CPFC BBS

CPFC BBS (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/index.php)
-   World of Sport (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   The NFL thread (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=137231)

pauldrulez 10-10-2013 07:43 AM

Palace = Rams

Head player - Speroni or Bradford. Both underachieving.

Young underachieving star - Gayle, Tavon Austin. It's not really their fault!

Talented young wide defensive player - Ward, Janoris Jenkins

Standout player defensively in the middle - Jedinak, Chris Long

Player who oozes class - Campana, Robert Quinn

Funk Butter 10-10-2013 09:00 PM

http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptu...sett-Photo.png

Funk Butter 10-10-2013 09:30 PM

Quote:

I asked the fellas at sportsinsights.com, which aggregates betting action from several different high-profile offshore sports books, to give me the data on how well betting against the public has done in 2013. They quantify that scenario as games in which at least 65 percent of the action is on one side (and 35 percent is on the other, in case you need help with that). And, through five weeks, teams getting just 35 percent of the action were 22-13 ATS. But it gets better. One of the stats the Sports Insights guys have been tracking for years that I love, and very few people pay attention to, is the 80/20 rule. I like to call this the run-as-fast-as-you-can-toward-the-'dog rule. Basically, when the action on one side becomes so lopsided, blindly bet the 'dog. This season, you'd be 6-1 ATS playing that way, with the only loss being the forever humbled and unreliable Jaguars. Since 2003, the 80/20 situation is 94-70 ATS.
Unforunately, that website makes you pay.

El Kooch 10-10-2013 09:51 PM

Well I won't be paying cos that made no sense at all

Funk Butter 10-10-2013 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Kooch (Post 11329821)
Well I won't be paying cos that made no sense at all

It basically says that if a large percentage of money is going into one side, you take the other side. So if 80% of the money is going on the Broncos at -27.5, bet on the Jaguars at +27.5. Of course, with the Jaguars it is buyer beware. I saw a TV report on a gambler in Vegas that has a horde of bettors that go around moving point spreads for him. He bet over a million dollars, secretly, on the 49ers at -3.5. When the line moved to -5.5, he then put a wad of cash the other way. The game ended up with the 49ers winning by 4 and he collected on all the bets.

pauldrulez 10-10-2013 10:12 PM

Always better off going taking the team with the handicap (erm, spread!)

However this week, I think I've gone with 12 against the handicap.

I have however taken the Jaguars because the arrogance of Denver (including their twitter page) is above Patriots 2007 levels.

Funk Butter 10-10-2013 10:21 PM

Quote:

Historically speaking, they shouldn't. Bruce Marshall from The Gold Sheet sent me this roundup of the biggest spreads in NFL history:

1966: Baltimore (-28) vs. Atlanta (Final score: Baltimore 19, Atlanta 7)
1966: Green Bay (-27) vs. Atlanta (Final score: Green Bay 56, Atlanta 3)
1966: Oakland (-26.5) vs. Miami (Final score: Oakland 31, Miami 17)
1966: San Diego (-26) vs. Miami (Final score: San Diego 44, Miami 10)
1966: Cleveland (-26) vs. NY Giants (Final score: Cleveland 49, NYG 40)
1968: Oakland (-26) vs. Buffalo (Final score: Oakland 13, Buffalo 10)
1976: Pittsburgh (-27) vs. Tampa Bay (Final score: Pittsburgh 42, Tampa Bay 0)

For the record, that makes the 'dogs 4-3 ATS. And, wow, did 1966 have some really crappy football teams. If you're looking for more recent and relevant comparison, consider the 2007 New England Patriots. Sure, that group went undefeated in the regular season, but over the last 11 games of the season they were 2-9 against the spread, including three ATS losses when they were favorites of 20-plus points.

Another cool nugget Marshall sent along was his list of the greatest outright upsets in NFL history:

1968: Denver (+22) vs. NY Jets (Final score: Denver 21, NYJ 13)
1967: Minnesota (+20) vs. Green Bay (Final score: Minnesota 10, Green Bay 7)
1968: Buffalo (+20) vs. NY Jets (Final score: Buffalo 37, NYJ 35)
1974: San Diego (+20) vs. Cincinnati (Final score: San Diego 20, Cincinnati 17)
I think this shows not only that parity exists (for the most part) in the NFL, but also the betting public (and oddsmakers) is much sharper than 40 years ago. Oh, and how screwed expansion teams were back in the day.

saxoneagle 11-10-2013 07:28 AM

Come on, who thought the Giants would be 0-6? Crazy!

oz_da II 11-10-2013 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxoneagle (Post 11329973)
Come on, who thought the Giants would be 0-6? Crazy!

Certainly not this cranky old man.

http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/m...ps88fd4175.jpg

:lux:

Swanny32 11-10-2013 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxoneagle (Post 11329973)
Come on, who thought the Giants would be 0-6? Crazy!

:lux::lux::lux::lux::lux::lux::lux:

saxoneagle 11-10-2013 04:12 PM

The stories about AP's kid are horrible, if true :(

jazman 11-10-2013 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swanny32 (Post 11330538)
:lux::lux::lux::lux::lux::lux::lux:

This is the ONE thing that we can both agree on Chris ...

Absolutely HILARIOUS!

:lux: :D :lux: :D :lux:

LLCOOLSTEVE 11-10-2013 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funk Butter (Post 11329830)
It basically says that if a large percentage of money is going into one side, you take the other side. So if 80% of the money is going on the Broncos at -27.5, bet on the Jaguars at +27.5. Of course, with the Jaguars it is buyer beware. I saw a TV report on a gambler in Vegas that has a horde of bettors that go around moving point spreads for him. He bet over a million dollars, secretly, on the 49ers at -3.5. When the line moved to -5.5, he then put a wad of cash the other way. The game ended up with the 49ers winning by 4 and he collected on all the bets.


This book is brilliant

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

pauldrulez 11-10-2013 10:24 PM

Reports stating that AD's son has now died.

Sickening.

Funk Butter 11-10-2013 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez (Post 11331397)
Reports stating that AD's son has now died.

Sickening.

That is terrible. He also had two brothers die.

Swanny32 12-10-2013 01:27 AM

I hope the bloke responsible gets horribly raped and beaten every day in a shitty jail cell, where he'll stay till he dies. Scumbag.

Jaserob 12-10-2013 01:30 AM

This man needs to die a horrible death. Massive news here in the Twin Cities with every Viking fan wanting to kill this man. Sick bastard.... aledgedly

http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/10/jo...on-son-attack/

Benzhiyi 12-10-2013 07:33 AM

Awful news. Beggars belief.

pauldrulez 12-10-2013 08:10 AM

Just to steer it back to football for 5 mins, but it's getting to the point where Gronk can just go away.

Offer something to Atlanta and Dimitroff for Gonzalez to try and get him a ring and IR Gronk.

Jaserob 12-10-2013 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez (Post 11331588)
Just to steer it back to football for 5 mins, but it's getting to the point where Gronk can just go away.

Offer something to Atlanta and Dimitroff for Gonzalez to try and get him a ring and IR Gronk.

Yeh, sorry. I probably shouldn't have posted it. I am just so emotional about that man, as you can see from my Avatar


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.