What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NO at PITT (1 Viewer)

R

richn

Footballguy
This line looks WAAAAY to fishy. I too originally took the Saints (who didn't). Why is a 6-2 team getting that many points from a team struggling???? Because this is a classic NFL TRAP. I know NOTHING, but I changed my pick.

 
' date='Nov 11 2006, 02:19 PM' post='5889271']But maybe it's a reverse trap? Now you gotta go change your pick back to the Saints before it's too late!
Click to expand...
But that what those wily Vegas guys want you to think so you should definitely beat the Steelers.Or it is what I think they want to me think and then it's a double reverse trap game and you should bet the Saints? :confused: Maybe you should just take the over... or is that what they want you to think...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i could not help but think the same thing. getting 5 pts on the road against Pitt seems way out of line. good topic, looking forward to what others think.

 
I think the Steelers, even while struggling, have maintained their reputation they earned last year and many previous years. When listening or reading discussions about the worst teams in the NFL, they are not grouped with Arizona, Oakland, etc as their record might indicate.

That said, I'll take the Saints!

 
The Steelers have dominated the stats in most of their games. The reason they're 2-6 is turnovers. If they ever reverse that trend they will be a tough team to beat.

That said, I think anyone taking the Steelers and giving 5 is crazy. Since the line hasn't moved much either no one is betting on this game or there are a lot of crazy people out there.

 
Godsbrother said:
... Since the line hasn't moved much either no one is betting on this game or there are a lot of crazy people out there.
Click to expand...
If the line hasn't moved much, wouldn't that mean that no one is betting this game or that the money is going pretty equally on both sides ? :shrug:
 
So this is a trap game for Pittsburgh? I find it hard to believe they will lose to the Saints at the ketchup bottle.

 
coachjim said:
Bettors set the odds not Vegas. There must be some serious money on the Steelers.
Click to expand...
Actually, Vegas often ignores betting trends. If they really think one side is going to win, they'll let 60% of the public on the other side, they'll even give a couple extra points to get more betters on that side. Hence, the term trap.I've given up betting, but this is the type of week you want to leave alone. Too many big lines.
 
toxicbees said:
coachjim said:
Bettors set the odds not Vegas. There must be some serious money on the Steelers.
Click to expand...
Actually, Vegas often ignores betting trends. If they really think one side is going to win, they'll let 60% of the public on the other side, they'll even give a couple extra points to get more betters on that side. Hence, the term trap.I've given up betting, but this is the type of week you want to leave alone. Too many big lines.
Click to expand...
I am not betting expert, I was wondering why you say this?

 
As a Steelers fan i will tell you they have lost at least three games that they dominated due to turnovers.

That said I can't figure out why that trend of turning the ball over would stop this week.

I have heard that Steelers rabid fan base make them both travel better and bet more than other teams fan bases so it would make sense that Vegas would have them giving more points if they wanted to even up the money.

 
DoGdr said:
I am not betting expert, I was wondering why you say this?
Click to expand...
Large spreads that teams need to cover.Good example would be Indy/Buffalo. The Colts are 12 points better, easily, but to bet on them covering that spread is risky.They might play flat and win by *only* 10 points, a TD and a FG.A much better line would be KC -1 or SD -1... if you're confident that those teams will win.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Turnovers, turnovers, turnovers. The Steelers lost the CIN, OAK, ATL, and DEN game due to turnovers. 3 or 4 more turnovers today and the Saints +6 is a lock. 0 or 1 turnovers and the Steelers will cover.

 
There's no such thing as a trap. It's like Democrats crying about Diebold--a conspiracy theory when you just can't believe you lost.

But there is a reverse trap, when Vegas sets a line, then puts out the word it's a trap, only to try and get bettors to bet the losing side... :tinfoilhat:

 
LOL, it was 50-50 the game could have gone either way even into the 4th quarter, just what Vegas wanted. NO could have easily covered, even won outright, late into the game. Only that fumble cost them the cover.

Modern-day, corporate run Vegas loves when there's even amounts money on both sides of a game and they can pocket the vig no matter what happens. It was only a trap in the sense that all gambling has a house advantage. If you look up the number of threads here in the Shark Pool and in the FFA every week that proclaim a certain game to be a "Lock!" or a "Trap", you'd see that each side probably covers about half the time.

 
videoguy505 said:
Modern-day, corporate run Vegas loves when there's even amounts money on both sides of a game and they can pocket the vig no matter what happens. It was only a trap in the sense that all gambling has a house advantage. If you look up the number of threads here in the Shark Pool and in the FFA every week that proclaim a certain game to be a "Lock!" or a "Trap", you'd see that each side probably covers about half the time.
Click to expand...
Again, this is simply not true. If vegas wanted equal money on both sides, wouldn't they have moved the line down after taking so much action on the Saints? The line opened at 5 and close to everyone hammered New Orleans (was 86% at one point on my book). So what do the books do? The moved the line up to 6.5 and even more people pounced on New Orleans. Vegas takes advantage of the public's propensity to simply look at the two teams and pick the team they think is better. Oakland was another fine example yesterday. Line opened at denver -9 and the public hammered Denver. So if the books wanted to balance out the action, wouldn't they have made Denver even a bigger favorite in an effort to entice action on the Raiders? No. The line went down to 7.5.The "equal action on both sides" angle is a myth. The books WANT you to believe that. They want you to believe that they are simply setting a line so they can make their vig and you can enjoy your action on the game. Books are in the business of making money, the vig is jsut a built in advantage for them.
 
Nipsey said:
Again, this is simply not true. If vegas wanted equal money on both sides, wouldn't they have moved the line down after taking so much action on the Saints? The line opened at 5 and close to everyone hammered New Orleans (was 86% at one point on my book). So what do the books do? The moved the line up to 6.5 and even more people pounced on New Orleans.

Vegas takes advantage of the public's propensity to simply look at the two teams and pick the team they think is better. Oakland was another fine example yesterday. Line opened at denver -9 and the public hammered Denver. So if the books wanted to balance out the action, wouldn't they have made Denver even a bigger favorite in an effort to entice action on the Raiders? No. The line went down to 7.5.

The "equal action on both sides" angle is a myth. The books WANT you to believe that. They want you to believe that they are simply setting a line so they can make their vig and you can enjoy your action on the game. Books are in the business of making money, the vig is jsut a built in advantage for them.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I just don't get it. Then the books were dangerously close to screwing themselves, because NO could have easily covered the spread several times in the fourth quarter. I don't see why they'd take the risk when (1) in the modern NFL, anything could happen, and (2) if the word gets out "it's a trap!" then someone could milk the casinos every time they try this--if the casinos put out a bad line that isn't a 50-50 or so proposition, then any shrewd gambler would win more than they'd lose to the vig. If these games are so easy to spot as traps, why doesn't Vegas get hammered by whales who plop down tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars at the last minute? If anyone could look at their book and see the traps, why doesn't Vegas get creamed? And how come about half the time someone starts a "Trap Game!" thread, they end up on the losing side?

 
Nipsey said:
videoguy505 said:
Modern-day, corporate run Vegas loves when there's even amounts money on both sides of a game and they can pocket the vig no matter what happens. It was only a trap in the sense that all gambling has a house advantage. If you look up the number of threads here in the Shark Pool and in the FFA every week that proclaim a certain game to be a "Lock!" or a "Trap", you'd see that each side probably covers about half the time.
Click to expand...
Again, this is simply not true. If vegas wanted equal money on both sides, wouldn't they have moved the line down after taking so much action on the Saints? The line opened at 5 and close to everyone hammered New Orleans (was 86% at one point on my book). So what do the books do? The moved the line up to 6.5 and even more people pounced on New Orleans. Vegas takes advantage of the public's propensity to simply look at the two teams and pick the team they think is better. Oakland was another fine example yesterday. Line opened at denver -9 and the public hammered Denver. So if the books wanted to balance out the action, wouldn't they have made Denver even a bigger favorite in an effort to entice action on the Raiders? No. The line went down to 7.5.The "equal action on both sides" angle is a myth. The books WANT you to believe that. They want you to believe that they are simply setting a line so they can make their vig and you can enjoy your action on the game. Books are in the business of making money, the vig is jsut a built in advantage for them.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: :goodposting: Nipsey is right people.
 
Nipsey said:
videoguy505 said:
Modern-day, corporate run Vegas loves when there's even amounts money on both sides of a game and they can pocket the vig no matter what happens. It was only a trap in the sense that all gambling has a house advantage. If you look up the number of threads here in the Shark Pool and in the FFA every week that proclaim a certain game to be a "Lock!" or a "Trap", you'd see that each side probably covers about half the time.
Click to expand...
Again, this is simply not true. If vegas wanted equal money on both sides, wouldn't they have moved the line down after taking so much action on the Saints? The line opened at 5 and close to everyone hammered New Orleans (was 86% at one point on my book). So what do the books do? The moved the line up to 6.5 and even more people pounced on New Orleans. Vegas takes advantage of the public's propensity to simply look at the two teams and pick the team they think is better. Oakland was another fine example yesterday. Line opened at denver -9 and the public hammered Denver. So if the books wanted to balance out the action, wouldn't they have made Denver even a bigger favorite in an effort to entice action on the Raiders? No. The line went down to 7.5.The "equal action on both sides" angle is a myth. The books WANT you to believe that. They want you to believe that they are simply setting a line so they can make their vig and you can enjoy your action on the game. Books are in the business of making money, the vig is jsut a built in advantage for them.
Click to expand...
logically this makes no sense. why would the books build-in an inherent risk, when even money on both sides means they win every time? they wouldn't do that. every single game in a casino is built on odds that are as little as a fraction of 1% in favor of the house, and they make their money on volume. why would they treat sports any differently? each game's outcome is an unknown. if it's near even money on both sides, they take their 10% juice on one side and call it a day, and laugh all the way to the bank while you guys think up this contrarian argument. otherwise, they'd risk losing large one one game. casinos are NOT in the business of gambling, but rather playing the odds as iterations approach infinity.it simply doesn't add up. think it all the way through. you guys have it all wrong.
 
baronson said:
Nipsey said:
videoguy505 said:
Modern-day, corporate run Vegas loves when there's even amounts money on both sides of a game and they can pocket the vig no matter what happens. It was only a trap in the sense that all gambling has a house advantage. If you look up the number of threads here in the Shark Pool and in the FFA every week that proclaim a certain game to be a "Lock!" or a "Trap", you'd see that each side probably covers about half the time.
Click to expand...
Again, this is simply not true. If vegas wanted equal money on both sides, wouldn't they have moved the line down after taking so much action on the Saints? The line opened at 5 and close to everyone hammered New Orleans (was 86% at one point on my book). So what do the books do? The moved the line up to 6.5 and even more people pounced on New Orleans. Vegas takes advantage of the public's propensity to simply look at the two teams and pick the team they think is better. Oakland was another fine example yesterday. Line opened at denver -9 and the public hammered Denver. So if the books wanted to balance out the action, wouldn't they have made Denver even a bigger favorite in an effort to entice action on the Raiders? No. The line went down to 7.5.The "equal action on both sides" angle is a myth. The books WANT you to believe that. They want you to believe that they are simply setting a line so they can make their vig and you can enjoy your action on the game. Books are in the business of making money, the vig is jsut a built in advantage for them.
Click to expand...
logically this makes no sense. why would the books build-in an inherent risk, when even money on both sides means they win every time? they wouldn't do that. every single game in a casino is built on odds that are as little as a fraction of 1% in favor of the house, and they make their money on volume. why would they treat sports any differently? each game's outcome is an unknown. if it's near even money on both sides, they take their 10% juice on one side and call it a day, and laugh all the way to the bank while you guys think up this contrarian argument. otherwise, they'd risk losing large one one game. casinos are NOT in the business of gambling, but rather playing the odds as iterations approach infinity.it simply doesn't add up. think it all the way through. you guys have it all wrong.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Then why do they not "try" to get equal action on both sides? If they're taking a much larger % of money on one side, why does the line sometimes move the other way? The vig is what it is, an extra built in advantage. I honestly can't believe how many people who bet on sports know nothing about how and why lines are set and moved.
 
Nipsey said:
baronson said:
logically this makes no sense. why would the books build-in an inherent risk, when even money on both sides means they win every time? they wouldn't do that. every single game in a casino is built on odds that are as little as a fraction of 1% in favor of the house, and they make their money on volume. why would they treat sports any differently? each game's outcome is an unknown. if it's near even money on both sides, they take their 10% juice on one side and call it a day, and laugh all the way to the bank while you guys think up this contrarian argument. otherwise, they'd risk losing large one one game. casinos are NOT in the business of gambling, but rather playing the odds as iterations approach infinity.it simply doesn't add up. think it all the way through. you guys have it all wrong.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Then why do they not "try" to get equal action on both sides? If they're taking a much larger % of money on one side, why does the line sometimes move the other way? The vig is what it is, an extra built in advantage. I honestly can't believe how many people who bet on sports know nothing about how and why lines are set and moved.
Click to expand...
for one thing, i can't ever say i've seen this happen. secondly, there are many other factors that impact a betting line beyond SOLELY the action. what i'm saying is an effort MUST be made to limit the book's exposure to ensure a net win. otherwise, they're in the business of gambling, which they ARE NOT. if an advantage is seen soon before kickoff, like a late player scratch or a change in weather, then the line may also shift. but i don't think you understand how a casino works based on what you've been saying. they make money on gamblers who tempt the long-term odds. they do not gamble, as you are suggesting.sigh.
 
baronson said:
Nipsey said:
baronson said:
logically this makes no sense. why would the books build-in an inherent risk, when even money on both sides means they win every time? they wouldn't do that. every single game in a casino is built on odds that are as little as a fraction of 1% in favor of the house, and they make their money on volume. why would they treat sports any differently? each game's outcome is an unknown. if it's near even money on both sides, they take their 10% juice on one side and call it a day, and laugh all the way to the bank while you guys think up this contrarian argument. otherwise, they'd risk losing large one one game. casinos are NOT in the business of gambling, but rather playing the odds as iterations approach infinity.it simply doesn't add up. think it all the way through. you guys have it all wrong.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Then why do they not "try" to get equal action on both sides? If they're taking a much larger % of money on one side, why does the line sometimes move the other way? The vig is what it is, an extra built in advantage. I honestly can't believe how many people who bet on sports know nothing about how and why lines are set and moved.
Click to expand...
for one thing, i can't ever say i've seen this happen. secondly, there are many other factors that impact a betting line beyond SOLELY the action. what i'm saying is an effort MUST be made to limit the book's exposure to ensure a net win. otherwise, they're in the business of gambling, which they ARE NOT. if an advantage is seen soon before kickoff, like a late player scratch or a change in weather, then the line may also shift. but i don't think you understand how a casino works based on what you've been saying. they make money on gamblers who tempt the long-term odds. they do not gamble, as you are suggesting.sigh.
Click to expand...
:shrug: They set lines in some games to ensure action on the side with less probablity of hitting . They do not set lines in all games to ensure equal action on both sides. Not sure how i can be more clear than this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hot Sauce Guy
Officially Unofficial K Contest! Week 9 Kickers, so plenty of time to enter.
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Saint
Saint
Hooper31
Grade your team's draft from 2022
Replies
16
Views
647
Terpman22
Terpman22
Ministry of Pain
The Playoffs start tonight/this weekend for many of us, please share what you are facing to get in
Replies
22
Views
628
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top