Playoffs - Wildcard
I also took the RedWings over the Canucks (+150 Money Line) in the big NHL game, but that's because I'm a homer, and the spread was a horrible -1.5 (-150). I suspect +150 isn't enough, the Canucks are on fire right now, while the Wings just got past the Oilers and Flames... both teams were well beaten by the Canucks this week.
Quote: thecesspitI've taken Seattle +11 (-115) for today. I think the game will be closer than many are predicting... Seahawks have home advantage, and the Saints aren't as all guns blazing as they were early in the season.
I also took the RedWings over the Canucks (+150 Money Line) in the big NHL game, but that's because I'm a homer, and the spread was a horrible -1.5 (-150). I suspect +150 isn't enough, the Canucks are on fire right now, while the Wings just got past the Oilers and Flames... both teams were well beaten by the Canucks this week.
The Poohawks (that's what the hapless Indian tribe in the comic strip, "Tumbleweeds" was called) compiled their blazing 7-9 record with the benefit of six games against the awful 49ers, Cardinals, and Rams. The Saints went 11-5 while playing some actual football teams. It's a travesty that Seattle is in the playoffs at all, and equally a travesty that the game is being played in Seattle. I predict an ugly blowout, with the final score being something like Saints 35, Poohawks 3. I wish I was still in Vegas to lay those 11 points. Easy $100.
Quote: thecesspitI also took the RedWings over the Canucks (+150 Money Line) in the big NHL game, but that's because I'm a homer, and the spread was a horrible -1.5 (-150). I suspect +150 isn't enough, the Canucks are on fire right now, while the Wings just got past the Oilers and Flames... both teams were well beaten by the Canucks this week.
Damned Pro-Line, eh? I'd take the Canucks.
Anyways, I really like my 11 points at half time :)
Now if the Jets can beat Indianapolis, I'll be happy.
Quote: boymimboAnytime that MKL is wrong, I'm happy.
I may not be able to argue with that, but at 5:30 CDT the game's still far from over.
Who knows, the Saints may yet show up ;)
Quote: boymimboAnytime that MKL is wrong, I'm happy.
What a wonderful thing to say.
In any case, no one actually knows the outcome of a game before it's played. I made a prediction. I don't think you can take any credit here.
This just goes to show that an awful team can play a good game and a good team can play awful. When the two happen at the same time and on the same field, an inept, bumbling nonentity of a team can beat the Super Bowl champs. That's why I rarely bet on feetball. Imagine the Vegas sportsbook managers hopping up and down in delight if the Poohawks cover.
Quote: mkl654321Well, given that you are filled with joy at my being "wrong", I'm sorry to say that I wasn't in Vegas to make my losing bet and have all of you dancing with glee to the point where you might hurt yourselves :) I'm sure JerryLogan bet the Poohawks, though, and is slapping his thigh in amusement.
Your as bad as him, you can't leave out the other one off any post, can you?
Quote:This just goes to show that an awful team can play a good game and a good team can play awful. When the two happen at the same time and on the same field, an inept, bumbling nonentity of a team can beat the Super Bowl champs. That's why I rarely bet on feetball. Imagine the Vegas sportsbook managers hopping up and down in delight if the Poohawks cover.
Why? I am assuming that the book makers have gotten a roughly even book, as per normal, and really don't care who wins. I suspect they've had an even balance of "oh my god, 7-9 team must be shitty" and "man I like +11 for a home team" and every where in between.
Quote: thecesspitYour as bad as him, you can't leave out the other one off any post, can you?
Why? I am assuming that the book makers have gotten a roughly even book, as per normal, and really don't care who wins. I suspect they've had an even balance of "oh my god, 7-9 team must be shitty" and "man I like +11 for a home team" and every where in between.
I am merely anticipating the inevitable re Jerry. And so what if I DO mention him?
The heavy favorite usually gets the ploppie action, especially near game time. Obviously, the books TRY to balance the action on every game, but they don't always succeed. The public wouldn't have been betting on a team (the Poohawks) with only a regional following.
I could believe it was a case where the book manager would take (or at least be happy with) an uneven book to get (what they see) as an advantage bet.
Quote: thecesspitI'm curious to know if there's somewhere where I can find that information? This is not because I don't believe you, but I'm curious if it's out there anywhere in terms of action taken and sides (and times). Looking at the line movements, the line came in, not went out as the game came up to kick off.
I could believe it was a case where the book manager would take (or at least be happy with) an uneven book to get (what they see) as an advantage bet.
I've spent too many Sundays watching the lines move (in Vegas), and I can assure you that the tourist action, which peaks Sunday morning, is skewed toward the favorite. They just don't understand the equalizing effect of the line. It's even more pronounced when the dog is from a regional market, and the favorite is a "national" team. This particular game may not have had a large enough handle to make that effect very pronounced; wild card games don't get nearly as much action as later playoff games.
The few months I spent working in a book was many years ago, but I overheard several conversations where the casino manager was telling the sports book manager in no uncertain terms "don't be a handicapper", in other words, try to balance the line and lay off action, not be content with unbalanced action because you think you have "the right side". I would imagine that having multiple properties a la Harrah's helps with that balancing to some degree.
Quote: mkl654321What a wonderful thing to say.
In any case, no one actually knows the outcome of a game before it's played. I made a prediction. I don't think you can take any credit here.
MKL, I always take joy when people are wrong when they say things like "This will be a blowout" or "Easy $100". I also don't think the books were jumping for joy when the Seahawks covered an 11 point spread at home. I can't believe the vast majority of action was on the Saints. Why would it be? Seattle is a tough place to play. Betting the Saints on the road at -11 is a crazy bet. I'm guessing the "sharps" were on Seattle on this one.
Quote: FinsRuleMKL, I always take joy when people are wrong when they say things like "This will be a blowout" or "Easy $100". I also don't think the books were jumping for joy when the Seahawks covered an 11 point spread at home. I can't believe the vast majority of action was on the Saints. Why would it be? Seattle is a tough place to play. Betting the Saints on the road at -11 is a crazy bet. I'm guessing the "sharps" were on Seattle on this one.
I don't disagree that the "sharps" were probably all over the Poohawks. I still don't see how a team that not only went 7-9, but most of whose wins were against the pathetic NFC West, could contend with the Saints, and I think this game was an aberration. But I would be very surprised if the betting public put any real money on the Poohawks, rather than on the defending Super Bowl champions.
1. The Seahawks coach decided to challenge a ruling that a Saints runner had crossed the goal line (resulting in a touchdown), even though if the challenge was successful, the Saints still would have had second-and-goal at the one-inch line. Timeout burned up for the possibility of no real gain.
2. The Saints were driving in the 4th quarter, had 3rd down in the red zone, got stopped at the Poohawk 3. Fourth and 2, 9:10 left in the game, down by 7. AND THEY WENT FOR THE FIELD GOAL. Unbelievable!!!!!!! Even if they had gone for it on fourth down and failed, they would have had the then-missing-on-all-cylinders Poohawk offense pinned deep on their 2-yard line. But cutting the lead from 7 to 4 points helped very little--basically, they tasked themselves with doing the same thing--stopping the Poohawks quickly, getting the ball back, and scoring a TD--that they MIGHT have had to do if they had gone for it on fourth down.
They pay these coaches millions of dollars....why??
Anyone who knows football knows that Seattle is tough to play at home with the loudest stadium (save now Dallas) in football. The Hawks lost November 19th by 15 at New Orleans. Both of the New Orleans #1 and #2 running backs were out. Seattle beat the Rams and received a boost by making it into the playoffs while Brees was not at his best. 11 points was probably about right. I am sure that alot of people took New Orleans without the spread, but at 11 points, I think that even the most fervent New Orleans fans would think twice before laying 500 to win 100 straight up or take New Orleans and give 11.
2. 9:10 is plenty of time, that was the correct decision.
Quote: JimMorrisonAm I the only one who thinks it's really gay for an adult to refer to teams as the Poohawks or the Faints?
Juvenile yes. Gay, not so much.
Actually its probably as juvenile as referring to something using gay as a derogatory term.
Quote: CroupierJuvenile yes. Gay, not so much.
Actually its probably as juvenile as referring to something using gay as a derogatory term.
Didn't know we were politically correct here, most people I know use gay as a derogatory term at times and obviously you knew what I meant. I guess using names like Poohawks is just a pet peeve of mine. I have a friend who insists on calling Sidney Crosby Cindy and I think it's pretty gay everytime he does.
Quote: boymimbo1. The Hawks DID NOT CHALLENGE that play. Wrong.
2. 9:10 is plenty of time, that was the correct decision.
Thanks, I was pretty sure the hawks hadn't challenged that play. But if they had second and inches is a far better position than having a RD on the board.
I guess the pro coaches make their money by watching the game... not playing Tecmo.
Quote: JimMorrisonDidn't know we were politically correct here, most people I know use gay as a derogatory term at times and obviously you knew what I meant. I guess using names like Poohawks is just a pet peeve of mine. I have a friend who insists on calling Sidney Crosby Cindy and I think it's pretty gay everytime he does.
Fair enough. I knew what you meant because I too used to use gay as slang. When I was 12. I personally dont like gay being used as a derogatory term. You might say its my pet peeve. You are entitled to say what you like, just as I am allowed to voice my opinion about it. Doesnt mean we have to agree. Its one of the wonders of free speech.
Quote: mkl6543212. The Saints were driving in the 4th quarter, had 3rd down in the red zone, got stopped at the Poohawk 3. Fourth and 2, 9:10 left in the game, down by 7. AND THEY WENT FOR THE FIELD GOAL. Unbelievable!!!!!!!
It does make sense because they needed two scores to win the game. The Saints lost when they allowed Seattle to score after the field goal.
I concede it was questionable because the NO defense hadn't played well the whole game, otherwise they wouldn't have been behind at that point. But the coach still needed his defense. To trade a near-certain 3 points for a risky conversion or an attempt to gain 7 points, would have signaled the defense the coach doesn't trust them. Sure, he had good reason not to, but he can't tell them that when the game is on the line. that's what team meetings are for.
Quote: PeteMI know little about sports betting, but I did wonder if the sports books took a huge bath on this game, about the end of the 3rd when it was fairly obvious the Saints were not going to cover the spread. What was the over/under for this game?
44 if I recall correctly.
Quote: JimMorrisonAm I the only one who thinks it's really gay for an adult to refer to teams as the Poohawks or the Faints?
Yes, you're the only one who would use that term, if that's what you meant.
And as I said earlier, the Poohawks were the inept Indian tribe in the classic comic strip "Tumbleweeds", by Tom Ryan. I guess he was really gay, too.
