[ChalkyDog]

Good number or Trap?

For instance, Pats -13.5:

OH LOOK! A great number - the Pats will roll that shitty Arizona team by two TD's at least. (every square on the planet before the game)

or is it the book laying an attractive number for the wrong side?

Same thing with the ever great -2.5 or -6.5, key key numbers.

The never ending game between books and players.

I still think getting that key number wins in the long run, but for some of us, whose "long run" depends on what happens this week - not over 100 games - shady thoughts get to creeping in.

I think +key numbers did decent this weekend, BTW.

[The Giant]

Usually it's good to take +2.5, and lay the -3.5, especially when the numbers have been stagnant all week.

This year everything seems to be out of whack.

[ChalkyDog]

Usually it's good to take +2.5, and lay the -3.5, especially when the numbers have been stagnant all week.

This year everything seems to be out of whack.

HA! I heard that.

Gotta get outta my head. Think I might be giving these line makers magical foreseeing powers they don't have.

Two of my three plays were Indy +2.5 and Rams +3.5.

[GamblerSpirit]

I only bet on -/+3 or -/+7 spreads

[ApricotSinner32]

Suckers will get suckered.

[killawookie]

I generally blame the refs that are throwing the rhythm of the game off as we know it.. once the replacement refs r gone we will have a different season

[Vinnie Paz]

I dont like +2.5
Maybe im way off, and will get slammed for this, but doesnt seem like much value to take a dog +2.5

[ChalkyDog]

I dont like +2.5
Maybe im way off, and will get slammed for this, but doesnt seem like much value to take a dog +2.5

Yeah, that is the point. There is seemingly no value at +2.5 in the number itself. +(less than key number) is perceived to be of little value (or at least less value than a -(less than key number, i.e. -2.5)).

My question, mainly, and very incoherently is - do the books play that perception and then bait players into taking a good number on a bad side. I.e Minny -2.5 or NE -13.5, etc.

[k13]

Why would you take the +2.5 and not the ML?

Spreads only mattered in 2 of the 16 games this week. Just pick winners.

[ChalkyDog]

Why would you take the +2.5 and not the ML?

Spreads only mattered in 2 of the 16 games this week. Just pick winners.

Currently, only want to be dealing with the normal vig. I don't care to lay any amount of significant juice at this point in the season.

But you raise a good point. If you are only getting +2.5, which for all intents and purposes of this discussion is worthless in the scheme of things, why not just take the ML+?

If you are getting a number between key numbers like 2, 5, 8, etc. Is this the book trying to curb the wagers a certain way.

[k13]

Currently, only want to be dealing with the normal vig. I don't care to lay any amount of significant juice at this point in the season.

But you raise a good point. If you are only getting +2.5, which for all intents and purposes of this discussion is worthless in the scheme of things, why not just take the ML+?

If you are getting a number between key numbers like 2, 5, 8, etc. Is this the book trying to curb the wagers a certain way.

Yes I think there is a significant difference between 7.0 and 6.5, Even more so if a game opens 7 and closes 6.5 like the min/sf game.

[k13]

Chalky, I sent you the 200 points refund that you sent for fantasy football since we never got the league going.