THE most shocking development... (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

I would have mentioned the Vikes scoring two defensive TDs, but who really expected anything else out of Little Joey?

 

[cobalt_27]

Had to be Detroit's stunning passing attack against the NFL's stingiest pass defense in Oakland. Completely came out of left field. Frankly, I doubt anybody could've seen this coming.

 

[grizz101]

Before I get to Brown, let me go over the others first.

Det:

I fully expected Detroit to win, as did most people.

Saints:

I admit I was surprised about the Saints inept offense, but even if they offense was decent they still would of lost IMO

Jackson getting shut down:

Carolina has a great defensive line. I didn't expect him to be shut down, but I didn't expect him to have a great game either.

Pats destory Jets:

Not shocking

scoreboard:

?

moving on:

Chris Brown I was just shocked. I actually expected him to have a good game, but I expected around 75 yards, I never expected 175 yards.

 

[Raider Nation]

scoreboard:?

As in neither defense showed up.... tons of points.

 

[1huskerfan]

Det:

I fully expected Detroit to win, as did most people.

Negative. If "most people" expected Detroit to win, Oakland would never have been a 3-point favorite in Vegas.As for that poll option, I assumed everyone would know I was joking.

Most gamblers is not most people. It doesn't even imply that most gamblers thought the Raiders would win.

 

[1huskerfan]

Det:

I fully expected Detroit to win, as did most people.

Negative. If "most people" expected Detroit to win, Oakland would never have been a 3-point favorite in Vegas.As for that poll option, I assumed everyone would know I was joking.

Most gamblers is not most people. It doesn't even imply that most gamblers thought the Raiders would win.

Oh, okay. So most non-gambling humans expected Detroit to win.That should be easy enough to prove.

Why on earth would I want to waste my time trying to prove that?

 

[1huskerfan]

Det:

I fully expected Detroit to win, as did most people.

Negative. If "most people" expected Detroit to win, Oakland would never have been a 3-point favorite in Vegas.As for that poll option, I assumed everyone would know I was joking.

Most gamblers is not most people. It doesn't even imply that most gamblers thought the Raiders would win.

Oh, okay. So most non-gambling humans expected Detroit to win.That should be easy enough to prove.

Why on earth would I want to waste my time trying to prove that?

It was sarcasm. You can't "prove" something about which you're incorrect.

And I am sure you can prove that I am incorrect.

 

[Brother Mouzone]

Lighten up....

I was actually most surprised when Caddilac Williams got injured....

 

[hephner]

I voted for Other, although Brown is a great call too. Here were the surprises I saw:

Sammy Morris seeing so much action. Yes, I expected a split of some sort, and Maroney still got the majority of the carries, but I was surprised to see Maroney on the sidelines as much as he was.

How about Jerious Norwood only getting 5 carries to Dunn's 22!?! Two weeks ago, everyone had written off Dunn, doubtful he'd even be ready for the season. Now this. Of course, Dunn's 2.5 ypc doesn't exactly inspire confidence, but still, quite a surprise he saw over 80% of the split between the two.

Randy Moss going off against the Jets. I was skeptical about whether or not he would even play a week or so ago, let alone be the go-to guy, plus running right past 3 defenders on that one TD. Maybe he's still not quite the Moss of old, but he looked darn close.

Jacksonville's pass to rush ratio. For a team built around their running game, and with two very solid RBs, I was quite surprised they only called on them 13 times, compared to their 30 passing attempts. All this while either leading, or being down by a margin of only 3 points.

Antwaan Randle-El being Campbell's go-to-guy. He had more catches than S. Moss and Cooley combined.

Some of the concensus stud guys getting virtually shut down. LT with just 25 yards rushing (although he did have a rushing and passing TD); S-Jax managing just 58 yards, one catch for 3 yards, with two fumbles lost; and LJ netting just 43 rushing yards against the Texans.

 

[Raider Nation]

How about Jerious Norwood only getting 5 carries to Dunn's 22!?! Two weeks ago, everyone had written off Dunn, doubtful he'd even be ready for the season.

Yep... unreal.

 

[datonn]

How about the Chicago Bears holding sole possession of last place in the NFC North?!

It obviously won't last, but it sure will be fun looking at the standings in the paper over the next week.... :horns:

 

[1huskerfan]

Det:

I fully expected Detroit to win, as did most people.

Negative. If "most people" expected Detroit to win, Oakland would never have been a 3-point favorite in Vegas.As for that poll option, I assumed everyone would know I was joking.

Most gamblers is not most people. It doesn't even imply that most gamblers thought the Raiders would win.

Oh, okay. So most non-gambling humans expected Detroit to win.That should be easy enough to prove.

Why on earth would I want to waste my time trying to prove that?

It was sarcasm. You can't "prove" something about which you're incorrect.

And I am sure you can prove that I am incorrect.

I don't need to prove anything. The Raiders were favored."Most people" are human. Gamblers, oddly enough, are made up primarily of humans.

Oakland would never have been favored if Vegas KNEW that "most people" thought Detroit would win.

I can type slower if it will help.

YOu are just showing how little you know about book making. Vegas doesn't care what most people think, they only care what the gambling community thinks, and more specifically, how the gambling community acts. They don't give a rats ### if 90% of the general public thinks a given team is going to win, as long as the money from the active gambling community is coming down on evenly on both sides of the line. Which still doesn't imply that the majority of the gambling community thought the Raiders would cover. It only implies that the money was equal on both sides. Drawing inferences on the entire population from the actions of a relative handful of gambling degenerates will lead you to the wrong conclusion more often than not.

 

[packersfan]

Had to be Detroit's stunning passing attack against the NFL's stingiest pass defense in Oakland. Completely came out of left field. Frankly, I doubt anybody could've seen this coming.

Really? I thought it was easy to see. The Lions had the seventh-ranked passing attack in the league last season, added more talent to the offense and Lord knows Martz isn't shy about passing on anybody. I've always wondered why people automatically give the advantage to the defense when you have a good defense facing a good offense. Why shouldn't the offense get the nod? I thought the Lions were going to win this game and put up good passing numbers and I have the cash from Vegas to prove it. To me, the biggest shock was Deion Branch getting shut out by a suspect Tampa Bay defense. The flanker in a Holmgren offense getting no receptions and only 3 targets was a stunner. I also didn't expect to see Steven Jackson put up pedestrian numbers against the Panthers or Larry Johnson look ordinary against the Texans (at least he saved his owners in PPR leagues with 7 receptions).

 

[Raider Nation]

Det:

I fully expected Detroit to win, as did most people.

Negative. If "most people" expected Detroit to win, Oakland would never have been a 3-point favorite in Vegas.As for that poll option, I assumed everyone would know I was joking.

Most gamblers is not most people. It doesn't even imply that most gamblers thought the Raiders would win.

Oh, okay. So most non-gambling humans expected Detroit to win.That should be easy enough to prove.

Why on earth would I want to waste my time trying to prove that?

It was sarcasm. You can't "prove" something about which you're incorrect.

And I am sure you can prove that I am incorrect.

I don't need to prove anything. The Raiders were favored."Most people" are human. Gamblers, oddly enough, are made up primarily of humans.

Oakland would never have been favored if Vegas KNEW that "most people" thought Detroit would win.

I can type slower if it will help.

YOu are just showing how little you know about book making. Vegas doesn't care what most people think, they only care what the gambling community thinks, and more specifically, how the gambling community acts. They don't give a rats ### if 90% of the general public thinks a given team is going to win, as long as the money from the active gambling community is coming down on evenly on both sides of the line. Which still doesn't imply that the majority of the gambling community thought the Raiders would cover. It only implies that the money was equal on both sides. Drawing inferences on the entire population from the actions of a relative handful of gambling degenerates will lead you to the wrong conclusion more often than not.

Wrong. Again.

When the Stardust hangs their opening numbers, we are viewing Joe Lupo (the sportsbook director) and his staff's opinion. Conventional wisdom posits that lines are set to create equal action on both sides, thus ensuring a small profit for the books (4.54% or $10 on every $220 wagered). In reality, this does not happen more often than not. Thus equal action is mostly a myth. In fact, there are several other possibilities besides equal action that the books are trying to achieve with their opening numbers (all examples used relate to football).

Book wants to limit action on the game - opening number makes it virtually unbettable for either side. For example, two low scoring teams outdoors in November and the total opens at 33 - no way to take the over, but the under is too low to take either.

Book feels that this is a game that they can win money - line is positioned to draw one way action - the wrong way (also called a 'trap' line). For example, the Jan 1, 2000 Cotton Bowl, where Texas opened a 6.5 point favorite over Arkansas, and was bet up to -8 (extreme one way action) resulted in a 21 point outright win for the underdog.

http://online.askthebookie.com/newsFeedCon...he+Opening+Line