Overs up to 56% on the season (74-57)

[No coincidences]

You blindly betting them yet?

Books refusing to adjust and getting crushed accordingly. Last night was a perfect example -- a 42/43 for a game with Andrew Luck?

Can't fix stupid. Ride the wave I guess.

[No coincidences]

FTR, I don't get a bet on the over tonight. At all. Yet most seem to like it.

[Tommy Karate]

You blindly betting them yet?

Books refusing to adjust and getting crushed accordingly. Last night was a perfect example -- a 42/43 for a game with Andrew Luck?

Can't fix stupid. Ride the wave I guess.

the total opened at 47.5............that was an accurate # for a TV game between these 2 teams.

under kept getting hammered despite it being a NTV over. almost landed on that 42 for the magical middle.

[No coincidences]

the total opened at 47.5............that was an accurate # for a TV game between these 2 teams.

under kept getting hammered despite it being a NTV over. almost landed on that 42 for the magical middle.

Who would be hammering the under in that matchup (especially to that extent)?

[Tommy Karate]

Who would be hammering the under in that matchup (especially to that extent)?

i each week always lean under colts for the very reason that i feel the public will look for overs with luck, when in actuality they run a conservative style offense. and the texans hadnt scored more then 20 pts since week 2. its not like we were looking at saints/broncos...

but the extent of the movement was unusual. maybe one of those syndicates released a GOY on under?

[No coincidences]

i each week always lean under colts for the very reason that i feel the public will look for overs with luck, when in actuality they run a conservative style offense. and the texans hadnt scored more then 20 pts since week 2. its not like we were looking at saints/broncos...

but the extent of the movement was unusual. maybe one of those syndicates released a GOY on under?

Honestly, TK, these days, if you see a line move that much (side or total) -- hammer the other side. It seems to be hitting at an extraordinary rate.

[Tommy Karate]

Honestly, TK, these days, if you see a line move that much (side or total) -- hammer the other side. It seems to be hitting at an extraordinary rate.

i agree...prob is i was already playing the under even w/o the RLM......then i was waiting for the buy back that never happened. i should have laid off with such a bad #, but im not that good....

[albinoshark]

Guys, at 50.5 now would you lean to the UNDER?

[oldshoebox72]

OVER-UNDER is 1-9 in the last 10 times these teams played each other.
One of my local guy give me 10.5, 51.5. I'm riding UNDER for 5x

[Tommy Karate]

this game would have around 65-75 points right now with rodgers in the game.....that would beat any total the books put out for an adjustment.

lotto ticket time for under backers...

[frostno98]

Books got it right. They just can't cap punt returns and turnovers, those the main reason games go over. A zero turnover game is virtually guaranteed to go under.