Or "opinion". Or "great likelihood". All of those are correct. "Fact" is not. It's arrogant. Nothing makes me think that. I even said as much. Twice. And anyone that disagrees with that "fact" is a "homer". That's the only thing I take issue with--and I really shouldn't sling all the poo for it at Private--the "homer" ad hominem is something I see all the time from folks, not just this thread or this poster, and I finally piped up about how it's illogical bullcrap. He shouldn't be. Of course, that's not what took place here. Someone who jumps up and down screaming "homer" and talking about his opinion as "facts" is automatically--and rightly--labelled a troll. I'll say it again: calling someone a "homer" simply because he doesn't share one's opinion implies that someone's judgement is impaired by his affinity for his favorite (or hometown) team. That's a pretty arrogant thing to say. "Why I couldn't possibly be wrong--you must be a homer!" I honestly thought the Astros could win 85 to 88 games this year. Was I a "homer"? Nope. If Woody and Jason pitch like they did last year, and Lance Berkman doesn't forget that he's Lance Freaking Berkman it was entirely in the realm of possibility.
Here's a fact...the Chargers are actually 1-3 But yeah, claiming a team is done after 2 losses and sitting at 2-2 on the season is just plain silly...I wouldn't even count out the Chargers or the Bears or hell even the Saints just yet...and they have worse records....it's just too early.
You think 10 wins will get us a playoff spot? I will agree it's just too early to tell. At the halfway point of the season, we should get a much better indication. My instincts still say 10-6 and we beat J-Ville on the last game of the season but, somebody else squeezes ahead of us on a tie-breaker but, we'll see ... Agree on Faggins, he's looking more old and slow rather than seasoned and experienced. In other words, a liability. Yep, start Bennett. Fletcher needs to learn how to tackle.
lol...yeah i had multiple brain farts on that post...I said after tomm when the Bengals - Patriots game was tonight
i'd like to thank a fellow clutchfan who texted me to NOT to bet on the Texans. They were a +3 fav in Vegas over Atlanta. the fellow clutchfans reasoning is that the Texans were starting Ron Dayne . in other related news, the sports book took in so much $$$$ this weekend. thanks UT, thanks OU, thanks Florida..etc
Sportsbooks make approximately equal money no matter who wins a game. They make their money off taking a percentage of each bet - they don't benefit more or less by one team or the other winning.
if alot of bettors lose money. the casino gets to keep the cash. the MGM sportsbook told me on the Rose Bowl, everyone bet on USC instead of Texas. a big smile on his face.
It may have been a one-game fluke and a bad job adjusting the lines then. The line is determined based on trying to get equal money on each side. If too many people are betting on USC, the line moves to encourage more money on UT and vice-versa. It's certainly possible that if the final score is between the original line and the final line, the sportsbook will make or lose some extra money, but that's not their primary source of income. The sportsbook's goal is to eliminate all the risk and make money simply through volume of betting. You bet $10 on USC covering; someone else bets $10 on Texas covering. One of the two people wins $19.50 and the sportsbook keeps $0.50. The sportsbook gets their $0.50 no matter who wins the game. That's the goal of how they set and adjust the lines (both the spread and the straight-up lines).
i'm pointing out this particular weekend when a bunch of the top 25 got hit hard. lots of unhappy bettors at the sports book. I understand the volume of gamblers. but the # of gamblers for college is consistent (higher spike for championship/bowl games of course). but for this week, lots and lots of people loss. people tend to gamble on the top 25 than other lower tier games. and the top 10 gets more attention of the top 25. so lets say you want a 'safe' pick, OU over colorado (spread was what? 21pts? OU has been destroying teams and running up the score too). i agree with the other points, just pointing out this week as an anomaly.
both of you are correct, depending on the situation. if we're talking about a vegas sportsbook, then Major is absolutely correct. they are not in the business of picking winners. they are in the business of making lines which are attractive to both sides. that way they get money from both sides. then again, if we're talking local bookies, you often do see situations where one side is heavily weighted. do you think an austin bookie gets more action on the Horns or their opponents? of course, it's going to be the horns. same goes here in san antonio, where spurs fans are so delirious over the spurs and (to an almost equal degree) the cowboys, the "vegas line" means nothing. you will - absolutely - see a local line that is different from vegas'. these lines are usually higher than vegas' (LV may list spurs -5, SA will list at spurs -6 or -7). if the spurs cover, sure the bookie is out $$, but the odds are definitely in his favor that the LV line will cover enough times to make his venture profitable. true quote from a bookie i knew: "you know my favorite day of the week? the day after i pay out a lot. because everyone thinks they have to strike while the iron's hot and double or triple down next week."
But what I'm suggesting is that this week is *not* an anomoly. In terms of the spread-bets, the 21 pt spread on OU/CU is created specifically to get 50% of the money on each side of the bet. And you can be sure in the grand scheme of all the bettors against the spread in Vegas, very close to 50% bet on Colorado and very close to 50% bet on OU. If more people had been betting on OU, the line would have moved to 23 or 24 until more money came in on Colorado to even it out. Now, where you're right that lots of people lost was on the straight-up bet. Many more people picked OU to win straight up; but the few people that picked Colorado won a lot more money. If there were 8 times as many people picking OU to win straight up, then the odds were about 8:1 for Colorado to win, and thus the amount of money the sportsbook paid out is still about what it took in, minus the cut the sportsbook takes on each bet. Vegas sportsbook could care less who wins - that's the whole point of creating a spread and the beauty of their business. It's designed to put all the risk on the bettors and take all the risk out of the sportsbook itself.
