Vegas lines on games relevant to us

[FringeNC]

KC -12.5 Cleveland
Denver -3.5 Cinci
NE -3 Jets
Pittsburgh -10 Baltimore

Probably has been awhile since we've been 12.5 favorites. Also, Denver's line is a little surprising. Seems a little high.

[ptlyon]

Not really, not without Dalton

[scho63]

KC -12.5 Cleveland
Denver -3.5 Cinci
NE -3 Jets
Pittsburgh -10 Baltimore

Probably has been awhile since we've been 12.5 favorites. Also, Denver's line is a little surprising. Seems a little high.

Home teams get a starting 3 points in the spread and then they move the line towards whoever is the favorite.

On a neutral field, Denver would be only a 1/2 point favorite.

[chiefzilla1501]

[QUOTE=FringeNC;11968035]KC -12.5 Cleveland
Denver -3.5 Cinci
NE -3 Jets
Pittsburgh -10 Baltimore

Probably has been awhile since we've been 12.5 favorites. Also, Denver's line is a little surprising. Seems a little high. /QUOTE]

Home teams get a starting 3 points in the spread and then they move the line towards whoever is the favorite.

On a neutral field, Denver would be only a 1/2 point favorite.

As noted above, to me the spread seems even low considering Bengals are rolling with McCarron

[-King-]

Not really, not without Dalton

When Dalton got injured I thought Denver could easily beat them, but Cinci is a MUCH better overall team than Denver. If McCarron can just manage the game and not make mistakes, I think Cinci can win by 2 scores. Denver literally can't score in 2nd halves and their defense hasn't looked great lately. They're in trouble.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Toby Waller]

Home teams get a starting 3 points in the spread and then they move the line towards whoever is the favorite.

On a neutral field, Denver would be only a 1/2 point favorite.

No,they move the line in the opposite direction of where more money is being bet

[Shaid]

When Dalton got injured I thought Denver could easily beat them, but Cinci is a MUCH better overall team than Denver. If McCarron can just manage the game and not make mistakes, I think Cinci can win by 2 scores. Denver literally can't score in 2nd halves and their defense hasn't looked great lately. They're in trouble.
Posted via Mobile Device

I'd agree but Denver has a really good D and when you make a mistake, they punish you for it. I think McCarron makes a couple mistakes. If Denver isn't inept on offense, they should be able to pull out a win because of it. Now if Brock looks like he did in the second half of yesterday's game, Cincy could roll out a high school QB and beat them. Pittsburgh gift wrapped it for them and they couldn't deliver.

[-King-]

I'd agree but Denver has a really good D and when you make a mistake, they punish you for it. I think McCarron makes a couple mistakes. If Denver isn't inept on offense, they should be able to pull out a win because of it. Now if Brock looks like he did in the second half of yesterday's game, Cincy could roll out a high school QB and beat them. Pittsburgh gift wrapped it for them and they couldn't deliver.

The Chargers held the Broncos to 17 points, 0 in the 2nd half. Raiders held them to 15 points, 0 in the second half. After the Steelers adjusted, the Broncos scored 0 in the second half also. None of these defenses are any good and aren't even close to the Bengals defense. I don't see the Broncos scoring more than twice against them. If they're even average on offense, they can win.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan]

The Chargers held the Broncos to 17 points, 0 in the 2nd half. Raiders held them to 15 points, 0 in the second half. After the Steelers adjusted, the Broncos scored 0 in the second half also. None of these defenses are any good and aren't even close to the Bengals defense. I don't see the Broncos scoring more than twice against them. If they're even average on offense, they can win.
Posted via Mobile Device

Actually, the Chargers D held them to 10 pts. Not much you can do about a pick-six when you're sitting on the sidelines.

[Marco Polo]

Who do we need to win each of these games?

[Why Not?]

Who do we need to win each of these games?

The Chiefs. But if you want to be concerned with other teams, cheer for Cinci this week

[chiefzilla1501]

The Chiefs. But if you want to be concerned with other teams, cheer for Cinci this week

And New England (I'm not holding my breath at all on Baltimore).

[scho63]

No,they move the line in the opposite direction of where more money is being bet

:rolleyes:
You don't understand my statement. When they SET the opening line PRIOR to betting they give the home team a three point advantage and from there they set their initial line to the favorite. Denver opened at (- 3 1/2)

That means Denver got 3 for the home field and 1/2 point for their perceived advantage.

Money bet more on one side will start moving the line to the other team to balance out the bets. Bookies want the bets to be exactly 50-50.

[Toby Waller]

:rolleyes:
You don't understand my statement. When they SET the opening line PRIOR to betting they give the home team a three point advantage and from there they set their initial line to the favorite. Denver opened at (- 3 1/2)

That means Denver got 3 for the home field and 1/2 point for their perceived advantage.

Money bet more on one side will start moving the line to the other team to balance out the bets. Bookies want the bets to be exactly 50-50.

want it to be 50-50? No, they want to gain the majority and have everyone on the wrong side as much as possible. They want to bait people and have them be so stupid that its a 90-10 split when they can.

[O.city]

want it to be 50-50? No, they want to gain the majority and have everyone on the wrong side as much as possible. They want to bait people and have them be so stupid that its a 90-10 split when they can.

I hope you don't gamble much

[scho63]

want it to be 50-50? No, they want to gain the majority and have everyone on the wrong side as much as possible. They want to bait people and have them be so stupid that its a 90-10 split when they can.

I can see why your REP is so red. :rolleyes:

You are dead wrong. 1000% wrong.

Bookies and sports books work to make the SPREAD OR VIGORISH. If bookies or sports books tried to "BET" on one side or the other, they would be out of business so fast because the odds are not with them.

You need to learn before you state something as fact that is 100% incorrect. :$2500:

[Why Not?]

And New England (I'm not holding my breath at all on Baltimore).

True

[scho63]

want it to be 50-50? No, they want to gain the majority and have everyone on the wrong side as much as possible. They want to bait people and have them be so stupid that its a 90-10 split when they can.

Read this and maybe you will learn something

http://www.gamblingsites.org/sports-betting/beginners-guide/how-bookmakers-make-money/

[O.city]

Vegas wants 50 50 so they're winning wither way.

Simple math

[KChiefs1]

Who do we need to win each of these games?


Here's a fun thought: if the CHIEFS, Steelers, Jets and Bengals all win next week, Denver will not be in playoffs headed into week 17 and will need a loss from KC, Pitt or New York to make it in.

[Saul Good]

You're both right. In general, sports books want the money to be balanced. Vegas will gamble, though. There are plenty of games in which Vegas has information that the public doesn't and will encourage people to bet on the wrong side by leaving the line alone or even moving it the opposite direction when the majority is on the side they think will lose.

You can sniff those games out by watching for games with wildly disproportionate amounts placed on one side without corresponding line movements. Finding those games and betting contrarian is the basis of my betting strategy.

[WhawhaWhat]

want it to be 50-50? No, they want to gain the majority and have everyone on the wrong side as much as possible. They want to bait people and have them be so stupid that its a 90-10 split when they can.

Why not go 97-3 if they can?

[Toby Waller]

I can see why your REP is so red. :rolleyes:

You are dead wrong. 1000% wrong.

Bookies and sports books work to make the SPREAD OR VIGORISH. If bookies or sports books tried to "BET" on one side or the other, they would be out of business so fast because the odds are not with them.

You need to learn before you state something as fact that is 100% incorrect. :$2500:

where am I wrong? the point of gambling is to profit 100%.
they dont hope to go 50-50. they know they gain the majority no matter what the public does. Its not based on one game at a time.
they give odds on all 16 games and make a couple look decent/realistic to the public so a few people think they are doing well.
But they give ridiculous odds on the other games and will never do worse than 70-30 in their favor. They give the over/under, total, bet on spread,bet on team,move the line 3 times = if they do 50-50 it means they failed miserably.
and the mafia wouldnt even talk to them let alone worry about them or hire them.

they know theyll lose money on one game but everyone will get raked the other 15.

Gambling is a dark art. its not something fun they want dumb ass Johnny Suburb to do well in.

I'm sorry, I just think its funny when people try to talk about gambling like its some simple process or just another business.

[Toby Waller]

Why not go 97-3 if they can?

of course. I was just giving a majority number for the hell of it

[O.city]

You're both right. In general, sports books want the money to be balanced. Vegas will gamble, though. There are plenty of games in which Vegas has information that the public doesn't and will encourage people to bet on the wrong side by leaving the line alone or even moving it the opposite direction when the majority is on the side they think will lose.

You can sniff those games out by watching for games with wildly disproportionate amounts placed on one side without corresponding line movements. Finding those games and betting contrarian is the basis of my betting strategy.

I'd imagine that's pretty rare, no?

[O.city]

And smellypitts is blackbob. It's pretty obvious

[WhawhaWhat]

where am I wrong? the point of gambling is to profit 100%.
they dont hope to go 50-50. they know they gain the majority no matter what the public does. Its not based on one game at a time.
they give odds on all 16 games and make a couple look decent/realistic to the public so a few people think they are doing well.
But they give ridiculous odds on the other games and will never do worse than 70-30 in their favor. They give the over/under, total, bet on spread,bet on team,move the line 3 times = if they do 50-50 it means they failed miserably.
and the mafia wouldnt even talk to them let alone worry about them or hire them.

they know theyll lose money on one game but everyone will get raked the other 15.

Gambling is a dark art. its not something fun they want dumb ass Johnny Suburb to do well in.

I'm sorry, I just think its funny when people try to talk about gambling like its some simple process or just another business.

http://i.imgur.com/RmE51lX.gif

[okcchief]

It seems like you would want to win the division and get homefield, but I'd much rather play Houston with Brandon Weeden on the road than Pittsburgh with Ben at home. Am I wrong?

[TEX]

It seems like you would want to win the division and get homefield, but I'd much rather play Houston with Brandon Weeden on the road than Pittsburgh with Ben at home. Am I wrong?

I totally agree. Plus, I'd get to go to the game in Houston and I was at the Chiefs last playoff win.... in Houston. ;)
Come to think of it, that year's playoff run started with a victory over Pittsburgh at Arrowhead. :)

[-King-]

It seems like you would want to win the division and get homefield, but I'd much rather play Houston with Brandon Weeden on the road than Pittsburgh with Ben at home. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong but if we have a home playoff game it'll be against the Broncos or Jets.
Posted via Mobile Device

[okcchief]

I totally agree. Plus, I'd get to go to the game in Houston and I was at the Chiefs last playoff win.... in Houston. ;)
That confirms.

I was getting excited about the possibility of winning the division until I looked at the possible seating. I guess I'll be good either way The epic Donk collapse would be nice, but that Pittsburgh offense is terrifying. Their defense blows so I'm not saying we can't win I'd just rather play the team with no QB.

[okcchief]

You're not wrong but if we have a home playoff game it'll be against the Broncos or Jets.
Posted via Mobile Device
I guess that's right. Pittsburgh isn't losing and the Jets should lose to NE. That makes me feel better, but I still lean to Houston for the sure win :)

It would be nice to beat the Donks in the playoffs for once.

[TEX]

That confirms.

I was getting excited about the possibility of winning the division until I looked at the possible seating. I guess I'll be good either way The epic Donk collapse would be nice, but that Pittsburgh offense is terrifying. Their defense blows so I'm not saying we can't win I'd just rather play the team with no QB.

You know, I've been thinking about that and I think we would be able to run on them and control the clock and limit Big Ben's opportunities. He sometimes makes mistakes when he's pressing to try to make things happen, and we just might be able to get a take away, or two, and make it difficult for them. I'd feel MUCH better with a healthy Justin Houston against the Steelers though.

[okcchief]

You know, I've been thinking about that and I think we would be able to run on them and limit Big Ben's opportunities. He sometimes makes mistakes when he's trying to make things happen and we just might be able to get a take away, or two, and make it difficult for them. I'd feel MUCH better with a healthy Justin Houston against the Steelers though.
Anyone in the AFC seems beatable with the exception of NE. Even they are depleted. If the Chiefs would just win one and have a good showing I'd content this year.

NFC is a whole other story. Carolina and Arizona are both very solid and Seattle seems to be making that late season push. Then add Rodgers who can always be a problem. We are on the right side for sure.