I feel sorry for the over backers

Razz · 02-04-07, 10:24 PM

I don't. They were on the wrong side by a mile.

imgv94 · 02-04-07, 10:32 PM

I feel a lot more sorry for Chargers backers...

EaglesPhan36 · 02-04-07, 10:36 PM

I was on the over, but I told my buddy while we were watching once it got half way through the 4th that 46 was going to be the end game. Thankfully I took a bet on the Bears +3.5 in the 1st half and Vinatieri shanked one - as unexpected a win as ever.

imgv94 · 02-04-07, 10:37 PM

I've realized it's waaay better to be lucky then good..

BigBollocks · 02-05-07, 01:16 AM

I'll be real curious to hear how the offshore sites did. It seems as though every soul alive was on the under, but the preliminary reports I'm getting from larger volume locals is that the volume on the sides combined with a lot of Bears/Under parlay money kept everything OK. They got buried with teasers however.

Add to that the offshore books taking in a decent (presumed) amount of prop and 1st half under money and I'm sure they did fine.

BuddyBear · 02-05-07, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Razz

I don't. They were on the wrong side by a mile.

I don't know about this...sure seemed like INDY could have gotten the over themselves. Bears defense was on the field forever. Even so, the under seemed to be the sharper side for what it's worth.

VegasDave · 02-05-07, 04:29 AM

As I was saying in another thread, I thought the only reason to play the OVER was to parlay it with the Bears, because to win they would have had to score into the 30s, and I knew the Colts would get theirs.

My friend, unfortunately, didn't parlay, and instead made two seperate large bets on the BEARS and the OVER. Hopefully there weren't too many of you on this card.

I'm content. My 10 year super bowl team im rooting for losing streak is over, and the only bet I made was -200 on the Colts with a friend straight up... and they took care of it.

imgv94 · 02-05-07, 06:03 AM

If you really think about it Dungy did the right thing not going for it..

Bears had No Timeouts and even if the kick was good or not the Bears still needed two scores to win it.. With No TIMEOUTS??

It was the right call..

Razz · 02-05-07, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by imgv94

If you really think about it Dungy did the right thing not going for it..

Bears had No Timeouts and even if the kick was good or not the Bears still needed two scores to win it.. With No TIMEOUTS??

It was the right call..

Yeah, and even if you knew you were going to make the FG, you would have to kick to Hester, or squib kick and give the Bears the ball near midfield.

onlooker · 02-05-07, 02:48 PM

It was the right/smart call.

But from the betting standpoint, it wasnt. But you dont win ball games that way, especially the biggest game.

Id be pissed if I had the over, and fortunate if I had the under.

Willie Bee · 02-05-07, 02:54 PM

Over bettors should lament Vinatieri's missed field goal at the end of the first half more than Dungy's decision not to kick at the end.

Razz · 02-05-07, 03:02 PM

And under bettors should lament the two non-offensive touchdowns and numerous turnovers that set up great field position that made it even close to the total. There's no way in hell 40 points should have been scored in this game, considering the Bears only had one legitimate drive.

imgv94 · 02-05-07, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Razz

And under bettors should lament the two non-offensive touchdowns and numerous turnovers that set up great field position that made it even close to the total. There's no way in hell 40 points should have been scored in this game, considering the Bears only had one legitimate drive.

CASE CLOSED.. So I guess Under was really the right play.