Two Plus Two Newer Archives - *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)

- Sports Betting (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)

- - *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) *** (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=551439)

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

1) I didn't say *you* said that, I askedyou a simple question which you seemed to have ducked. I didn't say anyone said that, so stop putting words in my mouth, a constant and repeated error of yours.
If laying 24.5-26 with NWE isn't a square bet, what is?

2) Would they miss McNabb? I stated that the line would be 2-4pts worse without McNabb, iirc. They clearly missed him with all the points AJ gave away both early and late, and the easy missed TD bomb to Curtis. Ugly.

3) McNabb is a great QB when healthy, and I don't have to make a case as the DVOA and DPAR numbers bear it out. You simply ran away from the argument when I posted them.

You reply to things nobody said, invent strawmen, and change the topic repeatedly, and ofen confuse Poster A with Poster B's comments, rather than answer straightforward questions.

I didn't mention laying off the game once in my last post as either good or bad, but you infer it, or said 'slam dunk' although you imply it. I specifically asked if betting NWE -24.5 was square, given the merits of PHL.

My opinion of the line - a RECORD high *ever* in NFL history at 24.5 - was value for the dog is not based on the outcome of the game. It's based on thousands of games in the past 40 years of NFL history. Others pointed out the same thing as clear evidence that -24.5 was the square side. And the BSPs came out of the woodwork to support that assertion. The books had obviously shaded the line given NWE's ATS record. All of this was obvious way, *way* before kickoff last night.

Pls define a 'square' NFL bet for me [and you've told me directly you are capable of identifying such bets], and if NWE wasn't a square bet, why not?

[feel free to answer without irrelevant mentions of fanbois, Jeff Garcia, the Ravens, or random posters who didn't bet the game. I bolded the most pertinent parts of the post fyp.]

edit: if you don't want to answer so as not to give away your secret sauce, that's understandable.

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[ QUOTE ]
1) I didn't say *you* said that, I asked you a simple question which you seemed to have ducked.
If laying 24.5-26 with NWE isn't a square bet, what is?

2) Would they miss McNabb? I stated that the line would be 2-4pts worse without McNabb, iirc. They clearly missed him with all the points AJ gave away both early and late, and the easy missed TD bomb to Curtis. Ugly.

3) McNabb is a great QB when healthy, I don't have to make a case. The DVOA and DPAR numbers bear it out. You simply ran away from the argument when I posted them, and resort to your 'because I said so'-type "argument."
When injured, he is no better than average. Obvs.

You love to reply to things nobody said, invent strawmen, and change the topic repeatedly, rather than answer straightforward questions.
I didn't mention laying off the game once in my last post as either good or bad, but you infer it, I never said 'slam dunk' althoug you imply it. I specifically asked if betting NWE -24.5 was square, given the merits of PHL.

My opinion of the line - a RECORD high *ever* in NFL history at 24.5 - was value for the dog is not based on the outcome of the game. It's based on thousands of games in the past 40 years of NFL history. Others pointed out the same thing as clear evidence that -24.5 was the square side. And the BSPs came out of the woodwork to support that assertion. The books had obviously shaded the line given NWE's ATS record. All of this way, *way* before kickoff last night.

Pls define a 'square' NFL bet for me [and you've told me directly you are capable of identifying such bets], and if NWE wasn't a square bet, why not?

[feel free to answer without irrelevant mentions of fanbois, Jeff Garcia, or random posters who didn't bet the game. I bolded the most pertinent parts of the post fyp.]

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I just don't understand why you are asking me random questions which are not relevant to the discussion.

I never said Phi +24.5 was a bad bet. Why are you asking me about this? Again, what I did say was that it is inappropriate to call someone a square just because they were laying off the game. I never said that you are the one who did this, which is not surprising because you were not involved in the discussion. As for me personally, I did believe Phi +24.5 was a good bet. That doesn't mean that I believe that anyone who sees no value on either side is definitely a square. That kind of talk is foolish, although it seems to be considered normal here on 2+2.

I never ran away from an argument. I had already made my case. You simply can not look at pure stats for QBs, because you have to take into account what kind of offensive line they play behind (this is more important than anything) and what kind of skill players they have to work with. Just spouting stats is completely meaningless. I have no interest in debating this with you. I understand that McNabb has good stats. You (hopefully) understand that the Eagles have historically performed just as well when McNabb has gotten injured.

I still don't understand why you insert yourself into a discussion, and then suddenly demand that we change the subject and hold some kind of debate with you. I have no interest in debating you. If you think that laying -24.5 is AUTOMATICALLY bad based upon NFL history, then there is nothing I can say to you to change your mind.

Even when I point out in the other thread that Pit won 42-0 as a 24.5 point favorite, you change the subject and start talking about expansion teams. Are you drunk again?

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

Umm... LOL at anyone who wasn't on +24.5

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[ QUOTE ]
Umm... LOL at anyone who wasn't on +24.5

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't LOL at me, I took +16.5 3/1 [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

Even I was on +24.5, knowing next to nothing about NFL. But just reading this post it seemed all the intelligent people thought it was a great bet, so I took it [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Thanks smart people!!!

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you getting so bent out of shape? Im just trying to understand why you experts still dont think this team is so far above everyone else its not even funny. /pissing contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

because their defense sucks, is aging, and will get worse.

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[ QUOTE ]
Signal/noise ratio has gotten really bad in here this week.

I've got a total of 7u on the Eagles at various spreads, +22.5 and higher. Also on Eagles team total over 14.

[/ QUOTE ]

excellent play

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are you getting so bent out of shape? Im just trying to understand why you experts still dont think this team is so far above everyone else its not even funny. /pissing contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

because their defense sucks, is aging, and will get worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

NE's defense sucks huh?

Good one.

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't understand your point then. He said -24.5 against the Eagles was a terrible line

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, what he effectively said was that anyone who did not bet Phi +24.5 was nothing but a "square" and a "fanboy". I don't agree with this viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't agree with viewpoint <> Other person not knowledgable.

"Hello, Pot? This is Kettel. You're black."

I'm not the sharpest sports bettor, I'm a noob at it. But even I know a stupid line when I see one.
Pats -24.5 over Eagles = stupid.
Pats -14 over Ravens = stupid.
The sharp play on both those lines was completely obvious. One of course was never available. The other was seen briefly, and I didn't see one sharp calling it a no-bet much less playing the other side of it.

And don't bother calling yourself a sharp, cause if you do, "I don't agree with this viewpoint."

[ QUOTE ]
He went on to say he had no idea how to set that line, and he was also clueless that the line has been available for hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... Once again for the process-oriented-challenged:

Not knowing how I'd set the line <> don't know the line was available.

Show me exactly where I said that? You'll have an apology on your way.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I never said that. What I did say is that laying off that game does not qualify you as a "square" or a "fanboy".

[/ QUOTE ]

Your implication clearly is that laying off that game can be validated as an "acceptable play". Contention here obviously is that it is EV- to advocate "laying off" when "playing +24.5" is such an obviously EV+ play.

Why do you think laying off the game is okay unless you think +24.5 is an EV0 or worse line?

And OBTW, no one here is being ROT...most of us were pretty strongly advocating +24.5 as an easy EV+ play long before game wrap.

- C -

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[ QUOTE ]

Even when I point out in the other thread that Pit won 42-0 as a 24.5 point favorite, you change the subject and start talking about expansion teams

[/ QUOTE ]

Pointing out the opponent was a first-year expansion team is 'changing the subject?'

ROFL_copter. Sick level dude.

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[ QUOTE ]
The sharp play on both those lines was completely obvious. One of course was never available.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have NE -14.5 @ Baltimore as a pending bet, and I am not sure I would say -14 was "never available" either.

Anyway, my point was that no matter what you think about the Philly +24.5 line, it does not follow that someone who does not agree is automatically a square and a fanboy. That's stupid talk.

[ QUOTE ]

The other was seen briefly, and I didn't see one sharp calling it a no-bet much less playing the other side of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know who is a "sharp"? There are many people on this forum who are obsessed with declaring themselves sharps, and they often refer to people who disagree with them as "squares". That's one thing I don't like about this forum, and you are a perfect example. Why are you calling someone a "square" and a "fanboy" just because they said they were laying off a line you thought was good?

[ QUOTE ]

And don't bother calling yourself a sharp, cause if you do, "I don't agree with this viewpoint."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't refer to myself as a "sharp". That kind of behavior seems pretty lame. I don't care if you think I am a "sharp" or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Not knowing how I'd set the line <> don't know the line was available.

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize for saying you said that. I had you confused with someone else.

[ QUOTE ]

Your implication clearly is that laying off that game can be validated as an "acceptable play".

[/ QUOTE ]

You are jumping to an illogical conclusion. Maybe I just meant that if someone makes one solitary mistake, it doesn't necessarily mean they are a "square" or a "fanboy"?

[ QUOTE ]

Contention here obviously is that it is EV- to advocate "laying off" when "playing +24.5" is such an obviously EV+ play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are making the mistake of being results oriented. You seem to be talking like this line was WAY off. Should it have been NE -17? NE -14? NE -3? Just how far off was this line?

I wasn't gonna touch the game at Phi +22, and only bet it when it got to +24.5. In other words, I know that at the time I didn't feel like this was the most ridiculous line I had ever seen or anything like that. It's easy to be a swaggering braggart when your team happens to cover.

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think laying off the game is okay unless you think +24.5 is an EV0 or worse line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I happened to have had Phi +24.5, but I am not gonna say that laying off is simply indefensible. Some people are under the impression that McNabb is a HOF QB, so maybe that was the problem? NE had beaten 8 out of 10 teams by 20 or more points, so I guess that was a factor. I don't consider it a HUGE mistake to have laid off, nor would I automatically label someone a "square" or a "fanboy" just because I thought they were making one big mistake.

[ QUOTE ]

And OBTW, no one here is being ROT...most of us were pretty strongly advocating +24.5 as an easy EV+ play long before game wrap.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a funny quote. I really don't think you understand that if this game were played 100 times, NE would cover some of those times. You seem to think this one game has 100% validated your viewpoint, no questions asked. That is the very definition of being results oriented.

If I advocate calling an all-in bet with 3 high BEFORE I runner-runnner winning trips, does that mean I am not being results oriented if I brag afterward? Understand that I am not saying you made a bad play taking +24.5 (I made the same bet), but it doesn't matter that you called it beforehand. It is ONE GAME.

As a further example, I had Phi +25 parlayed with under 52. That was a loser, and it didn't come close. Should I lament what a horrible bet I made? I guess the book really pulled one over on me, letting me place that wager.

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[ QUOTE ]
As a further example, I had Phi +25 parlayed with under 52. That was a loser, and it didn't come close. Should I lament what a horrible bet I made? I guess the book really pulled one over on me, letting me place that wager.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I had the same bet. And as per your words I am the final arbiter of what is and what is not "sharp" betting behavior. I support this type of frivolity.

Though if I wasn't busy taking huge +EV bets from tardo books. I woulda just bombed +24.5 Sometimes I'm too good.

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[ QUOTE ]
Understand that I am not saying you made a bad play...but it doesn't matter that you called it beforehand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does. PSU isn't saying it was a good bet because he won, he's saying there was inherent value in the line [if inelegantly.]

Texas +250 v USC was a good bet that I called before hand. I cannot be accused of ROT because it won. Obviously if they played again, USC may have won, it was still a good bet. The line was not set to attract equal action, but to suck in all the USC bettors at a bad price [say -275]

UAB +10.5/+450 v Kentucky 2nd Round CBB Tourney was a v.v. good bet. I loaded up on this. It's not a good bet because UAB won outright, it's a good bet because of the huge value inherent in the misplaced line, same as above.
Obviously, some % out of 100 the Wildcats would cover the Blazers, but since 98% of office/public bettors couldn't tell you UAB's nickname, much less that they press 94'/40m you can safely assume the public was riding UK pretty hard.

Eagles -3 @ GB Week 1 was a good bet. The Pack Offense scored 6 pts on their drives, recovered a punt muff in the end zone, and another one at the 20 in the final minute for another 3 pts. PHL's O outscored GB's O 13-6 with 2 fewer possessions, the Defs each scored 0. The fact that PHL lost on a last-second FG doesn't change the value of that line going back to August.

Perf offered me 8/10-1 initially on KC not making the playoffs. There was obvious value in that line, I didn't even need to know it was arbable to immediately book a bet with him.

All these 'events' are only played one time. That is irrelevant to their inherent value. No different than a GOOG $675 Dec call option. That 'game' is only run once, but at a certain price you should buy all you can.

Re: *** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think you understand that if this game were played 100 times, NE would cover some of those times. You seem to think this one game has 100% validated your viewpoint, no questions asked. That is the very definition of being results oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why it is that you think I've basically said that +24.5 is a good bet because it won. It makes me laugh that you think I need to have ROT explained to me.

I think I'll be done with this argument as it's kinda like banging my head against a brick wall. One question though... Does it really count for you to say you had +24.5 when in fact what you had was a middle that had +24.5 on the high end? Seems to me you thought there was more value in the middle than the actual number, as if not you'd have doubled down on +24.5 to give a middle as well as a true +24.5 bet...

- C -