Minnesota -2.5
 

Looking at this weeks lines and this one kind of jumps out at me. The lions are in turmoil right now, I don't have a lot of confidence in either one of their QB's, and the Vikings have won 4 straight including @NYG and @GB. Seems like the Vikes would be a good play here, anyone else like this one?

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

I just found a book at -2+100, and still shading down! that's pretty sick right there.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

My biggest bet this week is on the Lions.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

Hate it

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
My biggest bet this week is on the Lions.

[/ QUOTE ]
hope you got them at least +3 then. I am playing +3-125 and trying to wait out a killer middle. right now I am 12% just to hit one side and it's only wednesday. obviously anyone on Minnesota has time to wait for free points.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

+3 -110

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
My biggest bet this week is on the Lions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mind if I ask your reasons, seems like the lions aren't playing very well lately. Thanks.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

Sagarin predictor and DVOA both like the Lions. Minnesota is likely being overvalued by the public right now. If you get Lions +3, bet it.

Minnesota is likely to be this week's BSP lock of the week.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sagarin predictor and DVOA both like the Lions. Minnesota is likely being overvalued by the public right now. If you get Lions +3, bet it.

Minnesota is likely to be this week's BSP lock of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Detroit +3 -115 still available at SIA.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
Looking at this weeks lines and this one kind of jumps out at me. The lions are in turmoil right now, I don't have a lot of confidence in either one of their QB's, and the Vikings have won 4 straight including @NYG and @GB. Seems like the Vikes would be a good play here, anyone else like this one?

[/ QUOTE ]
I do think the Vikes have turned a corner but I wouldn't take them on the road. Even vs the Lions.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
My biggest bet this week is on the Lions.

[/ QUOTE ]

i will probably have them teased up myself (unless the 3 becomes available in a few spots)

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
Minnesota is likely to be this week's BSP lock of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is I can't tell if that's good or bad any more.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Minnesota is likely to be this week's BSP lock of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is I can't tell if that's good or bad any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could it possibly be good?

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

FWIW, Minn is 74% - 24% over Detroit on Wagerline.
Tampa over the Saints is 82% -18%, the only larger discrepancy this week.

Early indications from my system is that Detroit will be a strong play, but I've still got a little more crunching to do.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

FWIW, Minnesota has beaten Detroit 7 straight times. Also Minny has won 4 of last 5 in Detroit and 11 of the last 12 overall against Detroit.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, Minnesota has beaten Detroit 7 straight times. Also Minny has won 4 of last 5 in Detroit and 11 of the last 12 overall against Detroit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm never quite sure what to do with this kind of information in pro sports. Really. I have no idea.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, Minnesota has beaten Detroit 7 straight times. Also Minny has won 4 of last 5 in Detroit and 11 of the last 12 overall against Detroit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm never quite sure what to do with this kind of information in pro sports. Really. I have no idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
By the time people notice a trend like this and start talking about it, the books have already adjusted for it in their lines (that is, assuming the trend is valid and not just a big coincidence). So I find myself going against such trends more often than not. But I agree that the trend in and of itself is not enough information to make a play on either side.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, Minnesota has beaten Detroit 7 straight times. Also Minny has won 4 of last 5 in Detroit and 11 of the last 12 overall against Detroit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm never quite sure what to do with this kind of information in pro sports. Really. I have no idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
By the time people notice a trend like this and start talking about it, the books have already adjusted for it in their lines (that is, assuming the trend is valid and not just a big coincidence). So I find myself going against such trends more often than not. But I agree that the trend in and of itself is not enough information to make a play on either side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I agree as well, just because they have won a lot in a row doesn't mean they will cover this week. I was just throwing it out as a FYI.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

Force, that's what I figured you were doing. And I think Shamu probably made the best point of how to handle such info.

There is a guy in another forum who always posts hot records ATS, like Detroit games have gone under the last xx games. This seems a little more valuable b/c it often shows how the public perceives a certain team if their totals keep going under the spread.

However, I wasn't sure how to apply these other statistics to handicapping.

-SC

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

Now, I'll admit I don't know much about sports betting and I'm sure this post will illustrate that, but I just can't see how Minnessota is not a lock.

Minnessota was picked by many to make the playoffs this year and possibly to go deep into the playoffs. They started out the season playing terribly because of the play of Culpepper. For whatever reason, the guy could not protect the football this year.

The Vikings seem to be a much better team with Brad Johnson as QB. Brad Johnson is a guy who has always been smart and solid. The rest of the team is probably about average. But they have momentum, and they are fighting for a playoff spot.

Detroit, on the other hand, has been horrible for YEARS. Both of their QBs suck. They just fired their coach. The entire organization sucks. They can't run. They can't pass. They have no shot at the playoffs. Their players are USED TO LOSING.

So, will someone please explain to me how Detroit can possibly be a good play, let alone a LOCK?

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

Its amazing that bad teams still win football games in the NFL isn't it?

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I'll admit I don't know much about sports betting and I'm sure this post will illustrate that, but I just can't see how Minnessota is not a lock.

<snip>

So, will someone please explain to me how Detroit can possibly be a good play, let alone a LOCK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Short answer (i'll post more later):

#1 - there's no such thing as a sure thing, aka a lock, in sports betting
#2 - if a favorite line looks like a lock (to a casual fan) you're almost always wrong. The sports books don't generally give away free money, they set the lines that take all the factors in to consideration.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

I notice the sarcasm, but is that really an argument for betting on the bad team?

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]


#1 - there's no such thing as a sure thing, aka a lock, in sports betting

[/ QUOTE ]

Understood.

[ QUOTE ]

#2 - if a favorite line looks like a lock (to a casual fan) you're almost always wrong. The sports books don't generally give away free money, they set the lines that take all the factors in to consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but this still isn't an argument for why Detroit is a good bet. I'll be interested to read your future post if it is going to contain real analyses, but all this stuff about sports books and psychology doesn't address the fact that Minnessota just seems like a much better team right now, has good momentum, is fighting for a playoff spot, and was favored, by sports books I might add, to make the playoffs this year.

Detroit can't run, can't pass, and can't stop the run. They've played a lot of tough defenses this year but Minnessota's D is not bad either. You'd be amazed how tough it is not to give up yards and points when your QB puts the ball on the ground every other drive.

Again, I'm not an avid sports bettor, and I don't claim to know more about it than the regulars here, but I can't see Minessota not covering 7 out of 10 times in this spot.

Please tell me why I am wrong and remind me why I don't bet on sports.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
I notice the sarcasm, but is that really an argument for betting on the bad team?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not an avid sports bettor, and I don't claim to know more about it than the regulars here, but I can't see Minessota not covering 7 out of 10 times in this spot.


[/ QUOTE ]

The absolute best anyone can ever hope to achieve is 60% ATS - and if you win 60%, you're probably missing a lot of good opportunities. 7 out of 10 is way off. I know nothing about this game, except that the sharper books have better lines on Min which usually means Detroit is the better side of the bet.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me why I am wrong and remind me why I don't bet on sports.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Detroit strictly because their computer numbers match up favorably.


Computer A
Computer B

If a line looks too good to be true, and the book KNOWS every public bettor will bet on it, then why are they still okay making it available? The short answer is that the public is wrong. The public's side does not have an edge, and in fact, the other side may well have an edge.

There is no free money in the NFL. There have been a number of games this year where everyone in the world has said something like, "Oh man! NO WAY does Detroit cover this against Minnesota!" These are known as the Bar Stool Pundits, or BSP's.

And so far this year, betting against the BSP's in these BSP games has been incredibly profitable. Like more profitable than you would believe. It started off something like 13-1.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

Well, if Detroit covers, I'll admit you guys are all geniuses!

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
Detroit . . . Both of their QBs suck. They just fired their coach. The entire organization sucks. They can't run. They can't pass. They have no shot at the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every one of those statements was true about the Miami Dolphins last year heading into Week 11. Under interim Head Coach Jim Bates, they finished a strong 3-4 straight up and, more importantly, went 6-1 against the spread. This alone should convince you that Minnessota cannot possibly be a lock this week.

[ QUOTE ]
Minnessota was picked by many to make the playoffs this year and possibly to go deep into the playoffs. They started out the season playing terribly because of the play of Culpepper. For whatever reason, the guy could not protect the football this year.

The Vikings seem to be a much better team with Brad Johnson as QB. Brad Johnson is a guy who has always been smart and solid. The rest of the team is probably about average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Culpepper was not playing well, but neither is Brad Johnson. The Vikings' turnaround has been keyed by three things: improved defensive play, terrible opponents, and the flukiest win (at New York) that I've seen in years.

Detroit stinks, but Minnesota doesn't deserve to be a road favorite against anyone except San Francisco (and perhaps Houston).

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if Detroit covers, I'll admit you guys are all geniuses!

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, the outcome of the game actually doesn't really matter. I think Detroit is the right side, and I'll think that either way. I'm not smarter if they win, nor am I dumber if they lose. I think that Detroit +3 is profitable, and that is enough.

(Well, maybe I'm smarter if they win. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, the outcome of the game actually doesn't really matter. I think Detroit is the right side, and I'll think that either way. I'm not smarter if they win, nor am I dumber if they lose. I think that Detroit +3 is profitable, and that is enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I'll admit I don't know much about sports betting and I'm sure this post will illustrate that, but I just can't see how Minnessota is not a lock.

Minnessota was picked by many to make the playoffs this year and possibly to go deep into the playoffs. They started out the season playing terribly because of the play of Culpepper. For whatever reason, the guy could not protect the football this year.

The Vikings seem to be a much better team with Brad Johnson as QB. Brad Johnson is a guy who has always been smart and solid. The rest of the team is probably about average. But they have momentum, and they are fighting for a playoff spot.

Detroit, on the other hand, has been horrible for YEARS. Both of their QBs suck. They just fired their coach. The entire organization sucks. They can't run. They can't pass. They have no shot at the playoffs. Their players are USED TO LOSING.

So, will someone please explain to me how Detroit can possibly be a good play, let alone a LOCK?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe that nobody has pointed out the obvious yet. The Vikings are a fraud. They're not for real. I say this as a Vikings fan who watches them every week.

They had a fluke win in NY where they failed to score an offensive touchdown and they beat 3 bad teams. Brad Johnson has done nothing good as QB since replacing Culpepper yet he recieves all the credit.

On the other hand, the Lions really suck too. It's just going to be a battle of who can suck less.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but this still isn't an argument for why Detroit is a good bet. I'll be interested to read your future post if it is going to contain real analyses, but all this stuff about sports books and psychology doesn't address the fact that Minnessota just seems like a much better team right now, has good momentum, is fighting for a playoff spot, and was favored, by sports books I might add, to make the playoffs this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, by itself its not a reason to play a game. And yes, my picks always contain a good deal of analysis on why the picks are made - check the previous "Performify's Pigskin Picks" threads on here, or check my blog which also archives them all: www.performify.com

[ QUOTE ]
Detroit can't run, can't pass, and can't stop the run.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right on what you quote, but you're not looking at the whole picture. Let me give you a little more detail.

Detroit's defense is #14 overall, #25 against the run but #11 against the pass. The Detroit offense is #27 overall, #25 both rushing and passing.

The Vikes offense is #25 overall, #24 rushing and #20 passing. Finally, the Vikes are #28 overall in defense, #15 against the rush and #25 against the pass.

So just speaking on the numbers, you've got two equally bad offenses, but one offense which favors the pass over the run, and one team that is balanced run and pass.

The Vikes present a bottom four defense, decent at stopping the run (but as you pointed out, the Lions aren't doing much rushing these days anyways) but porous against the pass. In Detroit you've got a trio of top receivers and a decent vetran QB to exploit that secondary. Conversely, the Vikings are dependant upon the pass, and you've got a top 1/3rd pass defense going against them.

Detroit also turns the ball over less (and a lot less with Garcia vs Harrington at QB).

Again, more details in the picks thread when those are finished, but just wanted to point out some of the matchup that a lot of people miss when they first look at this game.

Re: Minnesota -2.5
 

[ QUOTE ]

They had a fluke win in NY where they failed to score an offensive touchdown and they beat 3 bad teams. Brad Johnson has done nothing good as QB since replacing Culpepper yet he recieves all the credit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granted they didnt score on offense in NY but I wouldn't exactly consider any of their scores to be flukes in that game. They simply owned on special teams [and made Eli look a rookie again]. Where I agree that Brad Johnson is no big deal, he hasn't been costing Minn games like Dante was in the early part of the season.