Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by carolinatony, Dec 29, 2009.
I would take the Pats and the points if I was a gambling man.
Undoubtedly because they expect Hoyer to play the second half. I think Brady will play a good amount but I wouldn't touch that one.
i think the pats are going to play to "win the game." only bb knows, but i wouldn't be surprised if the first team played well into the third quarter.
It's simply a reflection of one team having everything to play for, and the other team looking ahead to the following week. The Jets are ten point favorites over the Bengals too. Apparently Vegas thinks there's a good chance that many key Patriot and Bengal players will see little to no action on Sunday.
I expect Houston to win the game convincingly if the Patriots starters play little to nothing. Maybe, the Texas win by two or three touchdowns.
Houston needs this win. It cheapens the victory, but Houston will take.
I see us (the Texans) somehow letting your second-teamers tear us apart. We're a helluva lot better than we were when I registered this account and we had Carr at QB, but we can't play to your level. We've only beaten one team all season with a winning record (Bengals) and we're 1-5 in our own division.
It would be nice if somehow the football Gods smiled down and let us win and the other scenarios played out and get us in the playoffs but that will not happen. Sadly, we will be stomped by you guys on our home field and will crush all play off hopes.
Nice to be posting here again, you guys are some intelligent football fans!
Does Vegas know something we don't?
Either way - you just do NOT win gambling. Vegas really made a killing this month with all those upsets and narrow victories by heavily favored teams.
You always wonder, for example, if the Eagles coaching staff decided to call off the dogs for a bit after going up 27-7 for that very reason. I mean Reid was calling so many unecessary pass plays despite that huge lead.
Actually Vegas had one of it's worst weeks ever in recent memory a couple of weeks ago when a ton of favorites covered. Took a couple bath.
But yes, your point is correct -- gamble enough and you'll just go 50/50 and give Vegas the vig, just like they want.
I will say though when it comes to gambling, football is maybe the least capricious and "easiest" to safely handicap. I can't for the life of me figure how people can feel they have successfully capped a 4pt basketball line when the end of the game always comes down to fouls and free throws, even when a team is up by 6 with 1 minute left.
Football on the other hand, you can at least talk yourself into something like "I'm betting against 40-year-old Favre in a cold night game" and pat yourself on the back at half time.
I wouldn't even think of betting a game like this. The game is virtually meaningless to the Pats.. If I were Belichick I'd treat it like a pre-season game. The Pats have to be more motivated and focused on the playoffs than any other team. What happened 2 years ago has to be on their mind and must have been in the back of their mind this entire season. They should be on a MISSION to make up for the SB loss that ruined what otherwise was the most phenominal season in NFL history. In the end, winning 16 regular season games and two playoff games meant little, people soon forgot how great an accomplishment that 18-0 record was. ---- Again the Houston game is meaningless------their total focus should be on the playoffs and winning the Super Bowl. I truly think they're the best team. Take note--i live In Jersey and I'm a Giant fan but I actually was rooting for the Pats in that SB, I wanted to see them make history.
Not true. You can win gambling games where the house doesn't have an edge (sports, poker, some blackjack - though extremely time consuming/restrictive (necessity to have a gigantic bankroll in excess of several hundred thousand $).
Poker is obviously the easiest game to win at (greatest edge, easier competition, etc). Gambling on sports comes down to 2 things: a really good, researched system and volume. The edge is insanely small so you have to bet a good deal of money on tons of games to exploit the edges enough to turn a long-term profit.
Simply, gambling can be profitable if you know what you're doing, but for the average Joe, they are throwing their money away.
Or if you play in a game like poker wherein the house makes money regardless of whether you win or lose. In poker you win what you make not from the house but from the game's other participants and the house then taxes you for that privilege either with blinds/a rake/misc fees. All you need to be is better than your average opponent, willing to put in a statistically significant number of hands so that this results in profits, and have enough of a bankroll that this is a worthwhile thing to do. This is not necessarily restrictive or has an insanely small edge.
I do agree about sports betting, historical trend analysis requires a gigantic database, and a huge bankroll to make it profitable.
Is this a reverse lock?
Separate names with a comma.