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!

Sports lines this week (1 Viewer)

Liquid Tension

Footballguy
This is really for informational purposes without any bold predictions or conclusions from me, but sometimes getting thoughts on paper makes things clearer (or maybe not?)

In looking at the past 4 years (8 Championship games) the largest spread was 5.5 points. This week we have NE giving 13.5 (the spread came out at 14.5) and the Pack giving 7.5 to the Giants (the spread came out at 7).

I did find it interesting that this year both conferences show a larger favorite than any in the previous 4 years? I couldn't get the spreads prior to that but while clearly not breathtaking about NE in their record setting year (one would expect a higher spread than normal) even the Giant GB game being over the 7 mark is not the norm.

Looking at things from a betting perspective:

The home team is in CAPS

2003

NFC: PHILADELPHIA (- 4) Lost to Carolina 14-3

AFC: NEW ENGLAND (- 3) Beat Indy 24 - 14

2004

NFC: PHILADELPHIA (- 5.5) Beat Atlanta 27-10

AFC: PITTSBURGH (+3) lost to NE 41-27

2005

AFC: DENVER (- 3) Lost to Pitt 34-17

NFC: SEATTLE (-3.5) Beat Carolina 34-14

2006

NFC: CHICAGO (- 3) Beat NO 39-14

AFC: INDIANAPOLIS (-3.5) Beat NE 38-34

The favorite has covered 6 out of the 8 games.

The spread has not made a difference in any of these 8 games, so just going for the winner was the right move. However, with the spreads being larger there is obviously a much greater chance that the favorites could win and not cover

Looking at the other playoff games this year:

The favorite covered only 3 times out of the 8 games. Also, the spread DID matter in two of the 8 games where losing teams covered the spread (Jacksonville and Pitt)

I bet on games every year and have made some nice spare cash...this year I started off the season very poorly 15 wins and 28 losses, but came on extremely strong towards the end (including a perfect 6 for 6 week) having 34 wins and 10 losses making my yearly total 49-38. It is important to note that while 56% is normally barely profitable, I bet some teasers where the odds are in my favor (betting $300 to win $400) for example.

For some reason, in the playoffs I just have not been comfortable betting? I have just been undecided on what the outcome will be and could see either happening. In the 8 games played the only bet I made was on Seattle over Washington. Disclosure, I am a Giant fan and would have bet on the Giants to beat TB, but I also would have bet on Dallas to cover against the Giants, but I rarely allow myself to bet on my team one way or another and just watched my team in the playoffs.

I didn't bet on any game last week as I was paralyzed by analysis...I couldn't tell you the last time that I didn't bet during a playoff week...maybe that says something about me :thumbup:

Is anyone else more confused than normal when betting this playoffs?

I am looking at the large lines and wouldn't be shocked with anything. NE is a better team than the banged up Chargers, but is it improbable that LT2 and even Turner get on to the linebackers of NE? Could more lanes open up with Chambers and Jackson stepping up and Gates always present (if healthy?). If nothing else enough to lose 30-17 and cover? Same on the Giant side, would it be shocking if they covered and only lost by 7 or less or even won? They have a good running team and it will be cold. I think they could lose 24-17 and cover.

BTW the Super Bowl lines would be:

NE -13.5 vs the Giants

NE -10 against GB

GB -3.5 against SD

SD -4 against the Giants

(interesting that the spread of NE against the Giants would be the same as NE against SD this week, yet if SD and the Giants played in the SB SD would be favored by 4)

Any thoughts?

 
I've done pretty well this post season so far as I think a lot of the lines have been out of whack due to public perception.

This week, I like San Diego. I know with the injuries all non-homers are thinking this should be a cake walk, but this is playoff football and no team is going to roll over and die. IF NE does cover this spread, I think it's on a very late score that puts the game out of reach. Also depending on if this new rumor that Rivers has a partially torn ACL is true or not, I think San Diego has a decent value on the ML, I believe they are around +600, which mathematically speaking you'd need to figure they have less than a 14.2% chance of winning this game. With Rivers and LT playing (along with Gates) I think they do, as I stated above, this is playoff football, San Diego is a very hot team (as hot as the Patriots over the last 8 weeks, if not hotter).

The GB/NYG game is tough. I probably won't play a side, I think GB wins, but if it's over 7 that's a tough line to cover because they need 2 scores. At 6.5 I probably play small on GB. I think GB is just a better all around team. I'm leaning towards the over in this game, maybe teasing the over with GB.

 
I've done pretty well this post season so far as I think a lot of the lines have been out of whack due to public perception. This week, I like San Diego. I know with the injuries all non-homers are thinking this should be a cake walk, but this is playoff football and no team is going to roll over and die. IF NE does cover this spread, I think it's on a very late score that puts the game out of reach. Also depending on if this new rumor that Rivers has a partially torn ACL is true or not, I think San Diego has a decent value on the ML, I believe they are around +600, which mathematically speaking you'd need to figure they have less than a 14.2% chance of winning this game. With Rivers and LT playing (along with Gates) I think they do, as I stated above, this is playoff football, San Diego is a very hot team (as hot as the Patriots over the last 8 weeks, if not hotter). The GB/NYG game is tough. I probably won't play a side, I think GB wins, but if it's over 7 that's a tough line to cover because they need 2 scores. At 6.5 I probably play small on GB. I think GB is just a better all around team. I'm leaning towards the over in this game, maybe teasing the over with GB.
Immediately following the games last week I thought NE would cover against SD, but then when I saw the line at 14.5, i backed away. I was thinking the line would be around 12. The line has now dropped to 13.5 so taking SD now would be with lost opportunity (maybe that doesn't matter, but it hurts a little)I had started a study 2 years ago about lines moving more than a point and which team covered more often. My data was lost in a computer crash, but I was reminded about this from another thread when someone suggested that games might be influenced by refs or the league to get good matchups. i don't want to start any conspiracy theory, but if heavy action was going on one side and the line moved by a few points, it is clear that the bookies would want the team where the points moved towards, to win the game. Therefore, seeing a trend on who won and covered in those spots would be interesting. in this case the bookies right now would want NE to win and cover.
 
BTW the Super Bowl lines would be:

NE -13.5 vs the Giants

NE -10 against GB

GB -3.5 against SD

SD -4 against the Giants

(interesting that the spread of NE against the Giants would be the same as NE against SD this week, yet if SD and the Giants played in the SB SD would be favored by 4)

Any thoughts?
NE-SD game is being played in NE; Super Bowl is at a neutral site.
 
I've done pretty well this post season so far as I think a lot of the lines have been out of whack due to public perception. This week, I like San Diego. I know with the injuries all non-homers are thinking this should be a cake walk, but this is playoff football and no team is going to roll over and die. IF NE does cover this spread, I think it's on a very late score that puts the game out of reach. Also depending on if this new rumor that Rivers has a partially torn ACL is true or not, I think San Diego has a decent value on the ML, I believe they are around +600, which mathematically speaking you'd need to figure they have less than a 14.2% chance of winning this game. With Rivers and LT playing (along with Gates) I think they do, as I stated above, this is playoff football, San Diego is a very hot team (as hot as the Patriots over the last 8 weeks, if not hotter). The GB/NYG game is tough. I probably won't play a side, I think GB wins, but if it's over 7 that's a tough line to cover because they need 2 scores. At 6.5 I probably play small on GB. I think GB is just a better all around team. I'm leaning towards the over in this game, maybe teasing the over with GB.
Immediately following the games last week I thought NE would cover against SD, but then when I saw the line at 14.5, i backed away. I was thinking the line would be around 12. The line has now dropped to 13.5 so taking SD now would be with lost opportunity (maybe that doesn't matter, but it hurts a little)I had started a study 2 years ago about lines moving more than a point and which team covered more often. My data was lost in a computer crash, but I was reminded about this from another thread when someone suggested that games might be influenced by refs or the league to get good matchups. i don't want to start any conspiracy theory, but if heavy action was going on one side and the line moved by a few points, it is clear that the bookies would want the team where the points moved towards, to win the game. Therefore, seeing a trend on who won and covered in those spots would be interesting. in this case the bookies right now would want NE to win and cover.
It would be interesting to see that study. But my first thought is that a 1 pt move wouldn't be enough to make the bookies have a rooting interest on either side. This 13.5 to 14.5 line i think is right about where it should be for a bookies purpose, but the 1 pt move toward SD is very interesting considering how many people you hear say that San Diego is going to get blown out. And to move a line a full point means there was a signficant amount of lopsided betting going on San Diego. If the line drops any lower, then maybe the books will have a rooting interest towards NE covering. But IMO it would have to drop to 12.5 because for them to open up a 2 point middle like that (especially including 14) means that some serious cash is coming in on San Diego. As for them have having any influence on the outcome, I highly doubt it. They win most of the time anyway, and for most legitimate books (i.e. Vegas Casinos) so little of their income/loss is based on Sports Wagering that it would hardly be a blip on their screen. They make about 5% on every dollar wagered on sports (ATS) regardless of outcome.
 
I've done pretty well this post season so far as I think a lot of the lines have been out of whack due to public perception.

This week, I like San Diego. I know with the injuries all non-homers are thinking this should be a cake walk, but this is playoff football and no team is going to roll over and die. IF NE does cover this spread, I think it's on a very late score that puts the game out of reach. Also depending on if this new rumor that Rivers has a partially torn ACL is true or not, I think San Diego has a decent value on the ML, I believe they are around +600, which mathematically speaking you'd need to figure they have less than a 14.2% chance of winning this game. With Rivers and LT playing (along with Gates) I think they do, as I stated above, this is playoff football, San Diego is a very hot team (as hot as the Patriots over the last 8 weeks, if not hotter).

The GB/NYG game is tough. I probably won't play a side, I think GB wins, but if it's over 7 that's a tough line to cover because they need 2 scores. At 6.5 I probably play small on GB. I think GB is just a better all around team. I'm leaning towards the over in this game, maybe teasing the over with GB.
Immediately following the games last week I thought NE would cover against SD, but then when I saw the line at 14.5, i backed away. I was thinking the line would be around 12. The line has now dropped to 13.5 so taking SD now would be with lost opportunity (maybe that doesn't matter, but it hurts a little)I had started a study 2 years ago about lines moving more than a point and which team covered more often. My data was lost in a computer crash, but I was reminded about this from another thread when someone suggested that games might be influenced by refs or the league to get good matchups. i don't want to start any conspiracy theory, but if heavy action was going on one side and the line moved by a few points, it is clear that the bookies would want the team where the points moved towards, to win the game. Therefore, seeing a trend on who won and covered in those spots would be interesting. in this case the bookies right now would want NE to win and cover.
It would be interesting to see that study. But my first thought is that a 1 pt move wouldn't be enough to make the bookies have a rooting interest on either side. This 13.5 to 14.5 line i think is right about where it should be for a bookies purpose, but the 1 pt move toward SD is very interesting considering how many people you hear say that San Diego is going to get blown out. And to move a line a full point means there was a signficant amount of lopsided betting going on San Diego. If the line drops any lower, then maybe the books will have a rooting interest towards NE covering. But IMO it would have to drop to 12.5 because for them to open up a 2 point middle like that (especially including 14) means that some serious cash is coming in on San Diego. As for them have having any influence on the outcome, I highly doubt it. They win most of the time anyway, and for most legitimate books (i.e. Vegas Casinos) so little of their income/loss is based on Sports Wagering that it would hardly be a blip on their screen. They make about 5% on every dollar wagered on sports (ATS) regardless of outcome.
There's a significant overhead and opportunity cost that is rarely, if ever, overcome though in B&M books. Actual profit is much lower than the 5% quoted for them.
 
There's a significant overhead and opportunity cost that is rarely, if ever, overcome though in B&M books. Actual profit is much lower than the 5% quoted for them.
Very true, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word make, maybe 'Income before Expenses' would have been more appropriate. Even if the profit was 1% (or lower as long as it is above 0) they're best off having money bet equally on both side thus ensuring "garaunteed" money, rather than having it being lopsided and rooting for a specific outcome.That said, I question whether "significant" is accurate. Yes there is over head and yes there are opportunity costs, but most sportsbooks of the B&M that i've been too are very small and only take up a fraction of the casino's space. The opportunity cost comes from not having more profitable games in that spot instead (like Slots), however, you have to consider a lot of the casino's players enjoy sports and sports wagering and having it there also brings them into the consider for their more "lucrative" games. And additional "lucrative" games are only lucrative if they're being utilized. I know that a lot of casino's use Sports and Horse books to attract players who bring their significant others who "aren't" gamblers, so to kill the time the spend their time in front of a slot machine. Without the Sports and Horse book, they lose that.
 
This week we have NE giving 13.5 (the spread came out at 14.5)
Does this not create huge exposure for the books on a 14 pt middle? It could be another black Sunday for the house with all the early money on San Diego winning and all the late money on NE also winning.
That's what I was thinking. Vegas could get killed on the middle. Though my guess is they moved it down to 13.5 pretty early, didn't they?
 
This week we have NE giving 13.5 (the spread came out at 14.5)
Does this not create huge exposure for the books on a 14 pt middle? It could be another black Sunday for the house with all the early money on San Diego winning and all the late money on NE also winning.
Exposure yes...Huge is comparative, but I'd say no.14 Pts is the 5th Most Common Margin of Victory of the last 3 years. Here are the top 5:Margin Frequency 3: 0.163085938 -> read 16.3% 7: 0.0937510: 0.068359375 6: 0.05566406314: 0.051757813For Home teams 14 is still 5th but slightly less frequent (.04584)So if you say it has a 5% chance of occuring you happen to get SD +14.5, NE -13.5 you wager 110 on each, you at worst you lose $10, at best you win $200 (with NE winning by exactly 14). So you're getting about 20-1 on your money which is a little better than what the true odds are (you're getting paid for a bet that wins 4.76% on a bet that wins 5%)Edit to clean up number formats
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW the Super Bowl lines would be:

NE -13.5 vs the Giants

NE -10 against GB

GB -3.5 against SD

SD -4 against the Giants

(interesting that the spread of NE against the Giants would be the same as NE against SD this week, yet if SD and the Giants played in the SB SD would be favored by 4)

Any thoughts?
NE-SD game is being played in NE; Super Bowl is at a neutral site.
Yep, but usually that is considered a 3 point advantage...but your point is correct
 
I've done pretty well this post season so far as I think a lot of the lines have been out of whack due to public perception. This week, I like San Diego. I know with the injuries all non-homers are thinking this should be a cake walk, but this is playoff football and no team is going to roll over and die. IF NE does cover this spread, I think it's on a very late score that puts the game out of reach. Also depending on if this new rumor that Rivers has a partially torn ACL is true or not, I think San Diego has a decent value on the ML, I believe they are around +600, which mathematically speaking you'd need to figure they have less than a 14.2% chance of winning this game. With Rivers and LT playing (along with Gates) I think they do, as I stated above, this is playoff football, San Diego is a very hot team (as hot as the Patriots over the last 8 weeks, if not hotter). The GB/NYG game is tough. I probably won't play a side, I think GB wins, but if it's over 7 that's a tough line to cover because they need 2 scores. At 6.5 I probably play small on GB. I think GB is just a better all around team. I'm leaning towards the over in this game, maybe teasing the over with GB.
Immediately following the games last week I thought NE would cover against SD, but then when I saw the line at 14.5, i backed away. I was thinking the line would be around 12. The line has now dropped to 13.5 so taking SD now would be with lost opportunity (maybe that doesn't matter, but it hurts a little)I had started a study 2 years ago about lines moving more than a point and which team covered more often. My data was lost in a computer crash, but I was reminded about this from another thread when someone suggested that games might be influenced by refs or the league to get good matchups. i don't want to start any conspiracy theory, but if heavy action was going on one side and the line moved by a few points, it is clear that the bookies would want the team where the points moved towards, to win the game. Therefore, seeing a trend on who won and covered in those spots would be interesting. in this case the bookies right now would want NE to win and cover.
It would be interesting to see that study. But my first thought is that a 1 pt move wouldn't be enough to make the bookies have a rooting interest on either side. This 13.5 to 14.5 line i think is right about where it should be for a bookies purpose, but the 1 pt move toward SD is very interesting considering how many people you hear say that San Diego is going to get blown out. And to move a line a full point means there was a signficant amount of lopsided betting going on San Diego. If the line drops any lower, then maybe the books will have a rooting interest towards NE covering. But IMO it would have to drop to 12.5 because for them to open up a 2 point middle like that (especially including 14) means that some serious cash is coming in on San Diego. As for them have having any influence on the outcome, I highly doubt it. They win most of the time anyway, and for most legitimate books (i.e. Vegas Casinos) so little of their income/loss is based on Sports Wagering that it would hardly be a blip on their screen. They make about 5% on every dollar wagered on sports (ATS) regardless of outcome.
A one point move from 14.5 to 13.5 is significant. In fact the 14.5 - 14 move is about a 10% vig for betting purposes. I would agree that a one point move from 8-9 points is not that significant.
 
This week we have NE giving 13.5 (the spread came out at 14.5)
Does this not create huge exposure for the books on a 14 pt middle? It could be another black Sunday for the house with all the early money on San Diego winning and all the late money on NE also winning.
That's what I was thinking. Vegas could get killed on the middle. Though my guess is they moved it down to 13.5 pretty early, didn't they?
Yeah, but they only move it after heavy money came in on SD. It depends on where the money comes in at this point. If monet is still coming in on SD +13.5 then 14 won't hurt so bad
 
This week we have NE giving 13.5 (the spread came out at 14.5)
Does this not create huge exposure for the books on a 14 pt middle? It could be another black Sunday for the house with all the early money on San Diego winning and all the late money on NE also winning.
Exposure yes...Huge is comparative, but I'd say no.14 Pts is the 5th Most Common Margin of Victory of the last 3 years. Here are the top 5:Margin Frequency 3: 0.163085938 -> read 16.3% 7: 0.0937510: 0.068359375 6: 0.05566406314: 0.051757813For Home teams 14 is still 5th but slightly less frequent (.04584)So if you say it has a 5% chance of occuring you happen to get SD +14.5, NE -13.5 you wager 110 on each, you at worst you lose $10, at best you win $200 (with NE winning by exactly 14). So you're getting about 20-1 on your money which is a little better than what the true odds are (you're getting paid for a bet that wins 4.76% on a bet that wins 5%)Edit to clean up number formats
:shrug: I hadn't seen the stats of margin of victory. thsi helps doing the calculation for when you get two lines that are 2 points apart (or one in this case)
 
:lmao: I hadn't seen the stats of margin of victory. thsi helps doing the calculation for when you get two lines that are 2 points apart (or one in this case)
Yeah, I only started really looking at them this year. They are very useful if you intend on making your own lines and using the difference between your line and the books like to find value. For example, if you have team as a 2 pt favorite and the book has them as a 4 pt favorite you have a nice value because the gap include the 3 (which occurs 16% of the time) and it wouldn't be as good a value if you had a team as a 3.5 pt favorite and book a 5.5 favorite, even though it's still the same spread, it's a different value.
 
Tough lines this week. I like both home favorites, but the numbers are pretty big. SD benefits from wind, but with no Rivers who knows, plus Gates and LT2 are banged up.

The best bet is likely teasing both home favs, but even that isn't a mortal lock.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top