If Pats do go undefeated, they'll have earned it (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I hate New England and I want them to lose every week. Having said that, has anyone looked at their schedule lately? Turns out it is EXTREMELY TOUGH:

At Dallas: One of the great matchups this year so far

At Miami: Historically a very tough place for the Patriots

Washington: Probably the 2nd best team in the NFC, with perhaps the best D in football

At Indianapolis: Nuff said

At Buffalo: Much tougher team at home; look how they did Monday night

Philadelphia: Still has potential to be a very good team, especially with Westbrook

At Baltimore: The Ravens will be fighting for a playoff spot, should be a very physical game

Pittsburgh: Again, 'nuff said

New York Jets: Finally a breather?

Miami: Another breather, unless the Pats are still fighting for home field, in which case this could be a trap

At NY Giants: The Giants are a good team that will most liekly be fighting for one of the last wildcard spots.

WOW!! I have been thinking, like most people that the pats would probably go 14-2 or 13-3. If they can pull that off with this schedule, you've got to tip your hat to them, even though I still hate them...

 

[Rogi]

I hate New England and I want them to lose every week. Having said that, has anyone looked at their schedule lately? Turns out it is EXTREMELY TOUGH:At Dallas: One of the great matchups this year so farAt Miami: Historically a very tough place for the PatriotsWashington: Probably the 2nd best team in the NFC, with perhaps the best D in footballAt Indianapolis: Nuff saidAt Buffalo: Much tougher team at home; look how they did Monday nightPhiladelphia: Still has potential to be a very good team, especially with WestbrookAt Baltimore: The Ravens will be fighting for a playoff spot, should be a very physical gamePittsburgh: Again, 'nuff saidNew York Jets: Finally a breather?Miami: Another breather, unless the Pats are still fighting for home field, in which case this could be a trapAt NY Giants: The Giants are a good team that will most liekly be fighting for one of the last wildcard spots.WOW!! I have been thinking, like most people that the pats would probably go 14-2 or 13-3. If they can pull that off with this schedule, you've got to tip your hat to them, even though I still hate them...

For an average team, this would be a tough schedule. For the Patriots I would say Indy and maybe Pittsburgh present the only real challenge for them. Yes, Dallas is undefeated, but after seeing them struggle with Buffalo's D, I can only imagine what the Patriots D will do to them. Plus, I think any undefeated AFC has to be better than an undefeated NFC team. Baltimore can't keep up with the Pats Offense and the Ravens D isn't as stout as it used to be.

 

[King of the Wolfies]

At Dallas: One of the great matchups this year so far NFC teams all suck this year.

At Miami: Historically a very tough place for the Patriots thats when the fins had something resembling a team. they are worse than most college teams right now

Washington: Probably the 2nd best team in the NFC, with perhaps the best D in football like saying you are the 2nd horse inline at the glue factory

At Indianapolis: Nuff said pleeease beat the pats

At Buffalo: Much tougher team at home; look how they did Monday night i saw a team get 3 return TDs and still lose

Philadelphia: Still has potential to be a very good team, especially with Westbrook thought the giants game was a disaster, wait until the Pats get done with mcnabb. he may volunteerily retire after this game

At Baltimore: The Ravens will be fighting for a playoff spot, should be a very physical game secondary has given up big games all year. they couldnt stop the brownies, no way they stop Moss

Pittsburgh: Again, 'nuff said pleease beat the Pats

New York Jets: Finally a breather? yep

Miami: Another breather, unless the Pats are still fighting for home field, in which case this could be a trap have the fins gotten a team yet??

At NY Giants: The Giants are a good team that will most liekly be fighting for one of the last wildcard spots. eli throw 4 picks this game. brady throw 5 TDs

 

[timschochet]

At Dallas: One of the great matchups this year so far NFC teams all suck this year.

At Miami: Historically a very tough place for the Patriots thats when the fins had something resembling a team. they are worse than most college teams right now

Washington: Probably the 2nd best team in the NFC, with perhaps the best D in football like saying you are the 2nd horse inline at the glue factory

At Indianapolis: Nuff said pleeease beat the pats

At Buffalo: Much tougher team at home; look how they did Monday night i saw a team get 3 return TDs and still lose

Philadelphia: Still has potential to be a very good team, especially with Westbrook thought the giants game was a disaster, wait until the Pats get done with mcnabb. he may volunteerily retire after this game

At Baltimore: The Ravens will be fighting for a playoff spot, should be a very physical game secondary has given up big games all year. they couldnt stop the brownies, no way they stop Moss

Pittsburgh: Again, 'nuff said pleease beat the Pats

New York Jets: Finally a breather? yep

Miami: Another breather, unless the Pats are still fighting for home field, in which case this could be a trap have the fins gotten a team yet??

At NY Giants: The Giants are a good team that will most liekly be fighting for one of the last wildcard spots. eli throw 4 picks this game. brady throw 5 TDs

"2nd horse inline at the glue factory?" Most hilarious thing I've read all year!!

 

[Bossman]

Seems like the Patriots play all the tough teams every year.

How is it that NE plays PIT, and DAL...

while IND plays neither PIT or DAL but instead get teams like OAK, KC, TB and ATL.

Didn't IND finish first in their division last year too?

 

[crnerblitz]

Seems like the Patriots play all the tough teams every year.

How is it that NE plays PIT, and DAL...

while IND plays neither PIT or DAL but instead get teams like OAK, KC, TB and ATL.

Didn't IND finish first in their division last year too?

Maybe cheaters draw tougher schedules?

 

[Diamond]

Because only two games are determined by the performance of a team the previous year. There's 6 division games, 4 games against a division in the other conference, and 4 games against a division in the same conference each year. The other divisions that each team in a division plays rotates annually. The AFC East plays the NFC East and AFC North while the AFC South plays the NFC South and AFC West this year.

Not sure exactly how the performance-based games are determined. I think it's 1st place vs 2 other 1st place teams, 2nd vs 2 other 2nds, etc. But I don't know how they pick which division. This year, NE gets SD and Indy while Indy gets BAL and NE. Those are all the 1st place teams in the AFC last year. Perhaps its within the conference, against the divisions your not scheduled to play that year.

 

[pats3in4]

Seems like the Patriots play all the tough teams every year.

How is it that NE plays PIT, and DAL...

while IND plays neither PIT or DAL but instead get teams like OAK, KC, TB and ATL.

Didn't IND finish first in their division last year too?

This is rhetorical, right?

 

[SteveInChicago]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)

Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)

If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

 

[Letum]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

Vegas sets the line so half the people will bet each team and they take the juice. The line will move if too much is being laid on one team. New England is heavily favored because of posts like this that hypothesize a 17-0 record based on 5 games. New England is a great team. So was Indy last year who started 9-0 before losing to the Cowboys, Titans, Jaguars, and Texans. Let's at least let them get to double digit wins before we celebrate how great they did against a difficult schedule.

 

[eom]

Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

why do people keep repeating this like it means something?do you seriously think last year's indy team is as good as this year's pats team?that was the same indy team that beat the jets by a field goal and buffalo by a point.hope you'll be cherishing that year old win when the pats put up a fresh one this weekend.

 

[Letum]

Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

why do people keep repeating this like it means something?do you seriously think last year's indy team is as good as this year's pats team?that was the same indy team that beat the jets by a field goal and buffalo by a point.hope you'll be cherishing that year old win when the pats put up a fresh one this weekend.

You're right - 5 games into the season we should all acknowledge that the Pats are far superior to a team that won the Super Bowl last year - what were we thinking...

 

[Chase Stuart]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

Vegas sets the line so half the people will bet each team and they take the juice.

No, they don't.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

At Dallas: One of the great matchups this year so far NFC teams all suck this year.

At Miami: Historically a very tough place for the Patriots thats when the fins had something resembling a team. they are worse than most college teams right now

Washington: Probably the 2nd best team in the NFC, with perhaps the best D in football like saying you are the 2nd horse inline at the glue factory



At Indianapolis: Nuff said pleeease beat the pats

At Buffalo: Much tougher team at home; look how they did Monday night i saw a team get 3 return TDs and still lose

Philadelphia: Still has potential to be a very good team, especially with Westbrook thought the giants game was a disaster, wait until the Pats get done with mcnabb. he may volunteerily retire after this game

At Baltimore: The Ravens will be fighting for a playoff spot, should be a very physical game secondary has given up big games all year. they couldnt stop the brownies, no way they stop Moss

Pittsburgh: Again, 'nuff said pleease beat the Pats

New York Jets: Finally a breather? yep

Miami: Another breather, unless the Pats are still fighting for home field, in which case this could be a trap have the fins gotten a team yet??

At NY Giants: The Giants are a good team that will most liekly be fighting for one of the last wildcard spots. eli throw 4 picks this game. brady throw 5 TDs

 

[Bossman]

Seems like the Patriots play all the tough teams every year.

How is it that NE plays PIT, and DAL...

while IND plays neither PIT or DAL but instead get teams like OAK, KC, TB and ATL.

Didn't IND finish first in their division last year too?

This is rhetorical, right?

not rhetorical... rediculous.The NFL scheduale gods smiled upon the Super Bowl champions this year for whatever reason.

 

[eom]

You're right - 5 games into the season we should all acknowledge that the Pats are far superior to a team that won the Super Bowl last year - what were we thinking...

I hate to break it to you, but reality isn't waiting on what you acknowledge.

 

[shakeybarn]

I hate New England and I want them to lose every week. Having said that, has anyone looked at their schedule lately? Turns out it is EXTREMELY TOUGH:At Dallas: One of the great matchups this year so farAt Miami: Historically a very tough place for the PatriotsWashington: Probably the 2nd best team in the NFC, with perhaps the best D in footballAt Indianapolis: Nuff saidAt Buffalo: Much tougher team at home; look how they did Monday nightPhiladelphia: Still has potential to be a very good team, especially with WestbrookAt Baltimore: The Ravens will be fighting for a playoff spot, should be a very physical gamePittsburgh: Again, 'nuff saidNew York Jets: Finally a breather?Miami: Another breather, unless the Pats are still fighting for home field, in which case this could be a trapAt NY Giants: The Giants are a good team that will most liekly be fighting for one of the last wildcard spots.WOW!! I have been thinking, like most people that the pats would probably go 14-2 or 13-3. If they can pull that off with this schedule, you've got to tip your hat to them, even though I still hate them...

When you justify 0-5 Miami, question the Jets as a breather, and reach with "still has potential", a "Miami trap", Buffalo a much better, team... no ... Romo imploded and THEY STILL COULDN'T beat them... 6 turnovers by a QB.. Buffalo is awful.I'm sure you got the attention you wanted....anything LESS than 13-3 to me is a dissappointment.Look at the AFC West schedules.. or the NFC East from 2006... if you want "earned schedules".

 

[Steeler07]

A cheating team doesn't deserve ####.

 

[Letum]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

Vegas sets the line so half the people will bet each team and they take the juice.

No, they don't.

"Shading the line" and "trap bet lines" are the exception, not the rule, Chase. Unless there is a perceived bias or blind homerism that can be capitalized on (usually big games like a Super Bowl) - getting even money on both sides of the game is what bookies attempt to do the vast majority of the time. The New England/Dallas matchup might actually be one where they do try to capitalize on the New England love (better keep your money in your pockets Chase and eom) but if you think they play those games with all of their lines, I think you're flat wrong. If you would like to elaborate on your 3 word answer and share your bookmaker knowledge, I would like to hear more.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)

Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)

If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

Vegas sets the line so half the people will bet each team and they take the juice.

No, they don't.

"Shading the line" and "trap bet lines" are the exception, not the rule, Chase. Unless there is a perceived bias or blind homerism that can be capitalized on (usually big games like a Super Bowl) - getting even money on both sides of the game is what bookies attempt to do the vast majority of the time. The New England/Dallas matchup might actually be one where they do try to capitalize on the New England love (better keep your money in your pockets Chase and eom) but if you think they play those games with all of their lines, I think you're flat wrong. If you would like to elaborate on your 3 word answer and share your bookmaker knowledge, I would like to hear more.

The only time Vegas sets the line so that they can get even money on both sides is for the Super Bowl. If 75% of people bet on the team that covers in the SB, that's a legit hit to the bookmaker because of the incredible magnitude of money wagered on the game.For regular NFL games? It's not like that at all. When it will bring a positive expected value, bookmakers will try to get lopsided action on the games. Bookmakers don't have to go for zero risk any more than any other business does. There is a very large sample of games bet on each year (between college and pro football), and bookmakers have deep pockets. Those two combinations lend themselves to choosing payouts that are riskier in the short term but pay out more in the long-term.

 

[Letum]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)

Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)

If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

Vegas sets the line so half the people will bet each team and they take the juice.

No, they don't.

"Shading the line" and "trap bet lines" are the exception, not the rule, Chase. Unless there is a perceived bias or blind homerism that can be capitalized on (usually big games like a Super Bowl) - getting even money on both sides of the game is what bookies attempt to do the vast majority of the time. The New England/Dallas matchup might actually be one where they do try to capitalize on the New England love (better keep your money in your pockets Chase and eom) but if you think they play those games with all of their lines, I think you're flat wrong. If you would like to elaborate on your 3 word answer and share your bookmaker knowledge, I would like to hear more.

The only time Vegas sets the line so that they can get even money on both sides is for the Super Bowl. If 75% of people bet on the team that covers in the SB, that's a legit hit to the bookmaker because of the incredible magnitude of money wagered on the game.For regular NFL games? It's not like that at all. When it will bring a positive expected value, bookmakers will try to get lopsided action on the games. Bookmakers don't have to go for zero risk any more than any other business does. There is a very large sample of games bet on each year (between college and pro football), and bookmakers have deep pockets. Those two combinations lend themselves to choosing payouts that are riskier in the short term but pay out more in the long-term.

Thanks for the response. Do you have a source for this info? I would like to read up on it. 8 out of 10 things you'll find on a google search - not to mention my Vegas friends - talk about the even money approach except for the shading and trap bets I mentioned before. I'd like to read more about this alternate take...

 

[Chase Stuart]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)

Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)

If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

Vegas sets the line so half the people will bet each team and they take the juice.

No, they don't.

"Shading the line" and "trap bet lines" are the exception, not the rule, Chase. Unless there is a perceived bias or blind homerism that can be capitalized on (usually big games like a Super Bowl) - getting even money on both sides of the game is what bookies attempt to do the vast majority of the time. The New England/Dallas matchup might actually be one where they do try to capitalize on the New England love (better keep your money in your pockets Chase and eom) but if you think they play those games with all of their lines, I think you're flat wrong. If you would like to elaborate on your 3 word answer and share your bookmaker knowledge, I would like to hear more.

The only time Vegas sets the line so that they can get even money on both sides is for the Super Bowl. If 75% of people bet on the team that covers in the SB, that's a legit hit to the bookmaker because of the incredible magnitude of money wagered on the game.For regular NFL games? It's not like that at all. When it will bring a positive expected value, bookmakers will try to get lopsided action on the games. Bookmakers don't have to go for zero risk any more than any other business does. There is a very large sample of games bet on each year (between college and pro football), and bookmakers have deep pockets. Those two combinations lend themselves to choosing payouts that are riskier in the short term but pay out more in the long-term.

Thanks for the response. Do you have a source for this info? I would like to read up on it. 8 out of 10 things you'll find on a google search - not to mention my Vegas friends - talk about the even money approach except for the shading and trap bets I mentioned before. I'd like to read more about this alternate take...

I can't say for sure since I haven't read it, but I've heard that this book discusses it. Obviously there aren't a ton of bookkeepers that you can trust to tell you about how they run their business, so I'm not sure you'll ever find hard, objective evidence either way. It just is a poorer business model to do it the "even action" way.

 

[Steeler07]

Letum, Chase is right.

The juice is just an extra for Vegas, but the real purpose of the juice is to make people believe the Casinos have a good reason to give away "easy money".

The truth is Vegas sets the line according to public perception, so most of the times they leave a line alone even if the public is strongly favoring one side. Why do they do this? Because 65% of the time their "gamble" pays off.

 

[Letum]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)

Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)

If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

Vegas sets the line so half the people will bet each team and they take the juice.

No, they don't.

"Shading the line" and "trap bet lines" are the exception, not the rule, Chase. Unless there is a perceived bias or blind homerism that can be capitalized on (usually big games like a Super Bowl) - getting even money on both sides of the game is what bookies attempt to do the vast majority of the time. The New England/Dallas matchup might actually be one where they do try to capitalize on the New England love (better keep your money in your pockets Chase and eom) but if you think they play those games with all of their lines, I think you're flat wrong. If you would like to elaborate on your 3 word answer and share your bookmaker knowledge, I would like to hear more.

The only time Vegas sets the line so that they can get even money on both sides is for the Super Bowl. If 75% of people bet on the team that covers in the SB, that's a legit hit to the bookmaker because of the incredible magnitude of money wagered on the game.For regular NFL games? It's not like that at all. When it will bring a positive expected value, bookmakers will try to get lopsided action on the games. Bookmakers don't have to go for zero risk any more than any other business does. There is a very large sample of games bet on each year (between college and pro football), and bookmakers have deep pockets. Those two combinations lend themselves to choosing payouts that are riskier in the short term but pay out more in the long-term.

Thanks for the response. Do you have a source for this info? I would like to read up on it. 8 out of 10 things you'll find on a google search - not to mention my Vegas friends - talk about the even money approach except for the shading and trap bets I mentioned before. I'd like to read more about this alternate take...

I can't say for sure since I haven't read it, but I've heard that this book discusses it. Obviously there aren't a ton of bookkeepers that you can trust to tell you about how they run their business, so I'm not sure you'll ever find hard, objective evidence either way. It just is a poorer business model to do it the "even action" way.

And this book is written by an experienced handicapper which claims that Vegas does strive for even money action or else they are "gambling" and that they go for sure things - not gambles. Follow the link - read the excerpt offered inside the book page 1-3.I realize this isn't a black and white issue - but you've got to give me something more substantial to support your opinion.

 

[Steeler07]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)

Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)

If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

Vegas sets the line so half the people will bet each team and they take the juice.

No, they don't.

"Shading the line" and "trap bet lines" are the exception, not the rule, Chase. Unless there is a perceived bias or blind homerism that can be capitalized on (usually big games like a Super Bowl) - getting even money on both sides of the game is what bookies attempt to do the vast majority of the time. The New England/Dallas matchup might actually be one where they do try to capitalize on the New England love (better keep your money in your pockets Chase and eom) but if you think they play those games with all of their lines, I think you're flat wrong. If you would like to elaborate on your 3 word answer and share your bookmaker knowledge, I would like to hear more.

The only time Vegas sets the line so that they can get even money on both sides is for the Super Bowl. If 75% of people bet on the team that covers in the SB, that's a legit hit to the bookmaker because of the incredible magnitude of money wagered on the game.For regular NFL games? It's not like that at all. When it will bring a positive expected value, bookmakers will try to get lopsided action on the games. Bookmakers don't have to go for zero risk any more than any other business does. There is a very large sample of games bet on each year (between college and pro football), and bookmakers have deep pockets. Those two combinations lend themselves to choosing payouts that are riskier in the short term but pay out more in the long-term.

Thanks for the response. Do you have a source for this info? I would like to read up on it. 8 out of 10 things you'll find on a google search - not to mention my Vegas friends - talk about the even money approach except for the shading and trap bets I mentioned before. I'd like to read more about this alternate take...

I can't say for sure since I haven't read it, but I've heard that this book discusses it. Obviously there aren't a ton of bookkeepers that you can trust to tell you about how they run their business, so I'm not sure you'll ever find hard, objective evidence either way. It just is a poorer business model to do it the "even action" way.

And this book is written by an experienced handicapper which claims that Vegas does strive for even money action or else they are "gambling" and that they go for sure things - not gambles. Follow the link - read the excerpt offered inside the book page 1-3.I realize this isn't a black and white issue - but you've got to give me something more substantial to support your opinion.

There is one undeniable truth about gambling. Vegas knows a lot more than the average Joe. Vegas does not gamble in the proper sense of the word, they simply let people favor the wrong side of a bet and they cash out 65% of the time.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)

Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)

If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

Vegas sets the line so half the people will bet each team and they take the juice.

No, they don't.

"Shading the line" and "trap bet lines" are the exception, not the rule, Chase. Unless there is a perceived bias or blind homerism that can be capitalized on (usually big games like a Super Bowl) - getting even money on both sides of the game is what bookies attempt to do the vast majority of the time. The New England/Dallas matchup might actually be one where they do try to capitalize on the New England love (better keep your money in your pockets Chase and eom) but if you think they play those games with all of their lines, I think you're flat wrong. If you would like to elaborate on your 3 word answer and share your bookmaker knowledge, I would like to hear more.

The only time Vegas sets the line so that they can get even money on both sides is for the Super Bowl. If 75% of people bet on the team that covers in the SB, that's a legit hit to the bookmaker because of the incredible magnitude of money wagered on the game.For regular NFL games? It's not like that at all. When it will bring a positive expected value, bookmakers will try to get lopsided action on the games. Bookmakers don't have to go for zero risk any more than any other business does. There is a very large sample of games bet on each year (between college and pro football), and bookmakers have deep pockets. Those two combinations lend themselves to choosing payouts that are riskier in the short term but pay out more in the long-term.

Thanks for the response. Do you have a source for this info? I would like to read up on it. 8 out of 10 things you'll find on a google search - not to mention my Vegas friends - talk about the even money approach except for the shading and trap bets I mentioned before. I'd like to read more about this alternate take...

I can't say for sure since I haven't read it, but I've heard that this book discusses it. Obviously there aren't a ton of bookkeepers that you can trust to tell you about how they run their business, so I'm not sure you'll ever find hard, objective evidence either way. It just is a poorer business model to do it the "even action" way.

And this book is written by an experienced handicapper which claims that Vegas does strive for even money action or else they are "gambling" and that they go for sure things - not gambles. Follow the link - read the excerpt offered inside the book page 1-3.I realize this isn't a black and white issue - but you've got to give me something more substantial to support your opinion.

Please read a few pages started on 1-20 (1-19 is the next page after 1-3, and 1-20 follows 1-19).

 

[DBIsports]

Seems like the Patriots play all the tough teams every year.

How is it that NE plays PIT, and DAL...

while IND plays neither PIT or DAL but instead get teams like OAK, KC, TB and ATL.

Didn't IND finish first in their division last year too?

The schedule could have been even easier for the Colts if they were still in the AFC east.........can you imagine getting to play teams like Miami,Jets,and Bills not once,but twice....well,nevermind,I guess you can.

 

[enfuego]

Tell you what; The Pats run the table, every Pat's fan in FBG, should come in here bragging. Until they get even to 10-0, 11-0, 12-0 or better, it's not topic-worthy...

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

Vegas sets the line so half the people will bet each team and they take the juice.

No, they don't.

Yes they do.

 

[BusterTBronco]

The Pats have one of the easiest overall schedules in the entire league. Other than the Dallas and Indy games, their schedule is CAKE.

In case you haven't noticed, the AFC East STINKS!

 

[Phlash]

The Pats have one of the easiest overall schedules in the entire league. Other than the Dallas and Indy games, their schedule is CAKE.In case you haven't noticed, the AFC East STINKS!

Steelers are pretty good I'd say.Ravens are always decent... well, not compared to the Patriots but relatively to all other teams they are.Philly hasn't been playing well but they have a tendency to turn it on at any time, they're decent... well, not compared to the Patriots but relatively to all other teams they are.Washington has been playing well, should be a playoff teams, I think they're good... well, not compared to the Patriots but relatively to all other teams they are.Well, I see your point. The Patriots are so good that the teams they face just seem inferior. Its understandable, and I agree with you.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Seems like the Patriots play all the tough teams every year.

How is it that NE plays PIT, and DAL...

while IND plays neither PIT or DAL but instead get teams like OAK, KC, TB and ATL.

Didn't IND finish first in their division last year too?

This is rhetorical, right?

not rhetorical... rediculous.The NFL scheduale gods smiled upon the Super Bowl champions this year for whatever reason.

You do understand that all the division champs play the exact same schedule and the non-conference schedule rotates division to division every year right? Indy and the Pats both play the three other division winners in their conference, the Pats play all teams from the NFC East and AFC North, The Colts play all teams from the NFC South/AFC West. Do the Math, that's 16 games and next year the schedule rotates again by division. NE will play all the teams from an NFC division (not the east) and all the teams from an AFC Division (not the North) and they'll play the three other division winners from their conference. So will everyone else. Pretty simple.

 

[kerpow]

This is a ridiculous, your whole argument hinges around the fact that the Colts don't play the Steelers. Other than that, the Colts have a far tougher schedule because of the division they are in.

AFC East (aside from Pats) 2-13

AFC South (aside from Colts) 9-4

Infact, I'd go as far to say the Dolphins, Bills and Jets are the 3 worst teams in the AFC.

 

[Knight who says Ni]

They play Miami, Buffalo, and the NY Jets twice this season, which by definition makes it an easy schedule. The only real challenges I see in their upcoming schedule are the Cowboys, Steelers, and Colts. Baltimore got trounced by the Browns, of all teams, and barely squeaked past the 49'ers

Ni

 

[GroveDiesel]

Wouldn't, pretty much by definition, the other AFC East teams have more difficult schedules since they have to play twice against the Patriots?

 

[sho nuff]

Seems like the Patriots play all the tough teams every year.

How is it that NE plays PIT, and DAL...

while IND plays neither PIT or DAL but instead get teams like OAK, KC, TB and ATL.

Didn't IND finish first in their division last year too?

Because NE is playing against the AFC North.And the NFC East.

Pretty simple.

So are the Jets, Dolphins, and Bills.

They pulled Indy and San Diego because those were the top 2 teams in those divisions and NE was the top team in their division.

 

[sho nuff]

Seems like the Patriots play all the tough teams every year.

How is it that NE plays PIT, and DAL...

while IND plays neither PIT or DAL but instead get teams like OAK, KC, TB and ATL.

Didn't IND finish first in their division last year too?

This is rhetorical, right?

not rhetorical... rediculous.The NFL scheduale gods smiled upon the Super Bowl champions this year for whatever reason.

The schedule was set long before Indy won the Super Bowl.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Looks like a schedule dominated by cupcakes with a few excellent games interspersed.

 

[crnerblitz]

The line on the NE/Dallas Game. NE -5.5. (Moneyline -235)

Based on the moneyline Vegas is basically saying NE has at best a 70% chance at winning the game. (is NE wins more than 70% of the time Vegas loses money on that proposition)

If you guys think NE at Dallas is such a lock and Vegas screwed up maybe you should pound that moneyline. Good teams have bad games, the parity between NFL teams isn't as big as it seems sometimes. Don't forget Dallas ended Indy's undefeated season last year too.

Vegas sets the line so half the people will bet each team and they take the juice.

No, they don't.

"Shading the line" and "trap bet lines" are the exception, not the rule, Chase. Unless there is a perceived bias or blind homerism that can be capitalized on (usually big games like a Super Bowl) - getting even money on both sides of the game is what bookies attempt to do the vast majority of the time. The New England/Dallas matchup might actually be one where they do try to capitalize on the New England love (better keep your money in your pockets Chase and eom) but if you think they play those games with all of their lines, I think you're flat wrong. If you would like to elaborate on your 3 word answer and share your bookmaker knowledge, I would like to hear more.

The only time Vegas sets the line so that they can get even money on both sides is for the Super Bowl. If 75% of people bet on the team that covers in the SB, that's a legit hit to the bookmaker because of the incredible magnitude of money wagered on the game.For regular NFL games? It's not like that at all. When it will bring a positive expected value, bookmakers will try to get lopsided action on the games. Bookmakers don't have to go for zero risk any more than any other business does. There is a very large sample of games bet on each year (between college and pro football), and bookmakers have deep pockets. Those two combinations lend themselves to choosing payouts that are riskier in the short term but pay out more in the long-term.

Thanks for the response. Do you have a source for this info? I would like to read up on it. 8 out of 10 things you'll find on a google search - not to mention my Vegas friends - talk about the even money approach except for the shading and trap bets I mentioned before. I'd like to read more about this alternate take...

I can't say for sure since I haven't read it, but I've heard that this book discusses it. Obviously there aren't a ton of bookkeepers that you can trust to tell you about how they run their business, so I'm not sure you'll ever find hard, objective evidence either way. It just is a poorer business model to do it the "even action" way.

And this book is written by an experienced handicapper which claims that Vegas does strive for even money action or else they are "gambling" and that they go for sure things - not gambles. Follow the link - read the excerpt offered inside the book page 1-3.I realize this isn't a black and white issue - but you've got to give me something more substantial to support your opinion.

Please read a few pages started on 1-20 (1-19 is the next page after 1-3, and 1-20 follows 1-19).

While I am not one to argue numbers with Chase I think he might be wrong here. 10% vig is a huge take for the house. The books seldom achieve the pure 50% on each side theory and so are always gambling a little bit on one side or the other. They can then decide to lay off some of the risk elsewhere i need be. That is those deep pockets Chase mentioned. Those that think that the House needs a huge edge should be reminded that the Vegas strip was built on the slim couple of points edge they hold in Blackjack. The big point favorites of slots, craps and roulette are gravy for the house but its bread and butter back in the day was blackjack. Now Slots is King. And people take the absolute worst of it with those machines.

 

[Phlash]

Looks like a schedule dominated by cupcakes with a few excellent games interspersed.

Thats because only about 2-3 teams can really come in their same stratosphere as far as talent and coaching goes.

 

[Ghost Rider]

This thread is a riot. Toughest schedule? Playing in the AFC East? BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[omally]

I don't think the schedule looks that hard, plus they play in one of the worse divisions in the NFL. No matter what they will make the playoffs since they have the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins in their division.

 

[porkins]

I really wish people would stop starting threads like this. It just makes them look foolish.