Money piling in on NE

[FourierSeries]

For those who dont speak "casino" the reason why this should be disconcerting is that the Casinos would typically start moving the line towards the money with such heavy bidding. When the line doesnt move, or moves very slightly, it should give the public a good idea at where the Casinos (aka. the ones who always win) think the 'smart money' is.

I honestly dont know what inside intel they are basing their decision on, but they arent doing this to be nice. As the line is currently set, it looks like they truly believe that the broncos are going to cover.

If they win outright, they will make a fortune. If you arent a little bit scared right now, you should recalibrate your expectations.

Smart money came in on the Pats hours before the 2013 AFCCG.

Smart money came in on the Seahawks before last year's SB.

Definitely not worried, and still expect a comfortable win for NE.

 

[Dr Pain]

Ed Hochuli. Can't discount that the Broncos always win with him and the patriots uncharacteristically have a losing record.

 

[neuronet]

Denver has an amazing D and Vegas hasn't forgotten this fact....

 

[I.M. Fletcher]

or maybe that the Pats had 21 guys limited in practice this week, and if even two of those guys get dinged up, it tilts the scales in the Broncos direction.

I like our chances, but any thought of easy money is truly fools gold.

 

[Tuck]

I have no idea what this means. And the fact it came from ESPN makes it even less certain.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Many, many NFL games, even big ones, have vastly uneven betting. I've posted on here many times that Vegas does not in fact set lines to encourage even betting, though they may adjust slightly to hedge their potential short-term losses. Vegas sets the line where they think the outcome of the game is most likely to come in, and over a long period of time, winning and losing big at times, they ultimately win because of the vig everyone pays to place their bets. In the sense that they stick to their ratings system as an accurate predictor of results over time, they can appear to be contrarions at times, but they are not trying to bait the public into picking the wrong team. Lines are set by the strength of each team and homefield. They are smart enough to stay away from picking winners themselves and instead stick to handicapping, which by its nature denotes uncertainty (probability) in an event's outcome.

Also, the person who wrote the original article has little understanding of what goes into a point spread. It's extremely rare for books to move a line off of 3, since many outcomes are decided by a field goal, and moving the line in either direction can cause chaos - and it usually just gets pushed back. If they set the lines to NE -3.5, all the betting comes in on Denver, and they have a better chance of getting middled and losing to both groups of betters (or at least, push at -3 Pats bets, loss on +3.5 Broncos bets, should the Pats win by 3.). Same thing would happen if they moved the line to 2.5. Moving the line off of 3 actually creates more risk than just continuing to take an lopsided bets and sticking with their guns that they have the correct handicap, which may win or lose tomorrow but long-term will give them the results they need to profit.

 

[Gronkowski123]

seems like a jinx.

 

[Kdo5]

Don't really care. If we lose tomorrow it isn't because we "underestimated" the Broncos. Or because Denver was "disrespected". It'll be poor execution and the Donks taking advantage, nothing else.

 

[AussiePatsFan]

SportsBet (Australia) has the Pats $1.58 to Broncos $2.40 for a win.

 

[supafly]

The site that I use (sportsbook.com) hasn't changed one bit the entire week, as it still lists NE -3.5, with a total of 44.5. That's what it's been since late Sunday night and it hasn't moved on either side.

I don't know where this "smart money" rumor is coming from for either team, but I'm not seeing it with the world's largest online sportsbook.

 

[AussiePatsFan]

Also on Sportsbet Gronk is the fav for 1st TD at $5.50 which is tasty

 

[eom]

For those who dont speak "casino" the reason why this should be disconcerting is that the Casinos would typically start moving the line towards the money with such heavy bidding. When the line doesnt move, or moves very slightly, it should give the public a good idea at where the Casinos (aka. the ones who always win) think the 'smart money' is.

I honestly dont know what inside intel they are basing their decision on, but they arent doing this to be nice. As the line is currently set, it looks like they truly believe that the broncos are going to cover.

If they win outright, they will make a fortune. If you arent a little bit scared right now, you should recalibrate your expectations.

nobody has a crystal ball

I guess tomorrow we'll find out how smart the smart $$ is

 

[supafly]

I teased NE and AZ by 6. I've got NE at +2.5 and AZ +9. I'm honestly surprised to see so much support for NE. I'll be happy to see all these people proven right tomorrow around 6:30.

Dale....why in God's name didn't you tease it with 7 points instead of 6? I understand that you'd be giving -130 instead of -110, but you could've had:

NE +3.5
ARZ +7

Those are major differences than +2.5 and +6, just to save a little bit of juice. C'mon, man! You know that these numbers (3,4,6, and 7) are major players in the outcome of a high percentage of NFL games.

 

[luuked]

My plan as always is to take half of my winnings this year and put it on Broncos today. If we win I still have the other half and a SB. And if we lose there is the silver lining..

 

[supafly]

For those who dont speak "casino" the reason why this should be disconcerting is that the Casinos would typically start moving the line towards the money with such heavy bidding. When the line doesnt move, or moves very slightly, it should give the public a good idea at where the Casinos (aka. the ones who always win) think the 'smart money' is.

I honestly dont know what inside intel they are basing their decision on, but they arent doing this to be nice. As the line is currently set, it looks like they truly believe that the broncos are going to cover.

If they win outright, they will make a fortune. If you arent a little bit scared right now, you should recalibrate your expectations.

I get what you're saying--believe me, I do. That said, we saw the "smart money" or "sharps" bring the NE-9 spread down in the 2012 AFCCG loss at home to Baltimore, all the way to -6. That was a huge drop which proved that a lot of people with money were feeling much more confident about Baltimore's chances than everyone else. That was very concerning to me, and I pointed it out to the delight (not) of @Joker.

In this scenario, however, I fail to see why the line staying the same is considered a bad thing. As we know, the amount of money you need to give or the "juice" tends to grow right before the line changes. All week long, I've seen -115 with NE giving 3.5 points. That juice will increase to -120, and possibly even to -125 before they'll add in the extra .5, which will increase the line to -4. They want to keep the number the same as long as possible, but will be forced to add in an extra half a point after they increase the juice and people are STILL piling on NE. If/when that happens, they'll have no other choice, which is always the norm.

Since that's yet to happen, I guarantee that these casinos aren't just taking a bunch of bets on one side without making a bettor give more juice or ultimately more points, despite what ESPN's ******** reporting is at the moment. As a matter of fact, it's quite possible that their "85 percent of all the action on NE" comment is regarding the money line (straight up), and not the spread, which is the norm for the favorite in many instances, but even more so for favorites that are giving -3 or less.

 

[Triumph]

"Since we went to -3.5, it's been very balanced moneywise," Stoneback said Saturday morning. "We have a difference of less than $10,000 between the teams."

If the Pats win by 3 the Broncos still cover at - 3. Doesn't Vegas still take in 10% and pay out no money at all since the game was a push? Vegas just sees this a a close game given NEs history of playing at Denver.

Bettors at - 3.5 would win in a 3 point NE win.

 

[supafly]

My plan as always is to take half of my winnings this year and put it on Broncos today. If we win I still have the other half and a SB. And if we lose there is the silver lining..

As someone who routinely manipulates the number(s) to take the points and choose the other side (hoping for a NEP victory still, obviously), I can relate to your madness. Value is value, and you bet with your head, not with your heart. An excellent example of this was this year's @IND game.

As far as today's game goes, I bought down from -115 to -130 to get the spread from -3.5 to -3. I realize that -3 is still enough of a common number to where I can push and gain/lose nothing, but I'll happily deal with that should we win by a FG. In the meantime, I have a very strict rule that has fared quite well over the years, and that's to never give more than -3 on the road--under any circumstances whatsoever.

 

[supafly]

If the Pats win by 3 the Broncos still cover at - 3. Doesn't Vegas still take in 10% and pay out no money at all since the game was a push? Vegas just sees this a a close game given NEs history of playing at Denver.

Absolutely. You nailed it with the idea that they'll still collect all of that juice, some of which will come in as high as -125. As a matter of fact, if you're a Vegas sportsbook/casino who has the game listed at 3, you're hoping like hell that NE wins by 3 for this very reason alone.

You'd want the game to be a push, for everyone to get their money back, and to sit back and count all of the juice that you just brought in by accepting the bets, which would obviously guarantee that the casino/sportsbook has a big day.

Bettors at - 3.5 would win in a 3 point NE win.

Bettors at DEN + 3.5 would win in a 3 point Pats victory. If you're giving the -3.5 with the Pats, you'd need to win by 4 or more to cash your ticket.

 

[Triumph]

As far as Vegas losing money.

Does anyone know if Vegas takes the millions they receive from sports and place them in some form of investment that would gain interest? I realize that interest rates are down, but I have hard time believing that the money is just sitting around losing value.

 

[supafly]

As far as Vegas losing money.

Does anyone know if Vegas takes the millions they receive from sports and place them in some form of investment that would gain interest? I realize that interest rates are down, but I have hard time believing that the money is just sitting around losing value.

I'd have to assume that you're correct, and that it's treated as any other successful business, which would have many other investments. They're definitely raking it in hand over fist, and that's on an insanely consistent basis.

It's the very fact that I rarely go to the casinos (every few years or so), since I know that it's basically a losing proposition. On the rare occasions where I am actually up, I often will stop wagering and be more than happy with my small winnings--much to the dismay of my wife, who tries to tell me that "we're here to have fun."