Bet on the Saints to destroy the San Francisco Cream Puffs!
The 49ers are led--if that's the word--by Alex Smith, the worst quarterback in NFL history. The 49er defense plays well, but gets gradually beaten to death because they only get to rest for four plays each time. Meanwhile, the Saints are Super Bowl champions, and 1-0 so far.
What insane bookmaker made the Saints only 5 1/2 point favorites?? Home field is supposed to be worth 3 points, so are they really saying that the Saints are only 2 1/2 points better that the Zeroes, er, Niners????
I actually have the Niners winning at +5.5, but I ain't putting any cash on it!!!
Isn't SF at home? So that would make them an 8.5 dog at a nuetral site???
Good luck to you if you are gonna bet your house ;-)
Quote: avargovI agree that the line is rather curious. But I think it might be closer than you think. Saints run D isn't great, and Gore should have a good game. And the Niners D will be much better this week.
I actually have the Niners winning at +5.5, but I ain't putting any cash on it!!!
Isn't SF at home? So that would make them an 8.5 dog at a nuetral site???
Good luck to you if you are gonna bet your house ;-)
Yes, you're right about that--I got the numbers backwards. But the Saints should be -21. There are only two possible outcomes: the Niners defense fights the good fight and they lose 17-3 or 20-7, or the defense gets picked apart by Brees and the loss is more like 45-7.
Quote: WizardSaints -5.5 is one of my week 2 picks. However, I also think SF money line has value.
Money line??? Are you seriously suggesting that SF has more than a 10,000-1 chance of winning the game???
I'd really like to hear your reasoning, in all truth. The Saints are the Super Bowl champions. The Niners are a mediocre team at best, with NO quarterback at all.
Did you see the Cream Puffs play Seattle last week? It was ghastly. They not only stank, they stank badly. A 5-11 team handed them their lunch.
Quote: mkl654321 in 2009
Money line??? Are you seriously suggesting that Cleveland has more than a 10,000-1 chance of winning the game???
I'd really like to hear your reasoning, in all truth. The Steelers are the Super Bowl champions. The Browns are a mediocre team at best, with NO quarterback at all.
Did you see the Cream Puffs play San Diego last week? It was ghastly. They not only stank, they stank badly. A 5-11 team handed them their lunch.
Quote: mkl654321 in 2008
Money line??? Are you seriously suggesting that Cleveland has more than a 10,000-1 chance of winning the game???
I'd really like to hear your reasoning, in all truth. The Giants are the Super Bowl champions. The Browns are a mediocre team at best, with NO quarterback at all.
Did you see the Cream Puffs play Cincinnati last week? It was ghastly. They not only stank, they stank badly. A 5-11 team handed them their lunch.
Super Bowl champions lose to bad teams. It's happened in the past two years to the Steelers in 2007 who lost to the Chiefs, Browns, and Raiders. The Giants lost to the Browns in 2008.
Which made me wonder if there are any correlations between spreads and over/unders. In a game where the spread is -14 and the over/under is 49, do you think the +14 is correlated to the under? I know it could just as easily finish 37-34 as 13-10, but if there was some correlation, it would be very helpful for wagering.
Quote: chookI've mortgaged the restaurant and taken the Saints +1.5 @ 1.38.
Does anyone do cent sports? I found it a fun way to bet on these game with no money at risk.
Quote: FinsRuleI like the under. The Saints offense wasn't really clicking last game, and the 49ers don't have an offense. So that's where I'm putting my money today. I might parlay it with the Saints -5.5.
Which made me wonder if there are any correlations between spreads and over/unders. In a game where the spread is -14 and the over/under is 49, do you think the +14 is correlated to the under? I know it could just as easily finish 37-34 as 13-10, but if there was some correlation, it would be very helpful for wagering.
There's a basic truth, in that any such correlations would already be factored into the line by those who set it. That said, a team being favored by, say, 6 is actually a bigger favorite if the total is, say, 33, than if it is, say, 50--even though the pointspread is the same in each case.
In the example you give, that the bookie "expects" the total to be 49 (we know this isn't the actual reason for the line, but bear with me) means that he also "expects" the underdog to do some scoring. So if the favorite underperforms, or the dog outperforms, that would have more effect on the outcome vs. the spread in what is expected to be a high-scoring game.
Quote: mkl654321Money line??? Are you seriously suggesting that SF has more than a 10,000-1 chance of winning the game???
I put SF's chance at winning the game at 32.8%. If you think the odds are less than 10,000-1, may I ask how much you bet on Saints money line? You can get -210 at the Hilton.
Quote: mkl654321There's a basic truth, in that any such correlations would already be factored into the line by those who set it. That said, a team being favored by, say, 6 is actually a bigger favorite if the total is, say, 33, than if it is, say, 50--even though the pointspread is the same in each case.
That is a topic that I've hotly debated for years. I think this effect is small. I've noticed at sites like Pinnacle you get a bad price on underdog money lines on games with a high total. Obviously the market believes that an +x underdog is more likely to win outright with a high total, but I find that correlation to be overblown.
Quote: WizardThat is a topic that I've hotly debated for years. I think this effect is small. I've noticed at sites like Pinnacle you get a bad price on underdog money lines on games with a high total. Obviously the market believes that an +x underdog is more likely to win outright with a high total, but I find that correlation to be overblown.
It would seem to me that if the total was 33, a team favored by 6 would be expected to do a higher percentage of the scoring than if the total was 50. Of course, that refers to probability of winning, not of covering. I also have surmised that it is "easier" for an underdog to cover a given spread when the total is high, because that spread number represents a lower proportion of the total scoring than in a game with a low total number.
47.5% of all games played in temperatures of 20 degrees Celsius or less go "under", by the way, unless 1/3 or more of the players on both sides are convicted criminals. You can look it up.
Quote: LoteSuper Bowl champions lose to bad teams. It's happened in the past two years to the Steelers in 2007 who lost to the Chiefs, Browns, and Raiders. The Giants lost to the Browns in 2008.
I would have to disagree that SF is a bad team. Many experts (including myself haha) have the Niners winning their division.
The loss to the Seahwks was horrible, but it is quite normal in the NFL.
Parody sucks, which is why CFB is much more compelling IMHO.
Quote: avargovI would have to disagree that SF is a bad team. Many experts (including myself haha) have the Niners winning their division.
The loss to the Seahwks was horrible, but it is quite normal in the NFL.
Parody sucks, which is why CFB is much more compelling IMHO.
Well, their division is the weakest in football; the only reason any team in it ever finishes above .500 is that they play each other so much. Arizona is the only team that even occasionally shows flashes of competence.
And I assume you mean "parity" sucks, although the Niners ARE a parody of a football team. So far tonight, I've seen a snap over the QB's head, resulting in a safety, and a fumble on the opposing 2-yard line, among other atrocities.
They have held the high powered Saints to 9 points though. I think I mentioned their D last night.
I don't think you can use the division as an excuse. In the NFL these days, the good teams are separated from the bad teams by a very slim margin.
Of course, the Saints are looking good on this drive out of the half....
Edit: I sincerely hope you didn't bet your house....but if you did I have an extra bed in my truck.
Quote: TriplellDoes anyone do cent sports? I found it a fun way to bet on these game with no money at risk.
How does it work?
Quote: chookHow does it work?
It's a site full of ads. You set up an account (and let me refer you, as I get 5% of your winnings extra ie, not deducted from your winnings), and they give you $0.10 to bet with. They give you bonuses early on (100% of winnings, 50% of winnings, 25% of winnings) depending on what level of skill you are at, all you have to do is view a few banners(optional for bonus, but usually takes an extra 15 seconds to get max bonus).
If you get above $20, you can cash out. The most you can win on any bet is $10. There are many people on there with way over $100 (top guy currently has like $1000). PM me before you join so I can send you a referral link. It's very legit with no spam email.
I forgot to mention if you ever run out of money, they give you another $0.10 right away.
If it's not against forum rules to post referral links here is the link: http://www.centsports.com/ref/573320/Elliot_Triplett
mod please remove if this is prohibited. However, regardless, I would suggest people to try centsports out. It's fun and free with potential to earn some money (although slim) The most I've ever been up to was $7, but I lost it all betting on random stuff I didn't know anything about (MMA, tennis, etc).
on topic: I went against my gut to bet the home field underdogs on this one. Looks like they may cover. Eff Me.
Quote: TriplellIt's a site full of ads. You set up an account (and let me refer you, as I get 5% of your winnings extra ie, not deducted from your winnings), and they give you $0.10 to bet with. They give you bonuses early on (100% of winnings, 50% of winnings, 25% of winnings) depending on what level of skill you are at, all you have to do is view a few banners(optional for bonus, but usually takes an extra 15 seconds to get max bonus).
If you get above $20, you can cash out. The most you can win on any bet is $10. There are many people on there with way over $100 (top guy currently has like $1000). PM me before you join so I can send you a referral link. It's very legit with no spam email.
I forgot to mention if you ever run out of money, they give you another $0.10 right away.
If it's not against forum rules to post referral links here is the link: http://www.centsports.com/ref/573320/Elliot_Triplett
mod please remove if this is prohibited. However, regardless, I would suggest people to try centsports out. It's fun and free with potential to earn some money (although slim) The most I've ever been up to was $7, but I lost it all betting on random stuff I didn't know anything about (MMA, tennis, etc).
on topic: I went against my gut to bet the home field underdogs on this one. Looks like they may cover. Eff Me.
Thanks. I think I'll pass. Betfair might fold without my support.
Quote: FinsRuleI like the under. The Saints offense wasn't really clicking last game, and the 49ers don't have an offense. So that's where I'm putting my money today. I might parlay it with the Saints -5.5.
Which made me wonder if there are any correlations between spreads and over/unders. In a game where the spread is -14 and the over/under is 49, do you think the +14 is correlated to the under? I know it could just as easily finish 37-34 as 13-10, but if there was some correlation, it would be very helpful for wagering.
With 2:33 left, my parlay is looking real good. I made a huge $5 Bodog parlay.
SF to win first quarter
SF to win first quarter +0.5
SF to win game
NO -9.5 in progress bet
NO -5.5 in game (not a bet, but a handicapping contest pick)
Last score to be a touchdown
Total points to be a prime number
At least I won the prime number (corrected).
Quote: WizardWhat a horrible game for me. Here is what I had:
SF to win first quarter
SF to win first quarter +0.5
SF to win game
NO -9.5 in progress bet
NO -5.5 in game (not a bet, but a handicapping contest pick)
Last score to be a touchdown
Total points to be a prime number
Bets won = 0%.
Just as well you've got your new "relationship advice" career to fall back on.
Quote: chookJust as well you've got your new "relationship advice" career to fall back on.
Relationship advice 5¢. The Wizard is in.
Quote: WizardWhat a horrible game for me. Here is what I had:
SF to win first quarter
SF to win first quarter +0.5
SF to win game
NO -9.5 in progress bet
NO -5.5 in game (not a bet, but a handicapping contest pick)
Last score to be a touchdown
Total points to be a prime number
Bets won = 0%.
I actually turned the game off when after the 37th Niners turnover, the Saints had first and goal at the Niner 1-yard line with only about 2 minutes to go and a five-point lead. What the heck happened after that? The Saints should have scored a TD and nailed it right there. Apparently they only got a FG, and the Niners scored a desperation TD+2, but then there was enough time for the Saints to drive for a winning FG?? All in two minutes??
Quote: WizardRelationship advice 5¢. The Wizard is in.
Just remember to remove the football right before Charlie Brown can kick it.
BTW Nareed's yet-to-be-numbered Law of NFL Football: any game lost in one play was really lost by much more than that.
The Niners/Saints game illustrates the law perfectly. SF squandered too many scoring opportunities which later came to haunt them. The Saints failed to score a TD late in the game and had to do the long drive towards a field goal. This time it worked for NO, but Candlestick Park is among the worse places in the world to try to win with a field goal.
In other words: don't get put into a position of doing in 2.5 minutes what you couldn't do in the previous 57.5
Quote: Wizard
Total points to be a prime number
Wow. Are there odds associated with that one? Realistic results are 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47; I'm not sure I'd count 53, 59, etc, as realistic except that this was an early season game involving the Saints. How often is the total point value a prime number? I did a quick Google and didn't find any research, but I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about my search terms, either.
Quote: MoscaI'm not sure I'd count 53, 59, etc, as realistic except that this was an early season game involving the Saints.
I would count 53. 26-27 isn't an unrealistic score, nor is 29-24. Pointwise, that is. as to the combination of scores needed, that's another matter. 59 is too high for most games.
How about total score being odd or even numbers while we're at it?
0 - 2 versus the spread. They are on the way to 0 - 16. As the spreads get astronomical they may cover a few. Local sports gamblers said they were able to bet the Bills at under 5 1/2 wins before the season started, and that was essentially like being offerred free money.
Quote: MoscaWow. Are there odds associated with that one? Realistic results are 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47; I'm not sure I'd count 53, 59, etc, as realistic except that this was an early season game involving the Saints. How often is the total point value a prime number? I did a quick Google and didn't find any research, but I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about my search terms, either.
Going back 10 years, 30% of NFL totals have fallen on a prime number. That seems high, but lots of key totals like 37, 41, 43, and 47 fall on primes. I made that bet with a friend, by the way.
By the way, I incorrectly stated I lost the prime on the game in question. Actually, at 47, I won!
Quote: mkl654321If you can get the Saints at anything smaller than -21, BET THE HOUSE on them.
The 49ers are led--if that's the word--by Alex Smith, the worst quarterback in NFL history. The 49er defense plays well, but gets gradually beaten to death because they only get to rest for four plays each time. Meanwhile, the Saints are Super Bowl champions, and 1-0 so far.
What insane bookmaker made the Saints only 5 1/2 point favorites?? Home field is supposed to be worth 3 points, so are they really saying that the Saints are only 2 1/2 points better that the Zeroes, er, Niners????
Since you proved so foolish in your prediction, can you spare us any future dialogue re professional football? You need to become an expert in an easier sport. Ping pong?
Quote: thecesspitThe Bills get to play the Lions this year, and CJ Spiller is capable of winning that on his own... mind you, so is Jahvid Best.
When the Bills play the Lions, I'd bet on the Bears to win ;)
Quote: dmSince you proved so foolish in your prediction, can you spare us any future dialogue re professional football? You need to become an expert in an easier sport. Ping pong?
Oh, come on--no one predicts football games correctly against the spread more than 60% of the time.
I did anticipate some moron making an asshole comment if the Saints didn't cover. I'll continue to post any "foolish" predictions that I want, however. But tellya what, in the interests of fairness, let's see YOUR "expert" prediction for next week. Of course, if you're wrong, I'll call you "foolish" as well.
And by the way, if the Saints score a TD from the 49er 1 yard line in the fourth quarter, they cover. That's what it came down to.
Quote: dmAnd, if their errant field goal attempt had not been blocked over the cross bars, they might very well have lost. But, unlike you, I don't make expert predictions about events unless I am not an expert. However, I do occasionally take jabs at the assholes on here, to use your word.
I never claimed to be an expert, nor did I ever say that I was making an expert prediction. Criticizing someone for something that they didn't actually say is the mark of an internet jerk.
And...you "don't make expert predictions about events unless I am not an expert"??? That doesn't even make sense. You should think before opening your mouth. No, scratch that. It's more amusing this way.
Quote: thecesspitThis is why I'm tracking the foolish on the NFL betting threads for those who like to make pronouncements and be tracked in their foolishness.. :)
Of course, you realize that predictions of this sort are not carved in stone...any given team can underperform or out perform. It's like the weather or the stock market---there are too many variables to be able to do more than make educated guesses about the outcome.
I still maintain that the Saints were an excellent bet. Do excellent bets lose? Quite often.
Taking them at -21 is not... not even close :)
Quote: TriplellI wouldn't call it an excellent bet even if it had won. As you said, no one wins on over 60% of their predictions, I would argue that most people probably win about 40% of there predictions. Anything below 60% really isn't going to make you money. (unless of course you are certain and bet big on the ones you do win, however, that's pretty much like saying that if you put enough out there when you hit a black jack, you'll cover all losses).
Which means that a bet that has a 60% chance of winning is an excellent bet. And I think that maintaining such a win perecntage would be more than enough to make you LOTSA money.
Quote: TriplellI would argue that most people probably win about 40% of there predictions.
I would argue that it would be just as hard to pick below 40% as to get above 60%. If someone could figure out how to get below 40%, then he could just bet the opposite way, and make a fortune.
By the way, I put the probability of the Saints covering -21 at 11.3%.
Quote: WizardIf someone could figure out how to get below 40%, then he could just bet the opposite way, and make a fortune.
Mr. Wizard,
My name is Ericayne, and I believe I'm your man. Just do the opposite of what I pick, & you'll do just fine. :)
Quote: TriplellDon't pushes account for a percentage? I probably win about 40% push about 20% and lose the other 40%, betting spreads.
I was ignoring pushes. By the way, I find it hard to believe that anybody could push 20% of games against the spread over a large sample size. Even betting a 3-point spread game, I find the probability of a push to be 8.7% only.
Quote: WizardI was ignoring pushes. By the way, I find it hard to believe that anybody could push 20% of games against the spread over a large sample size. Even betting a 3-point spread game, I find the probability of a push to be 8.7% only.
Yes, I'm sure my luck will even out, however, I seem to push a ridiculous amount. I just recently started sports betting, so I'm saying my numbers are true odds.
EDIT: Just checked, I have pushed 17% of my bets, I have a win percentage of 44%. It should be noted that this percentage includes parlays, where 1 loss counts as an entire loss, however having 4 losses and 1 win would only count as a single loss. The sample size is >100 but <200.
Quote: WizardI was ignoring pushes. By the way, I find it hard to believe that anybody could push 20% of games against the spread over a large sample size. Even betting a 3-point spread game, I find the probability of a push to be 8.7% only.
If you are trying for a "middle", wouldn't the probability of that middle have to be 5% or greater for the bets to be profitable (for example, bet 11 units on each side at -110, you will either win 20 units or lose 1 unit)? Which margins of victory besides 3 points occur more often than 5% of the time?
My intuitive answer says 7, and maybe 6, since those are numbers that the lines almost never move across.
Quote: mkl654321If you are trying for a "middle", wouldn't the probability of that middle have to be 5% or greater for the bets to be profitable (for example, bet 11 units on each side at -110, you will either win 20 units or lose 1 unit)? Which margins of victory besides 3 points occur more often than 5% of the time?
My intuitive answer says 7, and maybe 6, since those are numbers that the lines almost never move across.
The Lions Eagles game started at -4 and went to -6.5 over the week, so you could have middled it... if you'd predicted correctly that the line was going to move, or fancied the middle.
Quote: mkl654321If you are trying for a "middle", wouldn't the probability of that middle have to be 5% or greater for the bets to be profitable (for example, bet 11 units on each side at -110, you will either win 20 units or lose 1 unit)? Which margins of victory besides 3 points occur more often than 5% of the time?
My intuitive answer says 7, and maybe 6, since those are numbers that the lines almost never move across.
To break even on a middle you would need a 1/21 chance if the middle won two units, and 1/11 if it won one unit. However, that isn't what I'm talking about regarding a push against a spread. I interpret that as one specific point spread bet hitting the line exactly.
