New England opened at -14, but it is already down to 13. Total opened at 55.

_________________
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

Total down to 54 also. I see NE in the 30's and gotta think the GMen hit at least 24. Over!!!

Alot of books are down to 12.5, Bodog is 11.5. Total is 53.5.

I am pounding the over on this one. Made my bets before I could reason myself out of it.

_________________
You cannot make me care about the WNBA.

My AFC -13.5 SUCKS NOW!

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

I haven't been on this site since August, but it's the Super Bowl, so I thought I'd share my thoughts FWIW.

I bought a few units on the under 55 when it came out because I think there is value on the under at anything above 51. I'm still expecting a bit more of a buy on the under, so if you like the over, you might see 52s a day or three before kickoff. But if you like the over, buy it before game day as Joe Public bets on game day and Joe usually likes the over in the Super Bowl. The line might go back up on game day. You can argue your opinions about how the game is going to be played and the reasons it might go over or under. All I'm saying is that I think there is value in the under now and will be until it gets below 52, which I expect to be the point at which sharps start buying back on the over. IF there is any hint of bad weather on game day (there are spots of rain predicted next week), don't be surprised if some people start buying the under. If you are an over player, I'd hold out at this point for 52 or better. If you are an under player, buy some now and then wait and see if you can get a better price to add to your position.

Now the game....This is an interesting situation. The moneyline for this game is New England -400 to -450. This is significant value as moneylines for 12 point favorites is usually in the -600 to -900 range. The fact it is a neutral field plays into this somewhat as 12 point favorites on neutrals are priced lower than 12 point favorites on home turf. Nonetheless, I think this is where the value proposition lies in this game. I expect that every sharp bettor worth their salt will be having some kind of position on the NE moneyline. If they like the Giants, they likely will also have positions on Giants +12 and set up a 12 point middle. I will have positions on NE moneyline (I think the likelihood of them winning the game is much better than 1 to 4) and likely also on the Giants with as many points as possible...for a lower win amount than the NE moneyline play, which I think is the best bet on this game.

If a moneyline is not your thing, and you want to just take or give the points, 12 is an absolutely dead number so there is no value in buying it now...on either side. If you like the Giants to cover, wait and see if you can't get a 13 or (doubtful) a 14. Whether you buy an 11, 12 or 13 has miniscule difference in historical win %.

ANd if you are a props guy, there are some good ones, but recognize that the best props are probably the ones you hardly even look at....such as will there be an overtime? will there be a safety? The "NO' is usually priced at somewhere between -800 and -1200 on these props. Most people don't even consider these because they wouldn't think of laying $12 to win one. So if you are like most people, you don't play these. Maybe you ought to start. How many overtimes have there been in the 42 Super Bowls? zero. How many overtimes are there in NFL games generally? Much lower than 1 in 8. How many safeties have there been in Super Bowls (or in any NFL game for that matter)? Much less than 1 in every 12 games. I know sharp guys in Vegas who buy as much of these props every year as they possibly can (small limits on some of these at some shops). They will likely buy these props every single year...and if they lose one bet out of 20 in the next decade, it would be a statistical upset.

Good luck all.

Who are you again?

_________________
You know me like that.

Coast, doesn't this stadium have a retractable roof or something like it?

Ha. Yes it does. Duh. I really have to stop listening to media "experts" talking about football. That's where I heard about the possible effects of rain on the game and it got me to thinking about the impact of weather on the total. I'm invariably dumber every time I do those things (listening to the media and thinking on my own....)

I guess I am a sharp guy! YES!

Been betting the said props for years! No saefites, No OT, etc

Uh oh, I am due now!

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

You have always been the best kind of sharp, bigfan. The "hiding in the weeds" kind of sharp. You remind me of a guy I saw at the window this weekend in Vegas. I was betting at a locals casino (Stations) simply because they had -400 ML on the Pats. This guy looked like Columbo with a stained rain coat (it wasn't raining), tattered clothes.....and a shoebox of $100 bills. That wasn't you was it?

I got a PM from someone who asked me why I liked the Pats. I like the Pats from a football perspective, sure...but I like this BET because of its VALUE, which has nothing to do with football per se. Here are the calculations;

The break-even point for a -400 bet is 80%. This is easily calculated. 100 bets at -400 would cost you $40,000. If you won 80 of those bets returning $500 each (your original investment of $400 plus your $100 winnings), you would have $40,000 returned to you – break even. So to bet a -400 favorite, you want to be confident your bet would win more than 80% of the time. According to Stanford Wong in Sharp Sports Betting, 12 point favorites in the NFL have won outright 86.9% of the time. So with a ML bet on the Pats at -400, you’re buying an 86.9% probability for a price that is fair value at 80% probability. That’s the kind of edge you won’t find in Vegas very often.

The moneylines are a little higher than that right now offshore and in most Vegas casinos, but there are -400s available in Vegas right now. If you play online, hold on a few days. THey should start showing up there too. Public bettors love to buy moneylines on big dogs for the Super Bowl and the books will discount the price as the week goes on. The books will also look to reduce their risk by offering the Pats at discount prices to the sharps who want them (books know Joe Public rarely buys favorites on the ML). The problem with bets like these is that while the edge is big, the ROI is small.

Yes you have, you were under your other username Mr. Woodcock.

Don't be a stranger.

_________________

spmack, I speak the truth. I have no idea who Mr. Woodcock is, but bigfan can make it clear to you and anyone else who play these silly multiple identity games that I am not Mr. Woodcock and i have not visited or posted on this site since august under ANY identity. My god. Some of you guys are so wrapped up in this multiple identity nonsense you think everybody plays the same games as you do. Now I'm remembering one of the reasons why I left this place. The childish nonsense never stops, huh?

I think it was only in jest Coast. You'd be delighted to know that most of the alternative monikers have been driven underground. Except we can't seem to get rid of Boilermaker Rick. Damn troll.

I was joking coast, hence the

you know, ha ha (???)

Just a good natured ribbing of 2 old school respected members of the CSFMB. I guess there won't be a circle jerk after this post huh?

_________________

I checked out lvasports.com at your recommendation. You think there is childish nonsense here?

Thanks spmack. But who is Woodcock anyway? I have nothing to frame the reference.

GD, I might have mentioned I was going there for a time when it was +EV in information. But a bunch of good people left and so did I when the ahole quotient got too high. Happens to a lot of boards I guess.

Woodcock was just a brief character on the board, based on the movie character of the same name played by Billy Bob Thornton. Generally harmless, occasionally amusing. Kinda like Old Man Potter, but you might not know him either.

I never get why people get offended by the weird stuff here. Just ignore what you don't like. I do. It's not that tough.

Occasionally?

_________________
You know me like that.

ahhh beardown again overstating or mis-stating something. Another thing i missed on my sabbatical. Speaking only for myself Beardown, I for one don't get OFFENDED by much at all and have never been OFFENDED by anything here. I do get ANNOYED at times that I've read something factually incorrect or patently ignorant and I've lost a useless minute out of my life I will never get back. And sometimes I am annoyed because I am now dumber for having read something that is wrong or annoyed that people on this board will be dumber for having read it. There is a difference between being annoyed and being offended. And as you get older perhaps you also will have a shorter tolerance for annoyance. I think perhaps many of us flawed humans can only take so much nonsense in our lives. I've observed that people older than I are often more critical and get more annoyed at things than I might, perhaps because they've been dealing with it years longer than I.

you sure about that

Yeah, I'm sure. It's a message board of written words, so it's natural that true feelings are not always properly conveyed or perceived. I've gotten amused, annoyed and perhaps even disgusted at some comments or behavior, but OFFENDED? Nope. Not even close.

Coast - good to have you back and interesting analysis of the moneyline.

Time for some meat and potatoes analysis. Some professionals I know in Vegas have a math model that is sometimes very, very good in its projections on games. I know many people have various math models, but I must say this one has been good to me this year. I don't use this to make picks per se, but I've made a lot of $$ this year by not going against it. If I like a play for certain reasons but the model says no, I have stayed off. So I won't swear by this model in every case, but I wouldn't dismiss it. This time it happens to fit my view of the game, which is nice of a New England straight up win but not a spread cover.

SUPER BOWL MATH MODEL PROJECTION:
Final Score: New England 26, NY Giants 19
Total Yardage: New England 393, NY Giants 296
Yards-per-RUSH: New England 4.3, NY Giants 4.8
Yards-per-PASS: New England 7.6, NY Giants 5.0

There’s no home field advantage factored in because it’s a neutral site game. The Giants grade out better on the ground. But, New England is likely to have a huge advantage in the air that will more than make up for it. The Patriots earn a seven point scoreboard edge in the math model. It should be noted though that the team generally outperformed statistical expectations most of the season, particularly before the weather turned cold.

Opinion: New England, back in good scoring conditions, should over-perform the math model projections by about a field goal. Eli looked very good in the NFC Championship game. But, motivation-wise, the Giants probably already feel like winners. They were playing to get to the Super Bowl. I would expect a letdown situation to exist. I have little doubt that New England will win the game, but as the Patriots showed with their nine minute plus drive in the AFC Championship game they are very capable of burning clock. Due to this I am leary of laying 10+ points with the Patriots.

The line is 12 and headed lower. It's already at 11.5 and dropping at some places in Vegas. Matchbook is the only place I'm seeing dishing 14 among its options. The price there is now -135 if you want it. To show you how much the line is moving, I paid -123 for 14 on Monday. I thought there was a possibility this line might come back up, but now it looks doubtful. I'm hearing there is growing public love (and New York money) coming in on the Giants. That should help to drive down the price for those of you considering a bet on New England.

I'm a dog player more often than not, but eating some chalk on this one and playing a 14 point middle.

Bets to this point:
New England - 400 moneyline to win 3 units
Under 55.5 -113 to win 2 units
NY Giants +14, -123 to win 1 unit
No Overtime -1000 to win 1 unit
No Safety -800 to win 1 unit

Coast:

My impression of Super Bowls is that your first impression of what is going to happen is usually right. For example, as soon as the teams are decided on championship Sunday is the perfect time to set your own line and everything because in the two weeks between the championships and the game, every single goddamn angle in the world has been hashed and rehashed until you forget what's what. Do you know whether Super Bowl line shifts have historically supported that (it's my impression that the large swing this year is fairly unusual since books are looking to split the bet as much as possible with the large amount of money coming in and avoid a Steelers/Cowboys type middle)?

My first impression was "blowout". The Giants were simply not a very good football team for the first 15 weeks of the season. The guys at FO had them around 20th in the league. They've played tremendously since then, but the bigger sample size (15 games versus 4) suggests they just aren't very good. Apparantly, the books thought this too, then shifted when the money started coming in.

Finally, do we have a confounding factor this year in that it's the Giants of New York, and so New York money is changing the line more than it should? I'm tempted to think that the 15 line is about right (my numbers had -14.5) but the combination of NE not covering in a while and it being a New York team, plus the "maybe the Giants are pretty good" two week lag are creating value for the big favorite.

My plays thus far:

New England +12.5, +103 1U
No 2 point conversions -600 1U
Pats score in 1st and 2nd Qs -240 2U
No safeties -1000 (I wish I saw your -800) 2U

I'm strongly considering half a unit on Ellis Hobbs to get the first INT at 15-1 as well, considering that I think the Giants gameplan will be to throw away from Samuel, and given the high likelihood that Eli throws an INT, 15-1 seems pretty high for a starting CB, but I haven't made up my mind yet.

Good thoughts IB. These teams played Dec. 29 and the Giants closed a 13 point home dog that day. Thus, the neutral field line on that day would have been 16. If you want to set your line for this game based on how they played before that day, then the fair line for this game is -16 and there is clearly value to the Pats at -12. But I don't think you can ignore that the Giants covered that number easily and all three since and have 5 straight covers and 7/8. What that means to me is that the Giants have been playing to a higher rating the last month than they did earlier in the season. But are they 4 points better than they were just one month ago as this line suggests? Let me say that it is a very rare team in the NFL that improves 4 points in one month. I'd say 14 is where I would have made the number from a pure power rating perspective. So did the linesmakers.

The line movement to the dog is a bit unusual as far as Super Bowls go, but I'd guess it's probably something on the order of a 1/4 occurrence. Last year Chicago dog bettors took the number down from the open also. Maybe 50% of the time in Super Bowls the line moves toward the chalk, a third of the time dogs and the rest of the time the number hardly moves. THat's just my guess though. I haven't run the numbers.

Giants are a public team like the Bears. So that is definitely a factor in the volume of money on them. No question that has been a factor in moving the line. All told, I think NE -12 is a good number.

So we have a situation where New Yorkers are overpaying for something. Who woulda thunk it?

I've watched the running bucket of chicken for the better part of a minute. It was useless but I'm not annoyed. I loved it.

Sounds like you are doing well this year and hope Sunday is a big day for you!

Lost my moneyline play on the Pats, but won everything else yesterday including the props, several units on the under, Giants with the points and even a few hoops bets. So even though I lost $12k on the Pats ML, my net for the day was a loss of less than $100.

The Vegas books were not so fortunate to cushion the big losses they took on the Giants moneyline. Vegas media are reporting huge losses by the Vegas books. It is their own fault. Maybe next time they will truly move lines to balance action instead of just trying to keep the "median line". The corporate types who now run Vegas have an entirely different approach to managing their exposure. And compared to the sports gamblers who used to run the Vegas books, the corporate types really are not that smart. They seem to only move a line when they are really out of balance and sometimes they don't even do it then. These places are light years behind the offshores, more than one of which moves the line against me every time I place a max bet on a college hoops total. But in Vegas, they believe that if they build it, the dumb bettors will come. They figure that since they've been winning for years, there is no reason not to win. And they answer to corporate suits who don't even seem to really know how to even determine their exposure. And so many of them are now booking to the face that in cases like this, it really costs them. (Booking to the face means they flag certain sharp bettors and book to their action, rather than their overall exposure.) They are so afraid of being pounded by sharps that they don't want to give sharps a favorable line. And so if sharps are buying New England -400, the books don't want to give them New England at a lower price...even though the public bettors were flooding them with Giants moneyline bets. This was a time when they should have used the sharp bettors to cushion their own exposure. The Vegas books were getting pounded by Giants moneyline bets and their true exposure should have caused them to drive down the moneyline to under 400. If the loss is as bad as is being reported by Vegas media, then they probably should have been dishing Pats -350 moneylines to balance the action. Hell I thought I had an advantage at -400, so had they dished -350 I would have calculated an even larger edge and I and others like me would have bought a lot more of the Pats. But they didn't do that...and so when we and they were wrong, they ate the loss instead of us.

Interesting stuff Coast.

My dad and sister were in Vegas. They had to get to the Mirage sports book at 8am to reserve their seats.

My sister talked to a lot of people and they were hitting the Giants on the money line. Hitting it hard just like you said.

It was obvious the gamblers took the Giants ATS as well. Yeah. Vegas lost big yesterday. I'm sure they'll recover.