Bears Regular Season Wins
In evaluating regular season win bets, I make a projected line and the associated odds of winning each game. I then add up the % of winning each game for a projected number of total wins. I then compare that to the line. Here are my projected lines and % of winning each game this season:

At SD +5.5 33%
Chiefs -6-1/2 68.5%
Cowboys -3-1/2 62%
At Lions -2-1/2 56%
At Packers -2-1/2 56%
Vikings -7-1/2 74%
At Eagles +2-1/2 45%
Lions -7 72.5%
At Raiders -5-1/2 67%
At Seahawks +2 46%
Broncos -3 55%
Giants -7-1/2 74%
At Redskins -4 64%
At Vikings -2 52.5%
Packers -9-1/2 79%
Saints -3-1/2 62.5%
Total wins: 9.67

The best line I could find from widely available books is 10, -115. The break-even point for a -115 bet is 53.5%. Thus, my edge has to be greater than 3.5% to have any value at all in making this under bet. I would actually want an edge significantly higher than that to justify a play. I calculate my projected edge on an under bet at 3.3%. This is what I would call a pretty sharp line, having been arbitraged to this point by sharps who bet it early. There is no under bet to be made here.

Of course, there is absolutely no value to the over as an edge of 3.3% would lie with the house in such a bet. I’m sure, though, there will be plenty of Bears fans who don’t view this matter objectively and see 11 or more wins in this schedule, and will make an over bet and give the house 15% in juice for the privilege. The casinos will welcome you with open arms.

I definitely see this as a no play. There are better totals on the board.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

I follow your rationale, but I quibble with the lines that you have set. Regardless, the overs at the sportsbooks a month ago were, for the most part, 10.5 wins with +180 over and -220 under. I understand that this has moderated somewhat in the last few weeks, but still, I think you'd have to be foolish not to jump on what's almost a 2/1 payoff for the best team in the weakest division in football to go 11-5.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

P.S. I have two units on the over, just F.Y.I.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

www.bookmaker.com has The Beloved at over 9.5 (-140)

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

Let's consider your scenario of over 10.5, +180. By my numbers, the negative edge in that bet over 10.5 is - 8.6%. For this negative edge, you are receiving +1.80. The break-even point on +180 is 35.7% winners. By my estimates, you have a 41.4% chance of winning your bet. So the +180 is adequate compensation. I note that number isn't available today, telling me that over players have taken that number back to market equilibrium.

(By the way, taking the under in that early line scenario at -220 would have resulted in a positive edge of 8.6% for unders players. The break even point for a -220 bet is 67.7%. Thus, at those numbers there was no value to bet the under with an edge less than 18%. This shows me that the early lines you saw were clearly designed to attract over players. And I guess you are evidence that it worked.)

You apparently believe the Bears lines and projected outcomes will be different than my estimates. Thus, your perceived value is likely considerably higher. We'll see how close these projected lines turn out to be, but as noted, they add up to a total that is pretty close with what the widely available numbers are today. I will trust that the market has set this number pretty accurately and that there are no "foolish" numbers being offered on such a public team.

Like Coast said, it is too close of a call for the money. I would rather take individual games than let money sit for an entire season in this situation. I have them with 10 wins heading into the last week.

Like Coast said, I think where we disagree are 1.) the lines of the individual games and 2.) the payout of the over. Obviously, the payout isn't something arguable; it's set now, pretty much, and unless there's a huge injury, it's not going to move, and at that point you're not going to want the over anyway. My own (rudimentary) calculations put the chances at about 45% that the Bears go 11-5 or better, with 10 wins as the mean victory. If I have a 45% chance of winning a 2-1 payout, I'll take it any day of the week. +150, I'd think about it, but I'd probably leave it be.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Bears have 10 starters back on both sides of the ball. Their O is gonna be so much better than it was last year. Pretty simple to me. Bears should go no worse than 12-4, so go over 10 to get the money. Any win total less than 12 would truly shock me.