 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Sickest loss
Pretty good day (57%), but still recorded my sickest loss ever.
Kind of funny, because this exact topic had come up here earlier this year. A FG attempt bouncing off the inside post against another post and back into the field.
I had BAL +2.5. The game was over. The players were in the locker room. A FG is not reviewable. And yet those !@%!$%!@$%!$^%#$%$!#$!#$%$@ zebras managed to reverse the call on the field.
you should have bought the point or taken the ML. +2.5 is basically the same thing as ML, with crappier odds. if you're not getting 3, you may as well go for the +150 odds...Originally Posted by Dark Horse
Wrong answer.
I would have probably vomited if I were you DH. How can something not be reviewable and then you take a look at the replay and decide to reverse the call? "upon further discussion" my ass, I wish there had been further discussion in several other non-reviewable game changing calls this season.
I had baltimore, I bought the 1 point to get over the hook. I'm not criticizing you, but for me personally, I won't take +2 1/2 or +3, I always buy it to +3 1/2. I had a several days long discussion with Ganch about this. I didn't understand most of it, but I think he said buying the point or half point to get past the +3 is a +EV play.
extremely bad answer since it was totally unrelated to your (DH) situation. The loss sucks DH but in my understanding of the rules the call was correct. The half point would have made you the push which sucks losing by the half point. Cleveland should not have been in a postion like that after dominating the game but football is 60 minutes. Sorry for your lose DH....
I was watching that game, but the announcers talk so much bullshit it is hard to understand excatly what is going on. I can't remember if the ref signaled a missed field go. It seemed to me like they didn't signal anything and then had a meeting and then made the call.
But, I might have been watching the replays. I did see the ball hit the goal post then hit the back part of the goal then bounce out. I just don't remember if the ref signaled a missed field goal.
The Ravens coach said he had never seen anything like that before, you could tell he was pretty upset about it, but was trying to be "nice" for the camera. I think he said "I don't know what they were doing out there...I can't explain it" or words to that effect.
The one ref did signal that it was missed originally.
The bottom line is that they got the call right. Tough to be on the wrong end of it, but as a football fan, you like to see them get the call right and the deserving team win the game.
that's exactly what I meant. Really, how many times will getting 2.5 pts help you? Probably alot less than having 3 or 3.5....
that's not what he said.
the value depends on the cost.
most books overcharge across the 3 in NFL. The ones that don't tend to go out of business.
I couldn't get this game on TV and was watching the status on Yahoo sports Gamechannel.. I actually left to eat dinner because they showed final score and when I got back I found out I had won...Wish whole weekend had gone that way..
I did not know that you could not review the field goal...maybe you just cant challenge it but in the last two minute the booth may be able to overturn a bad call made on the field.....Im not sure that would make sense as to why they were able to overturn it.
let's put an end to this
1) If you are going to take Ravens +2.5 at -115, you may as well get Ravens +3 for -125.
2) If you feel the Ravens don't need the 3, or don't want to buy the extra juice, take Ravens ML, at + odds.
3) They got the call right on the field, correct they should not have reviewed it in the first place, but they also should not have screwed up the call in the first place.
Let's learn a lesson boys and girls, don't take a team +2.5 ever....
1) If you are going to take Ravens +2.5 at -115, you may as well get Ravens +3 for -125.
2) If you feel the Ravens don't need the 3, or don't want to buy the extra juice, take Ravens ML, at + odds.
3) They got the call right on the field, correct they should not have reviewed it in the first place, but they also should not have screwed up the call in the first place.
Let's learn a lesson boys and girls, don't take a team +2.5 ever....
Show me a book that will move it from +2.5 to +3 for 10 cents and I'll show you a book that probably has no chance of actually paying up in the long run.
There's no sportsbook in the world (even the F books) that charges 10 cents to buy 1pt across the 3 in the NFL. Not even close.1) If you are going to take Ravens +2.5 at -115, you may as well get Ravens +3 for -125.
Pinnacle, for example chargres 25+ cents for 1/2pt off the 3. So if they have Ravens +2.5 -115, +3.5 is at least -155
The vast majority of books overcharge for NFL pts and you are losing value taking them. Use Ganchcrow's 1/2pt value calculator to find out.
If your book does in fact allow you to buy 1/2 pts (im going to assume your post is a mistake) on and off the 3 for 10 cents -- I'd get your money out asap -- they wont be in business long
Creative numbers.1) If you are going to take Ravens +2.5 at -115, you may as well get Ravens +3 for -125.
Aside from the fact if there is value in buying on/off or even through 3, my post was obviously about the craziest field goal imaginable.
The game was in the books. This is roughly comparable to a basketball game being over, until the refs decide five minutes later that the final shot was not a block but goal tending. To take five minutes is exactly the point. Because that is reviewing (with or without tv images). And a FG is NOT reviewable. Therefore the original decision couldn't have been changed.
Most decisions by refs in a game are split second. This was one of them. Typically the game moves right on to the next play, regardless of the wrong or right call. In this case they were able to review it forever because the game was over. That's right. THE GAME WAS OVER. Just bad use of decision making by the refs.
Last edited by Dark Horse; 11-19-07 at 11:59 AM.
Ok maybe I'm newer to the sportsbetting scene, and I didn't realize books charged 25 cents for 0.5 point spread change. But I'm experienced to know leaving it at +2.5 is a donk move...that was my main point.
Furthermore, all calls in the last 2 minutes should be reviewed by the officials via instant replay, IMO. I realize, field goals are NOT supposed to be reviewed, but in the end, they made the right call. Also, when the "technology malfunction" occurred, the correct call on the field had also been made. I'm sick of listening to Ravens fans complain about how the game was "stolen" from them. The Ravens lost the game, plain and simple. If you can't prevent a team from scoring 3 points in 16 SECONDS, you don't deserve to win the game.
I'm sick of listening to Ravens fans complain about how the game was "stolen" from them. The Ravens lost the game, plain and simple. If you can't prevent a team from scoring 3 points in 16 SECONDS, you don't deserve to win the game.
This is about betting, not fans.
I wonder how you would have felt if you had attended a home game by your favorite team, celebrated a win, left the stadium, only to find out on your way home that your team had somehow lost...
You're a bit of a know-it-all, aren't you? Responded to my post by saying a +2.5 pt bet is always a bad move (without even knowing the juice), and now the Ravens fans need to shut up because any team that gives up 3 pts in 16 seconds doesn't deserve to win.
This is about betting, not fans.
I wonder how you would have felt if you had attended a home game by your favorite team, celebrated a win, left the stadium, only to find out on your way home that your team had somehow lost...
You're a bit of a know-it-all, aren't you? Responded to my post by saying a +2.5 pt bet is always a bad move (without even knowing the juice), and now the Ravens fans need to shut up because any team that gives up 3 pts in 16 seconds doesn't deserve to win.
Juice? You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Why would you pay -110 or worse getting only 2.5 points when you could just as well get +110 or better getting no points. From a math standpoint it makes no sense. And when I'm talking about the Bitter Ravens fans, I'm talking about the ones who root for the Ravens, and the ones who took them at +3 ( or in your case +2.5)
Don't claim to know it all, but there are clearly some bets with more value out there than others. My point is if you were paying -110 or worse only getting 2.5 points, you may as well have gotten +EV on the BAL ML, unless you really thought the Browns would win by 2. Guess what dude, I didn't win with CLE-3 either. And the -3 was with +110 juice.
Under league rules, field goals are non-reviewable.
"I did not go under the hood or use replay at all," Morelli said.
But WMAR-TV has a tape of Morelli going over to the replay booth and putting on a headset. Ravens assistant Vic Fangio had to be restrained because he was yelling to Morelli that the play couldn't be reviewed.
According to the NFL, Morelli did not look at replays. He was talking to the replay official about whether the field goal could be reviewed.
----
From http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/f...0,470622.story
Why are you guys JOCKIN' this review thing.??? They didn't need a review... Me and my brother (both former kickers) the second it bounced back on in the field of play and they said it was no good we said it's good and they will over turn it... This was an easy call... Had I seen the thread where this was discussed earlier I would have posted what I believed to be true...
We all saw where it hit and so did they... They did not need a review they needed to check the rule book... According to a HS offical friend of mine who goes to camps held by NFL Refs. he claims someone always has a rule book with them and they probably had to check the rules book...
I also agree with buying it to 3 to taking the ML... I got burned it it before with Buffalo and Denver this year by taking the ML and not the points but I still agree with it...
yeah, that was clearly BS. Especially when he stopped, and made an announcement that they are "taking a look at the play" how do they take a look at the play without instant replay review?? you don't....I'm personally happy with the outcome, but I am willing to admit the Ravens got shafted by the rules as they stand. Turns out the refs eventually got the call right, but they did violate the rule about the non-review. Thats like in the Indy/SD game with the "inadvertent whistle" they should have "taken a look" at that play, but didn't because league rules specify once the play is blown dead it is over, and non-reviewable. NFL hates the ravens
I think Shams is pretty much on it here.
I had never seen that happen before in the many years I've been watching football.
But at the end of the day, they got the call right.
How on earth do you know for sure they looked at review... He said we are looking at the play.. he did not say it's under review... That is what they ALWAYS...and I mean ALWAYS say when they are looking at instant replay in the booth... I have never heard them use "looking at the play" and it does NOT mean looking at instant replay...
Have any of you stood under a goal post while a kicker attempts a FG..? THEY SAW THAT!!!! They were looking RIGHT at the ball... I would be willing to bet it's more likely they thought the "goose neck" in the rules book counted as the cross bar since it is an extension of it which applies to some rules, like a player, but as far as the goose neck IT DOES NOT!!! They likely had to check the rules for interuptation...
Let me ask you guys this... What would they review..? It hit the upright then the goose neck and bounced back into the field of play... What is to review..??? The rules interuptation is what they had to do and even if it was reviewable it would have done them NO GOOD!!
I know this because I always had a problem hookin' the ball and I hit the upright more times then you could even imagine... It was very uncommon if I would go a practice without hitting it... Once I hit the right upright then the cross bar then the left upright and in... That only happened once out of the 100's of time I have hit the uprights in my day....
Last edited by ShamsWoof10; 11-19-07 at 12:55 PM.
No idea how a thread about a FG rule turns into a debate about buying on/off three.
If a call is not reviewable, it is not reviewable. It ends there.
( I would have loved to see the same refs making that same correction if it had given the Browns the SU win...)
The refs got together and clearly made the right call. If you had won because they blew the call, it would be a cheap, lucky win anyways.
It is reviewable.. just not using the replay...
Juice? You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Why would you pay -110 or worse getting only 2.5 points when you could just as well get +110 or better getting no points. From a math standpoint it makes no sense. And when I'm talking about the Bitter Ravens fans, I'm talking about the ones who root for the Ravens, and the ones who took them at +3 ( or in your case +2.5
Don't claim to know it all, but there are clearly some bets with more value out there than others. My point is if you were paying -110 or worse only getting 2.5 points, you may as well have gotten +EV on the BAL ML, unless you really thought the Browns would win by 2. Guess what dude, I didn't win with CLE-3 either. And the -3 was with +110 juice.
+2.5 can have more value than the ml or the reverse. it depends entirely on the odds. learn about push the probabilities. but, there are plenty of instances were taking 2.5 is the value play vs overpaying on to the 3
Tennessee and the under = money to the bank!
There are some instances where knowing TOO MUCH about sports betting odds can hurt you. I realize that buying BAL up to +3 gives you crappy odds. Realistiscally, the only time a BAL +2.5 bet will win is when BAL wins s/u. What is the likelihood that getting 2.5 will give you the win? If CLE wins by 1 or 2?
+2.5 can have more value than the ml or the reverse. it depends entirely on the odds. learn about push the probabilities. but, there are plenty of instances were taking 2.5 is the value play vs overpaying on to the 3I don't have the exact #s but I'd imagine the probability of the 2.5 helping you is quite low. If you are confident that BALTIMORE will win, why not take + odds on the ML instead of getting 2.5 points, which the game showed has almost no value? And if you are buying 0.5 points, and getting crappy odds, why not just do a tease? Not tryin to be a dick, but if you liked BALTIMORE, I don't see the value in BAL +2.5 at -110 over BAL s/u +110 or whatever it was....if its BAL +3 -110 and bal s/u +110, sure I get it, but getting only 2.5 isn't enugh to justify getting .20 worse odds. end of discussion
I disagree,
The chance of losing by 1 (at +2.5) is about 2.5% and by 2 about 2% (using the #'s from ganchrows 1/2 pt value calculator, my data is slightly different but that doesnt matter) That's a 4.5% chance that those 2.5pts will be necessary. That may seem low to you, but it will happen over time and that's what getting the best value is all about (making the most profitable long term play).Realistiscally, the only time a BAL +2.5 bet will win is when BAL wins s/u. What is the likelihood that getting 2.5 will give you the win? If CLE wins by 1 or 2?
You are right +110 is a better value play than +2.5 -110 (if we use Wong's #'s +2.5 -110 = +106) But, at +2.5 +100 you need better than +117. Again, it all comes down to the #'s, it's not a subjective question (unless you have some rational for why the push probabilities should be different)odds on the ML instead of getting 2.5 points, which the game showed has almost no value? And if you are buying 0.5 points, and getting crappy odds, why not just do a tease? Not tryin to be a dick, but if you liked BALTIMORE, I don't see the value in BAL +2.5 at -110 over BAL s/u +110 or whatever it was....if its BAL +3 -110 and bal s/u +110, sure I get it, but getting only 2.5 isn't enugh to justify getting .20 worse odds. end of discussion
I can also look at this way:
I have since 1985, home dogs from PK to 2.5 covering 55% of the time and winning SU 52.3% of the time.
If I assume +2.5 (-110) is a 55% play, we have 55% -45%(1.1) = 5.5% investment
52.3% -5.5% = 46.8% so I need a ml with a 47%+ to a get a better investment which is about +113
I can also look at this way:
I have since 1985, home dogs from PK to 2.5 covering 55% of the time and winning SU 52.3% of the time.
If I assume +2.5 (-110) is a 55% play, we have 55% -45%(1.1) = 5.5% investment
52.3% -5.5% = 46.8% so I need a ml with a 47%+ to a get a better investment which is about +113[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the breakdown, I actually see your point now...guess I just didn't see the value, because everytime I take a team +2.5 or tease it down to -3.5 or something I seem to get screwed.
Shamswoof I hear your point, but technically it is still wrong to reverse the call here. There is no system set in place to make this type of reversal, if a play cannot be reviewed, once the official signals the play/game is over and players start leaving the field, you shouldn't be allowed to "discuss it more" and reverse the nonreviewable play.
Its just inconsistent to go picking and choosing when you're allowed to further discuss something to make the right call if its non reviewable. Obviously this had to do with the game's outcome, but still there's no official precedent to stand on.
Someone made the point about the inadvertent whistle, or how about when San Diego was at the goal line of the Bears, and a defender CLEARLY jumped offsides even before the ball was snapped, and then a SD player fumbled and the fans/players went fn crazy. The replay was right on the screen and the refs argued with the coach for 5 mins about how they knew they screwed up and couldn't review/reverse it, WHY was that not allowed to be 'further discussed'?
Exactly.
NO DH NOT exactly!!! Who said it is wrong to reverse the call here..??? The rule book does not say it therefore it is NOT wrong......technically... So technically you are using the word technically wrong here since it is not wrong in the rule book... The fact that DH lost his bet because of it still does NOT make it wrong to reverse the call here....
Those examples are specific in the rule book THAT'S WHY!!! ....and don't give me this sh*t that they reviewed it using instant replay because you do not know that you are assuming so... How about I give you an example... Have you seen refs. wave off a flag or change a call on the field without replay after a conference with the refs. on the field..? Yes you have and for the 100th time it is ALLOWED for them to discuss it... To say you could not change your mind after consulting other refs. and a rule book about a play you are not familiar with because it's never happened before is just stupid...
Without suckin' on Google's d*ck can anyone tell me what a free kick is in football..? Yeah football not soccer... If you are an NFL ref. you better know NOW because if someone has a bet on it you as a ref. are not allowed to change your mind so you better get it right the first time... It's easy for you guys to say sh*t when you don't know the rules yourself...
Last edited by ShamsWoof10; 11-19-07 at 09:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
