Early Line - Houston At New England

[BananaRepublican]

That's way too high. The Pats are the clear favorite, and they're capable of blowing alot of teams out the water but let's not lose sight that this is a battle of 2 12-4 teams.

It's about encouraging Texans money to flow. They can be wiped out by too much NE money (or Texans money for that matter).

Lines get set by what the bookmakers think the betting public will accept to split the money like 51-49%. If that fails they will move the line. Doesn't matter how ridiculous the spread is - they will move it to avoid a possible catastrophe.

The line normally gets back to reflecting sound football but not always. And the bookies don't care. They have one thing on their minds and it's green.

 

[goheels22002]

I think it is a little high, but I wouldn't be surprised if it goes up during the week. I am sure the Texans didn't give betters any confidence in them after tonight's performance.

Matt Schaub is a stiff and the Patriots figured out how to neutralize JJ Watt. Give the points.

 

[BananaRepublican]

Sure hope our guys are taking the Texans a lot more seriously than most of us are.

You're wondering this about a Bill Belichick team in the playoffs with Brady breathing 10 foot flames from his nostrils all week?

 

[NewFeep]

Well, I am taking the Texans seriously and I am sure the Patriots will too. If both teams bring their A game the Patriots should beat them by more than a touchdown. 31 to 20, 21 that sorta deal but that's why we play the games right? I'm sure by game day the spread will be right around 7. Plus or minus a point either way......

I don't believe in jinxs, mojo, or Andrew Luck!

 

[BananaRepublican]

Matt Schaub is a stiff and the Patriots figured out how to neutralize JJ Watt. Give the points.

Schaub really isn't very impressive. Since he can't do diddly without a big day from Foster and the Pats pretty much know what to expect from Foster, errr, I just don't see Houston having any shot whatsoever.

Well, except lighting in a bottle, seven fumbles, Brady getting distracted by a girl in the stands, laughing gas disabling the defense, etc.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Betcha BB is going to roll out film of that regular season beat down the Patriots gave the Jets a few years back only to loss to the same team at home in the playoffs a few weeks later.
Be good to remind this team that yesterday means nothing in the playoffs.

Like where this team is right now. Like how they responded after that ugly pajama party in Jacksonville.
They're rested, pretty healthy and ready to go.

 

[Ring 6]

i would never take -10 in the playoffs

There is a popular NFL betting theory that says just pick the winner in the playoffs, and you will win big. Of course that includes upsets, but there is also a history of favorites covering, even the largest spreads. (Esp the home team after a bye)
I think the logic is that when its all or nothing late in the game the trailing team makes more mistakes and the margin widens.

 

[Ring 6]

Schaub really isn't very impressive. Since he can't do diddly without a big day from Foster and the Pats pretty much know what to expect from Foster, errr, I just don't see Houston having any shot whatsoever.

Well, except lighting in a bottle, seven fumbles, Brady getting distracted by a girl in the stands, laughing gas disabling the defense, etc.

Foster took a pounding today with almost 40 touches.

 

[dizi24]

It's about encouraging Texans money to flow. They can be wiped out by too much NE money (or Texans money for that matter).

Lines get set by what the bookmakers think the betting public will accept to split the money like 51-49%. If that fails they will move the line. Doesn't matter how ridiculous the spread is - they will move it to avoid a possible catastrophe.

The line normally gets back to reflecting sound football but not always. And the bookies don't care. They have one thing on their minds and it's green.

This is often repeated and only partially true at best. Line makers also know if they can set a line where 90% of the public bets on one side and loses, they'll make even more money. Line moves occasionally happen to encourage betting on one team, even when the public is heavily on that teams side. A good example was the 2007 Super Bowl when the line was -14, and even when 80% were on the Giants, most sports books didnt move the line (and they lost a ton of money that year).

If its -10, Vegas seems pretty confident the Pats will cover a pretty big lead.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

It's about encouraging Texans money to flow. They can be wiped out by too much NE money (or Texans money for that matter).

Lines get set by what the bookmakers think the betting public will accept to split the money like 51-49%. If that fails they will move the line. Doesn't matter how ridiculous the spread is - they will move it to avoid a possible catastrophe.

The line normally gets back to reflecting sound football but not always. And the bookies don't care. They have one thing on their minds and it's green.

Exactly. People place a 'this is who should win by this much' faith in the Vegas spread. That is not what it is per se. It is a convergence of the expected winner as well as who people think should win/how much money is wagered on one team.

Given the Patriots home field record, their playoff record, Houston's lack of extensive playoff experience, the Patriots undeniable ability to score (approx 40 points from the all time scoring record), the Patriots getting healthy just at the right time.......being a point or two above one score at home over a Houston team that has struggled for over a month (including today - somewhat) is not outlandish. However, that kind of spread over a Sept - Nov Houston team would be outlandish.
Unfortunately a spread does not guarantee a win this Sunday

 

[Ring 6]

This is often repeated and only partially true at best. Line makers also know if they can set a line where 90% of the public bets on one side and loses, they'll make even more money. Line moves occasionally happen to encourage betting on one team, even when the public is heavily on that teams side. A good example was the 2007 Super Bowl when the line was -14, and even when 80% were on the Giants, most sports books didnt move the line (and they lost a ton of money that year).

If its -10, Vegas seems pretty confident the Pats will cover a pretty big lead.

That simply is not true. Vegas does not try to beat the bettors. They try to even the money, because then they collect the vig with no risk.
There is no way in the world Vegas is going to risk 90% of the money on one side. The gambler assumes the risk, the house makes a little chunk of everything that is bet without risk. Thats how those expensive builidings got built.

 

[Haley]

That simply is not true. Vegas does not try to beat the bettors. They try to even the money, because then they collect the vig with no risk.
There is no way in the world Vegas is going to risk 90% of the money on one side. The gambler assumes the risk, the house makes a little chunk of everything that is bet without risk. Thats how those expensive builidings got built.

I was thinking the same thing. I always assumed the Vegas betting was not fixed by the house because they make money either way as long as the bets are even. Sort of like how the stock market works. Maybe I'm just naive, but it always seemed like better business that way.

 

[neuronet]

Will be a tough game, their defense was very good and hurried, knocked down Brady many times in the first game, it was a matter of hundreds of milliseconds between sack and getting pass off. Our O-line will need to step up their game big time, don't expect another blowout!

 

[Ring 6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

That simply is not true. Vegas does not try to beat the bettors. They try to even the money, because then they collect the vig with no risk.
There is no way in the world Vegas is going to risk 90% of the money on one side. The gambler assumes the risk, the house makes a little chunk of everything that is bet without risk. Thats how those expensive builidings got built.

I was thinking the same thing. I always assumed the Vegas betting was not fixed by the house because they make money either way as long as the bets are even. Sort of like how the stock market works. Maybe I'm just naive, but it always seemed like better business that way.

They keep 10% of the bet (roughly) they have no need to try to guess who will win. they aren't in the business of making bets, they are in the business of charging people for the right to bet.


Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android

 

[cmasspatsfan]

They keep 10% of the bet (roughly) they have no need to try to guess who will win. they aren't in the business of making bets, they are in the business of charging people for the right to bet.


Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android

Exactly, if theres too much bet on one side they move the line to balance the money out.

 

[denverpatsfan]

If the Pats had the Bengals defense they would win the Super Bowl. Take the points.

My bookie doesn't even have next weekends lines up yet, btw.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

so far i am 2/4 this weekend...2 more wins and i win a few hundred $$


But no way i am picking pats at -9 or 10 next week

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It's about encouraging Texans money to flow. They can be wiped out by too much NE money (or Texans money for that matter).

Lines get set by what the bookmakers think the betting public will accept to split the money like 51-49%. If that fails they will move the line. Doesn't matter how ridiculous the spread is - they will move it to avoid a possible catastrophe.

Well, the ones that the Patriots didn't wipe out back in 2007. :singing:

 

[dizi24]

That simply is not true. Vegas does not try to beat the bettors. They try to even the money, because then they collect the vig with no risk.
There is no way in the world Vegas is going to risk 90% of the money on one side. The gambler assumes the risk, the house makes a little chunk of everything that is bet without risk. Thats how those expensive builidings got built.

Again, everyone says this, but if you watch money flows and line movements, you can tell this isn't true. Early in the season is a classic example. You'll often see a team at -7 get like 75% of the money, and then the line moves to -6 and even more money comes in on them.

It's not really that rare to see 95% of the money on one team, and Vegas doing nothing, or only making small adjustments.

 

[Ring 6]

Again, everyone says this, but if you watch money flows and line movements, you can tell this isn't true. Early in the season is a classic example. You'll often see a team at -7 get like 75% of the money, and then the line moves to -6 and even more money comes in on them.

It's not really that rare to see 95% of the money on one team, and Vegas doing nothing, or only making small adjustments.

Everyone says it because it is true. There is never 95% of the money on one side.