Vegas running scared??????

[DaBruinz]

Was talking to my brother today and I didn't realize that many books in Vegas have pulled their lines on the Pats /Eagles game.

Has this ever happeed before to anyone's knowledge?
​

 

[[email protected]]

There was an article in the herald on this today. One of the off-shore sites said they are getting killed by the pats and this weeks like will be the second highest to the Steelers-Bucs 1976. Said they will not pull the games from the board but the money is running 65% towards the pats no matter what the line is.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

If by "lines" you mean straight-up winners, then, yes, you're correct. [As I posted in another thread, the best odds you can get for Pats beating Eagles is 1-25. Yes--to win $100, you have to risk $2500.]

If you mean against the spread, then, by and large, they haven't (yet).

 

[JoePats]

Well they don't know if McNabb is playing, so yes.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Was talking to my brother today and I didn't realize that many books in Vegas have pulled their lines on the Pats /Eagles game.

Has this ever happeed before to anyone's knowledge?
​

Another interesting fact--Accuscore.com now has the Pats winning 97.5% of their simulations, with an average score of 37.5-12.9. Even the Dolphins and the Bills had chances of 5-7%.

 

[letekro]

Can someone, anyone, please explain why Vegas would ever take a point spread wager off the board?????? Why can't they just steadily raise it until they have equal money on both sides? I know I'm missing something here, but I just can't put it together.

 

[ALP]

they dont wanna look like idiots by raising the spread to like 30 points, LOL or higher

 

[Satchboogie3]

According to Accuscore, we have a 66.6% chance to run the table during the regular season. Interestingly too, they give us a 0.5% chance of winning 13 or less games.

 

[ALP]

According to Accuscore, we have a 66.6% chance to run the table during the regular season. Interestingly too, they give us a 0.5% chance of winning 13 or less games.

just to understand u,

u mean they give the pats a 99.5% chance of winning at least 13 games? LOL

 

[BelichickFan]

Interestingly too, they give us a 0.5% chance of winning 13 or less games.

just to understand u,

u mean they give the pats a 99.5% chance of winning at least 13 games? LOL

That would be a 99.5% chance of winning at least 14 games (enough to guarantee HF throughout btw) if there's a 0.5% chance of winning 13 or less.

 

[PATRIOT64]

Patriots -35 vs. Dolphins
Patriots - 30 vs. Jets

Bank on 30+ spreads in both games

 

[FrontSeven]

Can someone, anyone, please explain why Vegas would ever take a point spread wager off the board?????? Why can't they just steadily raise it until they have equal money on both sides? I know I'm missing something here, but I just can't put it together.

They can (and will) raise the line if they have to. I think they are learning as they go, and they are having trouble adjusting. I think the public's reaction is surprising them and they are in uncharted waters. Some may be getting their asses handed to them, and not have the stomach for the remedy.

They are already speculating about a 27 point spread against the Jets, and that is just ridiculous. One turnover and that goes down the tubes.

Well, maybe not. That's how weird this is.

 

[FrontSeven]

Patriots -35 vs. Dolphins
Patriots - 30 vs. Jets

Bank on 30+ spreads in both games

If that's true then that goes to show you how desperate they are to force money the other way. It's ridiculous. Nobody in America believes in the dog no matter how many points you give them. I'll bet they could give 40 and people would still snap up giving the points.

It's insane. We're witnessing mass insanity except that the insane asylum is beating the crap out of the sane asylum. Wow.

But one day it will turn around ......... I'm guessing around 2012.

 

[godef]

According to Accuscore, we have a 66.6% chance to run the table during the regular season. Interestingly too, they give us a 0.5% chance of winning 13 or less games.

Thats 1/2 of 1 percent, not 50 percent.

 

[ALP]

That would be a 99.5% chance of winning at least 14 games (enough to guarantee HF throughout btw) if there's a 0.5% chance of winning 13 or less.

haha, that would tie the AFC lead wouldnt it? thats funny


also, i would LOVE to see a 30 pt line.....and a 35pt line against the Jets...

 

[BelichickFan]

That would be a 99.5% chance of winning at least 14 games (enough to guarantee HF throughout btw) if there's a 0.5% chance of winning 13 or less.

haha, that would tie the AFC lead wouldnt it?

Yeah, 14-2 locks us in as only the Colts can also get there and we have the tiebreak over them.

 

[maseda17]

If by "lines" you mean straight-up winners, then, yes, you're correct. [As I posted in another thread, the best odds you can get for Pats beating Eagles is 1-25. Yes--to win $100, you have to risk $2500.]

If you mean against the spread, then, by and large, they haven't (yet).

Well you can't really get a money-line for the Patriots in these games. That risk is well worth the reward when you are talking hundred of thousands of dollars or even millions.

 

[VJCPatriot]

They can (and will) raise the line if they have to. I think they are learning as they go, and they are having trouble adjusting. I think the public's reaction is surprising them and they are in uncharted waters. Some may be getting their asses handed to them, and not have the stomach for the remedy.

They are already speculating about a 27 point spread against the Jets, and that is just ridiculous. One turnover and that goes down the tubes.

Well, maybe not. That's how weird this is.

Nothing insane about it. The Pats have covered the spread 9 out of 10 times. The Pats are just steamrolling everyone this year. Smart money now bets on the Pats. Unfortunately for Vegas, this loses money for them because everyone has realized that it is dumb to bet AGAINST the Pats.

 

[QuiGon]

Can someone, anyone, please explain why Vegas would ever take a point spread wager off the board?????? Why can't they just steadily raise it until they have equal money on both sides? I know I'm missing something here, but I just can't put it together.

There are an awful lot of people in here who don't really have a thorough grasp on how Vegas sportsbooks operate. By an amazing coincidence, these are the same people who are always telling you they have a "brother" or "cousin" or "friend of a friend" who works/owns/manages a sportsbook in Vegas.

Fact is they do steadily raise the line until there is roughly equal action on both sides, hence the week's record-breaking line against Philly. The only reason this game is off the boards at some places is because of the questionable status of Philly's starting QB.

 

[BelichickFan]

There are an awful lot of people in here who don't really have a thorough grasp on how Vegas sportsbooks operate. By an amazing coincidence, these are the same people who are always telling you they have a "brother" or "cousin" or "friend of a friend" who works/owns/manages a sportsbook in Vegas.

Fact is they do steadily raise the line until there is roughly equal action on both sides

Generally that's true - but they DO sometimes try to get the money on the losing side if they're confident in the result and can get the money on the side they want (the side they expect to lose). There's more risk but a heck of a lot better payoff then getting bets equal on both sides. On the average game, you are right - but not on all games; there's way too much money to be had in winning the bet than in just being a facilitator in the betting process.