Vegas befuddled on Pats/Eagles betting line

[makewayhomer]

Isn't that what he just said?

no, I think he was saying that the line wouldn't be made until the status of McNabb was known.

I was saying that lines are always made before the injury situation is known

and as somebody already said, the Hilton came out with the line

 

[QuiGon]

this isn't true, lines are always made with injuries in question

Not when the "injury in question" is a starting QB.

 

[QuiGon]

I'm not sure they'll take any more bets on the Patriots this year. They are getting killed on them.

No, they're not. They're making as much money on Patriots games as they are on other games. Vegas sportsbooks are nothing but glorified middlemen. The only people "getting killed" are those betting against New England.

 

[QuiGon]

McNabb's major problem is that like Brady last season, he has almost no tools. The receivers are poor, the Offense is entirely on one small HB to both catch and provide a run game. When McNabb had the tools he was good; if he had them again, he would be good again.

McNabb sucks and is one of the most overrated athletes in the game... the Eagles were something like 5-6 last year and then McNabb got injured and they went 5-0 to finish the season, and won a playoff game. So don't give me that "he needs his tools" bullcrap.

As a Patriots fan, I hope McNabb plays. Not that it will make any difference either way.

 

[Oswlek]

this isn't true, lines are always made with injuries in question

Not at all. I have seen numerous times just this year where the waited for the status of a player before setting a line.

 

[makewayhomer]

No, they're not. They're making as much money on Patriots games as they are on other games. Vegas sportsbooks are nothing but glorified middlemen. The only people "getting killed" are those betting against New England.

that's a bit of a misconception. local bookies, who takes bets from Pats homers, have gotten crushed by the Pats record of 9-1 ATS this year

 

[makewayhomer]

Not at all. I have seen numerous times just this year where the waited for the status of a player before setting a line.

how could this be true when various injuries are gametime decisions?

by Wednesday, every game will have a line, I guarantee it

 

[Oswlek]

how could this be true when various injuries are gametime decisions?

by Wednesday, every game will have a line, I guarantee it

Wednesday they have the first injury report, so that isn't that big of a stretch. But it is hardly a surprise that a line would hold off due to clarrification of the QB's injury status. It happens far more than your posts seem to convey.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

McNabb's major problem is that like Brady last season, he has almost no tools. The receivers are poor, the Offense is entirely on one small HB to both catch and provide a run game. When McNabb had the tools he was good; if he had them again, he would be good again.

Uh, not really. As one poster noted, Garcia did pretty well last year with the same tools. When his first read isn't open, he checks down and dumps off to Westbrook letting him do the rest. That's why his completion percentage may be high but his YPA isn't. Put a spy on Westbrook and you shut down the offense.

 

[SoCal Bong]

how could this be true when various injuries are gametime decisions?

by Wednesday, every game will have a line, I guarantee it

Games can be put up and then taken off the board at anytime for injuries, suspensions, weather, personnel decisions, etc. Your guarantee is not 100%. I'm sure there have already been weeks this season where a game was not on the board at a MAJOR sportsbook on Wednesday.

Now if you are just saying that Vinny around the block will take action on anything anytime that's different, but that's not really saying anything either.

 

[TeamPats]

No, they're not. They're making as much money on Patriots games as they are on other games. Vegas sportsbooks are nothing but glorified middlemen. The only people "getting killed" are those betting against New England.

I'm not so sure this is the case, while it is the objective to get 50% of bets on each side of the line, this is rarely the case. The hope is that across all games it ends up being 50/50 winners and losers of course. But the best teams in the league often receive the most action and when one of them starts the season 8-0 against the spread methinks that upwards to 80% were betting for the Pats to cover towards the end of that stretch. Obviously this is when spreads are adjusted throughout the week to counter this but you would really need to push these Patriot's spreads to see any swing in bets.

 

[CountChocula]

Can anyone please explain the irrational hatred of McNabb that Philly fans and others seem to have. Clearly, he will never be a Manning or Brady, but he has consistently been one of the top 6 or 7 QB's in the league when healthy.

I understand he has had a problem staying healthy, but is there something more to it? I know the Philly fans booed him lustily at the Draft, have they never gotten over that?

Philly fans turned on him when he played the race card earlier this season to explain the criticism from the media and others for his poor play.

 

[QuiGon]

that's a bit of a misconception. local bookies, who takes bets from Pats homers, have gotten crushed by the Pats record of 9-1 ATS this year

Well a local bookie, if he has an ounce of brains to him, is going to call up the one-sided wagers he receives. So some Boston-based guy that gets $100k of action on the Pats against $5k on the Bills is probably going to phone in a bet to cover his play.

 

[ALP]

Actually, Vegas rather frequently will hold a line until they get a better idea the status of a key player like McNabb. Whether McNabb has a chance to play vs. no chance at all can move the line 4-5 points.

well, then the line should be smaller if mcnabb DOESNT play...

i think kolb can do better....

 

[makewayhomer]

Well a local bookie, if he has an ounce of brains to him, is going to call up the one-sided wagers he receives. So some Boston-based guy that gets $100k of action on the Pats against $5k on the Bills is probably going to phone in a bet to cover his play.

ok, but how is phoning in THEIR plays?

 

[QuiGon]

I'm not so sure this is the case, while it is the objective to get 50% of bets on each side of the line, this is rarely the case. The hope is that across all games it ends up being 50/50 winners and losers of course.

Well, you're never going to get exactly 50%, but as long as roughly 48% - 52% of the action is on one team, the bookies will make a profit.

But the best teams in the league often receive the most action and when one of them starts the season 8-0 against the spread methinks that upwards to 80% were betting for the Pats to cover towards the end of that stretch.

This was discussed last week. It just ain't true. The sportsbooks don't gamble. If 80% of the action was on one team, the line would shift dramatically. They set the line in whatever way gets as reasonably close to 50/50 action. And that's when when the spread is first released, the books will only take limited action in order to "judge the market".

 

[fester]

What do you guys think the line will be for Pats v. Jets, and would it be that unreasonably of a combo bet to take an over of 75 and Pats by 30 on a flier for that game

 

[fester]

that's a bit of a misconception. local bookies, who takes bets from Pats homers, have gotten crushed by the Pats record of 9-1 ATS this year

If I remember a Globe article from 2002 correctly, local bookies in one team's market have informal arrangements with other bookies in other teams' markets to swap bets. For instance Pats bookies might swing some of the local pro-Pats homer bets down to Philly next week and take the risk/responsibility for an equivilant value of pro-Eagles homer bets hoping to cover the spread. This is not a perfect hedge, but it allows for a significant diversification of downside risk for the bookies.

 

[mgcolby]

Well, you're never going to get exactly 50%, but as long as roughly 48% - 52% of the action is on one team, the bookies will make a profit.
This was discussed last week. It just ain't true. The sportsbooks don't gamble. If 80% of the action was on one team, the line would shift dramatically. They set the line in whatever way gets as reasonably close to 50/50 action. And that's when when the spread is first released, the books will only take limited action in order to "judge the market".

It was discussed last week and despite what I said or showed you, you chose to believe your opinion. But don't listen to me, hear what Vegas has to say:

“You just don’t see these kind of numbers in the NFL,” said John Avello, who runs the sports book at the Wynn Las Vegas, where the Patriots are 16-point favorites over a team playing at home that has won four straight games.
It’s pretty much the same story all around town, where oddsmakers scramble each week to put out a number that will somehow entice people to bet on whoever the Patriots are playing.
So far they haven’t been very successful, and the books have taken a beating as money keeps rolling in on New England and the Patriots keep covering the ever-growing spreads.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21775365/

They try to get near 50% on the majority of games, but it isn't practical in every situation. And their are times just like Thursday night (Oregon vs Arizona) where the bookie entices money on the team they think will lose (Oregon). But again don't listen to me:

MORE ON DIXON INJURY
In response to our item regarding the dangers posed by allowing NFL and college coaches to be less than truthful about a player's injury status, a tipster tells us that at least one member of the Oregon athletics department was privately saying that Dixon spent a lot of time with the trainers in the days leading to Thursday night's game against Arizona, even as coach Mike Bellotti was putting out false information about the status of Dixon, who tore an ACL on November 3 against Arizona State.
Sure enough, the betting line was moving toward Arizona, even as more and more folks were taking Oregon.
Clearly, the boys in Vegas knew that Dixon wasn't as healthy as advertised, and they enticed more money to be bet on Oregon by reducing the point spread.​

​

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

and for good measure:

"With the Patriots, we have not been able to get an accurate line," said Bob Scucci, race and sportsbook manager for Boyd Gaming, which operates eight casinos in Las Vegas. "No matter how high we set the line, people are still betting on the Patriots, and the Patriots are still covering."



Oddsmakers said setting the line on Patriots games is especially hard because the team has continued to score even after the game is in hand. Historically, teams rarely cover a large point spread by more than a touchdown because they run out the clock once they secure a comfortable lead.



"From a bookmaker's perspective, it's been depressing," said Robert Walker, race and sports director at the Mirage casino. "I can't ever remember it being so costly to us."



Casinos said betting on the Patriots has increased in the last few weeks, even as point spreads have grown larger. Out of every 10 bets, nine are on the Patriots.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps...71031/SPORTS/110310086/1005&template=nextpage

Robert Walker sounded like any defensive coordinator who has had the misfortune of trying to stop Tom Brady and the Patriots’ offense in 2007:

“They’re killing us.”

Walker isn’t a coach — he’s the sports book director for the MGM Mirage casinos. Nonetheless, he knows what it’s like to try to play defense against New England.

In every game this season, bookmakers have installed the Patriots as a pointspread favorite. Every time, the Patriots have covered. And they have usually covered comfortably. In six of the Patriots’ first eight wins of the season, the Patriots exceeded the spread by at least 13½ points.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFL/AFC/AFC+East/New+England/Features/2007/patriots2217.htm



Vegas disagrees with you.

 

[3RINGS@COUNTING]

football locks.com has the line set at 21