Given the recent news about sportsbooks taking NFC North bets off the board, what's your best guess on the percent chance Rodgers is the Week 1 starter in GB this year?
Very different for a QB and a RB.Would have voted 90-100% if an option.
If the Packers are open to trading him, why wait until now (or later), when June 1 was the date that allowed them to shift a substantial portion of the dead cap hit into 2022? Seems like it would have been more valuable to the acquiring team to have gotten him before training camp started.
Despite his posturing, if the Packers don't trade him, I can't believe Rodgers would sit out. His number of years remaining to play competitive football are dwindling, and the Packers were very close last season. Plus, while he may not truly need the money, sacrificing $21.5M (his scheduled cash payout in 2021) plus any portion of his bonuses the team would try to reclaim plus incurring substantial fines is not something we see players do very often. I guess Bell did it, and Gordon did it to a lesser extent, and it was clearly a mistake for both of them.
Can you elaborate in detail what you mean here? Thanks.75-100. This sports book nonsense is no doubt someone/group trying to get beneficial over-under win total to bet on.
I’m generally a cynic on huge moves at a sports book. I have no detail, but find it highly unlikely a sports book would have ‘news’ sufficient to drive pulling W/L line off the board. Occam’s razor leads me to think it was planted to lower the line.Can you elaborate in detail what you mean here? Thanks.
Interesting.I’m generally a cynic on huge moves at a sports book. I have no detail, but find it highly unlikely a sports book would have ‘news’ sufficient to drive pulling W/L line off the board. Occam’s razor leads me to think it was planted to lower the line.
Books have the best information in the world. This is not just some schmuck calling this in in order to get a good bet placed. They would never take those odds down and then leave them down unless they have a good reason to do so.75-100. This sports book nonsense is no doubt someone/group trying to get beneficial over-under win total to bet on.
I understood they pulled the bet off the board entirely. Doing that instead of lowering/leaving available is not a vote in confidence on the number, JMHO.Books have the best information in the world. This is not just some schmuck calling this in in order to get a good bet placed. They would never take those odds down and then leave them down unless they have a good reason to do so.
What are they right about if the bet is off the board?I totally agree. Vegas could be wrong but in my experience they are more right than wrong. The money involved is crazy money so you better know what your doing.
I’d think it would be about not losing $ on the “under” type bets.What are they right about if the bet is off the board?
People not hammering the under on wins and the Vikings and Bears giant + bets to win the division.What are they right about if the bet is off the board?
I thought only the Pack W/L was off the board. Can’t people still hammer the bets you mention? If so, wouldn’t lines adjust to account for that? I’m admittedly ignorant about gambling. Just seems like the true sign of real info is a lowered W/L and leaving the line on the board.People not hammering the under on wins and the Vikings and Bears giant + bets to win the division.
My understanding was no futures bets on the North were currently posted. I could be wrong but that was what was originally reported.I thought only the Pack W/L was off the board. Can’t people still hammer the bets you mention? If so, wouldn’t lines adjust to account for that? I’m admittedly ignorant about gambling. Just seems like the true sign of real info is a lowered W/L and leaving the line on the board.
Well, the latest news shows that I have no idea what I’m talking about.I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread, but…..Personally, I get the impression that Rodgers is set on not playing for the Packers and this is just more confirmation of that. I would say 25% chance he is on the field week 1 for the Packers.
And now the four options are almost identical. Nothing lower than 24% and nothing higher than 27%.Pip's Invitation said:Zero consensus from the SP on this topic. After 68 votes, no option has more than 30% or less than 19%.
Wisdom of the Crowd (tm)And now the four options are almost identical. Nothing lower than 24% and nothing higher than 27%.