pit 49

dal v nyg 51

was v kc 46

tb v mia 44

ne v den 42.5

oak v sd 34

hou v sea 41.5

stl v ind 43

Not being a gambler, the only over/unders I know about this week are the ones mentioned in the thread above. I'll be interested to see how this list works out. Just off the top of my head, from my takes on the games, I would say that a few seem high, a few low, and a few pretty close to what I would expect.

Not trying to break anyone's balls about this, but I just don't think using point spreads and over/unders to chose FF starters is necessarily a wise course of action.

Well this is EXACTLY where we disagree I guess. If every week you give me totals like this for each game, I will compare your line to the Vegas line. I will take the over/under depending on what Vegas tells me to take. I guarantee you that in the long run I will beat you handily, especially with some of these lines before off of the Vegas line by more than a TD - my chance of winning those is more than 75%. Nowhere close to 50%. On the Colts game, 51 is the line that gives me about 50/50 chance. I cannot prove it mathematically since the 51 pt total line is not a prediction of the final score, as it has been said before. It's a number that will even out wagers on both sides. But it proves to be outstandingly accurate. It produces a probability of about 50% of under and over. If you give me 43 day in day out on games like this, you will be busted.

So comparing your lines and Vegas, I choose

atl v no 37 OVER

bal v cle 33 OVER

buf v nyj 39 UNDER

car v det 45 UNDER

chi v min 40 UNDER

cin v ten 45 equal to Vegas line, I don't choose a side

jax v pit 49 UNDER

dal v nyg 51 UNDER

was v kc 46 UNDER

tb v mia 44 UNDER

ne v den 42.5 OVER

oak v sd 34 OVER

hou v sea 41.5 OVER

stl v ind 43 OVER

Only 14 games is not a big enough sample, but we could do this every week, in every sport, etc. You will get beat big time.

Otherwise, it would be like pretending your odds better predict the total than the Vegas lines, and you would achieve this by picking random numbers for the total

If you could truly make better odds than Vegas, you would be a rich man.

 

[Bouddha]

So you don't have to pay the juice on a parlay if you lose??

Yes you pay the juice. If there was no juice, it would be $2000 to win $6000 instead of $2000 to win $5290.$6000 = 3 times $2000. Because you have 25% chance of winning (theoretically) and 75% chance of losing. 3/1 if no juice. 2.645/1 with the juice.

 

[Big Fat Clemenza]

So you don't have to pay the juice on a parlay if you lose??

Yes you pay the juice. If there was no juice, it would be $2000 to win $6000 instead of $2000 to win $5290.$6000 = 3 times $2000. Because you have 25% chance of winning (theoretically) and 75% chance of losing. 3/1 if no juice. 2.645/1 with the juice.

I'm a bit confused...So on a regular bet, you pay the juice if you lose. But on a parlay you pay the juice if you win??

 

[PoolShark]

Again, I'm not saying that someone couldn't take the random over/unders I just came up with and win a large percentage betting them. They are completely random and have nothing to do with the actual games and teams.

My point is that if I did this all year long, I would probably wind up about 50/50 high/low on my completely random over/unders. You were saying that since Vegas winds up 50 high/50 low over the course of time, they are "accurate." My point is that it has nothing to do with accuracy, it has to do with the law of averages.

Clemenza's point of using the over/unders to look for games that are expected to be high scoring is valid. Talent being equal, obviously you want to start players in games that are expected to be shootouts. I think just about everybody does this to some extent, though many (myself included) may not use the actual Vegas over/unders to figure out which games we expect to fit the bill.

I just think taking the over/unders, spreads & game predictions all together and expecting to come up with a definitive "who to start" is a bit of a reach considering the inputs.

 

[Bouddha]

Again, I'm not saying that someone couldn't take the random over/unders I just came up with and win a large percentage betting them. They are completely random and have nothing to do with the actual games and teams.

My point is that if I did this all year long, I would probably wind up about 50/50 high/low on my completely random over/unders. You were saying that since Vegas winds up 50 high/50 low over the course of time, they are "accurate." My point is that it has nothing to do with accuracy, it has to do with the law of averages.

Clemenza's point of using the over/unders to look for games that are expected to be high scoring is valid. Talent being equal, obviously you want to start players in games that are expected to be shootouts. I think just about everybody does this to some extent, though many (myself included) may not use the actual Vegas over/unders to figure out which games we expect to fit the bill.

I just think taking the over/unders, spreads & game predictions all together and expecting to come up with a definitive "who to start" is a bit of a reach considering the inputs.

If you pick 0 as the total for 50% of the games and 1000 pts for 50% of the games, of course you will have 50% overs and 50% unders. That does not make your lines accurate. Every time you make a line of 0 I will bet over and win. Every time you make a line of 1000 I will be under and win. So your lines are totally inaccurate. With inaccurate lines, it does not help you at all predict whether the Rams or Hawks will score more points.

However, with Vegas lines, they are so accurate that there is 50% chance that it will be over, and 50% chance it will be under FOR EACH GAME (not for all of them in total like if you picked lines of 0 or 1000). When you make a line of 0, there is 100% chance of over and 0% chance of under.

So if Vegas says the Rams will score 18 and Hawks 27, it is very meaningful. It means there is a probability significantly over 50% that the Rams will score fewer points than the Hawks. That's why their line is accurate.

All that being said, the Vegas lines do not give you 100% information about whether to start Bulger or Hasselbeck for example. The Hawks run more, yardage potential may be different, etc. But Clemenza did say that all else being equal, you have to consider the Vegas lines because they are very good info. It's not the only thing you consider, but don't ignore it. If you go against it, that's fine, but make sure you have a good reason.

 

[Bouddha]

I'm a bit confused...

So on a regular bet, you pay the juice if you lose. But on a parlay you pay the juice if you win??

You pay the juice every time you bet. It depends how you look at it. You may think you pay the juice on a regular bet only when you win - you think that way because the amount you wager is greater than the amount you lose. But in reality you pay the juice on all bets because you have a 50% chance of winning but you need a 52.4% success rate to break even. That's the juice. Another example is if you bet on an underdog straight up (not with a spread) and it's $100 to win $150, where's the juice? The juice is in the fact that if you take the favorite it's probably $170 to win $100. So the true probability of winning is like 38% but you need a 40% sucess rate on that bet to break even.

Same thing with the parlays. The amount you stand to win is generally greater than the amount you stand to lose, but the juice is always there. You have a 25% chance of winning the 2-team parlay, but you need 27.4% success rate to break even.

 

[malice]

Getting back on target here, more info to fuel the debate:

Rams | Holt Misses Practice, Expects to Play Week 6Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:49:25 -0700St. Louis Rams WR Torry Holt (knee) missed practice Friday, Oct. 14, but expects to play in Week 6, describing his health to be "60 percent". Holt is officially listed as questionable this week.

So Holt is dinged up, Bruce is out, Bulger has Freeney in his face all game...does he still have success?

 

[Jiggyonthehut]

So Holt is dinged up, Bruce is out, Bulger has Freeney in his face all game...does he still have success?

Yes. God how the hell did this thread end up going to vegas- lets stick to the topic here. And yes he still does have success. Orlando Pace is more than enough to keep him out of the backfield often, the Rams are seemingly fine without Bruce, Holt is probably going to be back (see previous thread). What they should be scared of is the Barron-Mathis matchup. That could have Bulger seeing turf all day. My guess is that they use the TE to help contain Mathis so a hopeful to all of you starting Bulger this weekend- as I am.

 

[PoolShark]

Again, I'm not saying that someone couldn't take the random over/unders I just came up with and win a large percentage betting them. They are completely random and have nothing to do with the actual games and teams.

My point is that if I did this all year long, I would probably wind up about 50/50 high/low on my completely random over/unders. You were saying that since Vegas winds up 50 high/50 low over the course of time, they are "accurate." My point is that it has nothing to do with accuracy, it has to do with the law of averages.

Clemenza's point of using the over/unders to look for games that are expected to be high scoring is valid. Talent being equal, obviously you want to start players in games that are expected to be shootouts. I think just about everybody does this to some extent, though many (myself included) may not use the actual Vegas over/unders to figure out which games we expect to fit the bill.

I just think taking the over/unders, spreads & game predictions all together and expecting to come up with a definitive "who to start" is a bit of a reach considering the inputs.

If you pick 0 as the total for 50% of the games and 1000 pts for 50% of the games, of course you will have 50% overs and 50% unders. That does not make your lines accurate. Every time you make a line of 0 I will bet over and win. Every time you make a line of 1000 I will be under and win. So your lines are totally inaccurate. With inaccurate lines, it does not help you at all predict whether the Rams or Hawks will score more points.

However, with Vegas lines, they are so accurate that there is 50% chance that it will be over, and 50% chance it will be under FOR EACH GAME (not for all of them in total like if you picked lines of 0 or 1000). When you make a line of 0, there is 100% chance of over and 0% chance of under.

So if Vegas says the Rams will score 18 and Hawks 27, it is very meaningful. It means there is a probability significantly over 50% that the Rams will score fewer points than the Hawks. That's why their line is accurate.

All that being said, the Vegas lines do not give you 100% information about whether to start Bulger or Hasselbeck for example. The Hawks run more, yardage potential may be different, etc. But Clemenza did say that all else being equal, you have to consider the Vegas lines because they are very good info. It's not the only thing you consider, but don't ignore it. If you go against it, that's fine, but make sure you have a good reason.

You still seem to be missing my point. You said....

If you look at the results over a long period of time, ~50% of the time it's over, ~50% of the time it's under, therefore a good predictor.

I said that being over 50% & under 50% doesn't make the Vegas line a good predictor. I tried to illiustrate this by showing that I could apply random (though feasable) over/unders to random games, and over the long term be 50/50 as well.

You only reinforce that point with your 0 & 1000 comment, as that method would also be 50/50, though obviously far from a "good predictor."

Other things may make the Vegas lines "good predictors," but being 50/50 is ABSOLUTELY not one of them.

The Vegas over/under line certainly has a basis in logic, but by the same token it also has a basis in public perception (to keep wagering even).

I don't want to base my fantasy starters on general public perception.

 

[malice]

So Holt is dinged up, Bruce is out, Bulger has Freeney in his face all game...does he still have success?

Yes. God how the hell did this thread end up going to vegas- lets stick to the topic here. And yes he still does have success. Orlando Pace is more than enough to keep him out of the backfield often, the Rams are seemingly fine without Bruce, Holt is probably going to be back (see previous thread). What they should be scared of is the Barron-Mathis matchup. That could have Bulger seeing turf all day. My guess is that they use the TE to help contain Mathis so a hopeful to all of you starting Bulger this weekend- as I am.

They still have a TE, right?

 

[Bouddha]

I give up. My last shot at explaining this to you. If you make "bad" odds of 0 or 1000, I will always show that it's a bad projection. I will beat your odds of 0/1000 by always picking the right thing: over or under. Because the 0/1000 odds are not accurate. Betting against those odds is not a 50/50 thing.

You only reinforce that point with your 0 & 1000 comment, as that method would also be 50/50, though obviously far from a "good predictor."

No that method would not be a 50/50 thing. That is the point. That method would fail 100% of the time. Just try to beat the Vegas line, in other words try to be right against the Vegas line more than 50% of the time. You can't, because it's an accurate line. If you could, you would be rich. Don't use the Vegas line if you think it's not accurate. Back to the topic, Holt is one more reason to stay away from Bulger if you have another decent option.

 

[Bouddha]

Updated FBG projections this week:Bulger down to QB9: 258-1.5-1.4Hasselbeck up to QB3: 263-1.7-0.5He's got Bulger beat in every category according to Doods (even rushing if you ask)

 

[Big Fat Clemenza]

Yes. God how the hell did this thread end up going to vegas-

Because that's where it started.

 

[Big Fat Clemenza]

Oh...And by the way...I'm in a start 2 QB league and have Bulger, Collins and Bledsoe.I'm starting Collins and Bledsoe.Pretty well disguised "WDIS", huh??

 

[my man otis]

OK, so Holt says he's at 60% now. That's pretty big news, I can't remember the last time a player admitted being in such a condition then played well.

link

With Bruce out, Holt hurting at best and playing on the road at Indy, I'm strongly considering benching Bulger this week. My other option is Brunell at KC, who is actually reasonably tough at home, but he's playing pretty well.

Thoughts?

 

[supermark_28]

otis i'm in a similiar situation i have bulger,brady and plummer (i have to start 2) and the more i read the more i want to start plummer... w/ brunell though i would probably lean toward bulger,just an opinion

 

[Bouddha]

OK, so Holt says he's at 60% now. That's pretty big news, I can't remember the last time a player admitted being in such a condition then played well.

link

With Bruce out, Holt hurting at best and playing on the road at Indy, I'm strongly considering benching Bulger this week. My other option is Brunell at KC, who is actually reasonably tough at home, but he's playing pretty well.

Thoughts?

I would not focus too much on the 60% much. When Holt says he is 60%, some other player may say he is 95%. That is just a subjective self-evaluation.

 

[Double_J]

I can understand the worry of starting Bulger this week, but why is Eli ahead of him? Didn't Dallas completely shut down Philly last week?

 

[PoolShark]

I give up. My last shot at explaining this to you.

If you make "bad" odds of 0 or 1000, I will always show that it's a bad projection. I will beat your odds of 0/1000 by always picking the right thing: over or under. Because the 0/1000 odds are not accurate. Betting against those odds is not a 50/50 thing.

You only reinforce that point with your 0 & 1000 comment, as that method would also be 50/50, though obviously far from a "good predictor."

No that method would not be a 50/50 thing. That is the point. That method would fail 100% of the time. Just try to beat the Vegas line, in other words try to be right against the Vegas line more than 50% of the time. You can't, because it's an accurate line. If you could, you would be rich.

Don't use the Vegas line if you think it's not accurate.

Back to the topic, Holt is one more reason to stay away from Bulger if you have another decent option.

I think this is a reading comprehension issue. (or maybe you aren't even reading my posts at all)I am not talking about BETTING on "bad" lines. Forget about betting the individual lines. I am talking about the results of the lines being high 50% of the time and low 50% of the time.

As per your quoted post above, explain to me how 7 over/unders of 1000 & 7 over/unders of 0 would NOT result in a 50/50 split of "over the total" & "under the total." It will be exactly 50/50 over/under.

I'm not sure why you seem to be having so much trouble grasping this fact.

You stated in an earlier post (that I have already quoted half a dozen times) that over the course of time the lines will be over 50% and under 50%, and therefore a good predictor.

I have tried to illustrate (first with a random set of lines, then with the above "absurd" set of lines) that being "over 50% & under 50%" does not necessarily mean that the lines are accurate (and therefore a good predictor).

Being 50/50 does not equal accuracy. That was my point. It should be obvious. I don't know how to explain it any better. You seem to be an intelligent guy, so I'm not sure why you're not getting it.

----

On the Bulger topic...Obviously, if Holt doesn't play it knocks him down a few notches in my mind. Any QB who loses his #1 target (and one of the top WRs in the league) has to take a hit.

If you have another reasonable option, by all means go with him. Personally, I think Holt will play and I will be starting Bulger. If you have a Collins or a Bledsoe, they are probably "safer" plays, but unless Holt is out there still aren't many more QBs I would consider over Bulger this week.

 

[huskyhater]

Heck yes start him. The ONLY difference in this game-opposed to the other ones so far where he's put up good stats-is that he MIGHT spend less time on the field because Indy might run, run, run to keep him off the field. But he'll put up his numbers.

 

[Bouddha]

I totally understand what you are saying and I am reading your posts. The problem is that you look at it from an aggregate standpoint instead of each line individually.

Forget about betting the individual lines.

That is exactly the problem. Don't forget about individual lines - we are judging the accuracy of individual lines. Vegas individual lines are accurate and each of them has a 50%/50% chance of over/under. Your 0/1000 lines would be 50%/50% over/under in aggregate but you have to look at them individually, not in aggregate. Each of your lines results in 100% over or 0% over.

Vegas is 50/50 for each line. This can't be proved easily since each game is only played once (of course). The only way to (dis)prove it is to try to be more than 50% successful against Vegas. You can't because lines happen to be very good at being the break point of 50/50 chance. So each of them is accurate.

Being 50/50 does not equal accuracy. That was my point.

If each individual line has 50/50 chance of being over/under, yes they are accurate. I am not talking about 50/50 for all lines combined.Another way to explain this: each game has a distribution of possible outcomes for the total. Simplified example:

10% chance of 31 pts

20% chance of 35 pts

20% chance of 38 pts

20% chance of 39 pts

20% chance of 42 pts

10% chance of 46 pts

Of course this distribution is unknown before the game - bettors are estimating it. If the Vegas line is 38.5, it is an accurate line because it has a 50/50 chance of ending up over or under.

If you still don't agree with me, let's agree to disagree because obviously we both won't change our mind

Cheers

 

[PoolShark]

I get your point about being 50/50 for each game, but since the comment I was refuting included the phrase "over time" I don't think that was your point then.

I like you're last idea though.

Bottoms up!

 

[Bouddha]

I guess I was not precise enough initially. When I said "over time" I meant that in reality not each game is 50/50. The lines are not perfect. So some may in fact be 52/48, others 47/53. But over time, 50/50 individually.

 

[Chitown Mole]

Anyone who benches Bulger is a noob and gets what they deserve....noobness.

 

[brobe4]

With Freeney, Doss, & Sanders dinged up I think this will hurt the colts defense this week.I hope they can still pull it out but, Im worried about this game with those those guys having problems.

 

[my man otis]

OK, so Holt says he's at 60% now. That's pretty big news, I can't remember the last time a player admitted being in such a condition then played well.

link

With Bruce out, Holt hurting at best and playing on the road at Indy, I'm strongly considering benching Bulger this week. My other option is Brunell at KC, who is actually reasonably tough at home, but he's playing pretty well.

Thoughts?

Stuck with Bulger, we'll see how it goes. Brunell with a good game so far.

 

[HoTnickZ]

Updated FBG projections this week:

Bulger down to QB9: 258-1.5-1.4

Hasselbeck up to QB3: 263-1.7-0.5

He's got Bulger beat in every category according to Doods

(even rushing if you ask)

I'm going with Hasselbeck at home this week. Besides the other reasons already listed in this thread, Indy also have playmakers on D and turnovers are always a concern with him, but I think its safe to say he'll still post solid numbers.

 

[Lehigh98]

Updated FBG projections this week:

Bulger down to QB9: 258-1.5-1.4

Hasselbeck up to QB3: 263-1.7-0.5

He's got Bulger beat in every category according to Doods 

(even rushing if you ask) 

I'm going with Hasselbeck at home this week. Besides the other reasons already listed in this thread, Indy also have playmakers on D and turnovers are always a concern with him, but I think its safe to say he'll still post solid numbers.

Did the same thing and I'm sure regretting it now.Screw you Shaun Alexander. :(