Pats / Saints - not falling for the hype. UNDER 57 is the play!

Grandmaster B · 11-30-09, 08:38 PM

landers781 · 11-30-09, 08:38 PM

Went with Under as well

pattymayo · 11-30-09, 08:44 PM

I love playing Unders when the whole world is expecting a shootout (and rightfully so)

betplom · 12-01-09, 11:18 AM

yisman · 12-01-09, 11:28 AM

over was the right play

betplom · 12-01-09, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by yisman

over was the right play

Not according to my new cash balance at Pinnacle.

lakerboy · 12-01-09, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by yisman

over was the right play

True but not the right result

yisman · 12-01-09, 11:31 AM

sometimes you're on the wrong side of the fix.

If you had the under, you got lucky, because the over was definitely the right play.

betplom · 12-01-09, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by yisman

sometimes you're on the wrong side of the fix.

If you had the under, you got lucky, because the over was definitely the right play.

Yizzy, I had the under and got lucky, I didn't even watch the 4th qtr 'cause I thought it would easily go over.

Thats the great thing about unders, its like being given a head start and teams have to keep scoring for you to lose.

pavyracer · 12-01-09, 11:47 AM

The sharpest play was double dipping. Over 1H and double up with under 2H.

statnerds · 12-01-09, 12:25 PM

I had the Under and can honestly admit it was the wrong side. had some bad beats this year, so i guess they even out a little.

Carney was all over the place with his XP's. before he tried that last FG i thought, man this guy is spraying the ball everywhere tonight. good for a singles hitter, bad for a Kicker.

it looked like a longer version of one of his XP without the net 20 yards away to stop it.

PorkChop · 12-01-09, 12:30 PM

2 Missed Field goals, and the Bellichick throwing in the towel surprising early. If you had the Under you should be thrilled

Limey · 12-01-09, 12:33 PM

It certainly ended up looking lucky, but a 24 point second quarter (including a ludicrous coverage breakdown for a one-play 75 yard TD) would have made the over kind a lucky, in my opinion. Both these teams ran the ball plenty and the Pats in particular were clearly looking to run the clock while the game was still competitive. 'Under' wasn't a bad call at all.

McBa1n · 12-01-09, 12:39 PM

I'm shocked at the result of the game (Had the Pats +16 in a 4 team teaser - I wonder how many times in the last 5+ years that they would NOT have covered the extra 13 teased points), but not by the o/u. I'm glad I at least hammered the under. 57 points is a ridiculous amount of points in a 'big game' with 2 very good teams, it's an automatic play in most cases. I'm just surprised at who scored all of them, however.

yisman · 12-01-09, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Limey

It certainly ended up looking lucky, but a 24 point second quarter (including a ludicrous coverage breakdown for a one-play 75 yard TD) would have made the over kind a lucky, in my opinion. Both these teams ran the ball plenty and the Pats in particular were clearly looking to run the clock while the game was still competitive. 'Under' wasn't a bad call at all.

I disagree.

jayc88 · 12-01-09, 12:48 PM

under hit, rest doesnt matter

Limey · 12-01-09, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by yisman

I disagree.

With what, specifically? The Patriots ran the ball more than they have done all season, they were looking to run the clock down as much as possible, which was quite predictable before the game. The Saints always run the ball plenty this season. This was never going to be a game where both QBs threw 40+ passes.

As for lucky/unlucky...not that I suppose it really matters... but just suppose that New England didn't suffer one of the worst blown coverages you have ever seen, allowing that 75 yard, 9 second touchdown "drive". You can take 7 off the halftime score right there and the game is still going under even if Carney makes his field goal and gets awarded an extra three-point bonus for it for being so old.

It's all ifs and buts.

rdrunner466 · 12-01-09, 02:41 PM

I had the under and figured I was done in the 3rd quarter but gotta love Carney!!!

statnerds · 12-01-09, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Limey

With what, specifically? The Patriots ran the ball more than they have done all season, they were looking to run the clock down as much as possible, which was quite predictable before the game. The Saints always run the ball plenty this season. This was never going to be a game where both QBs threw 40+ passes.

exactly right on there. even some real smart guy i know posted a blog about this game staying under (okay, it was me) the other day. in week 11 Pats ran the ball 35 times and the Saints 36. and Saints have a nearly balance offense.

was an awesome blog i must say. here is a sample:

Quick, guess which team leads the NFL in pass attempts per game. Darn tooting it is the Patriots from New England at 40.4 per game. And sitting at number in two? That is right, the Seattle Seahawks attempt 39.9 per game. But if you cruise down another 19 spots you will find the New Orleans Saints occupying the 21st spot. All that just to say maybe we shouldn't expect the high-flying offensive battle many are betting on.

awesome, right?

there were tons of big plays in that game though. and if Bill doesn't quit, easily goes over. there was still 5:26 on the clock.

yisman · 12-01-09, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Limey

With what, specifically? The Patriots ran the ball more than they have done all season, they were looking to run the clock down as much as possible, which was quite predictable before the game. The Saints always run the ball plenty this season. This was never going to be a game where both QBs threw 40+ passes.

As for lucky/unlucky...not that I suppose it really matters... but just suppose that New England didn't suffer one of the worst blown coverages you have ever seen, allowing that 75 yard, 9 second touchdown "drive". You can take 7 off the halftime score right there and the game is still going under even if Carney makes his field goal and gets awarded an extra three-point bonus for it for being so old.

It's all ifs and buts.

Yeah, the Patriots ran the ball a lot and this game STILL had 48 points in the first 36 minutes. What does that tell you?

This game should realistically have topped 60 points.

It didn't because it wasn't close. Sean Payton elected not to run up the score and Belicheat elected to have his team lay down and die in the fourth.

If the game was within 10 points like everyone thought it would be, it would have topped 60.

An over win would not have been "lucky", it would have been expected and the natural course of that game to take.

An under win? Extremely lucky for anyone who took it, and it raises red flags about what exactly was going on in the fourth quarter.

Limey · 12-01-09, 04:55 PM

I didn't think the game would be within 10 points. I thought the Saints would win quite comfortably. I bet them at -2 and I don't bet a game unless I fancy my team to cover by at LEAST a TD.

I do see where you're coming from honestly, but there are just so many ways for a game to fall short of 60 points and not many ways for a game to go over it.

It's worth mentioning that New England went for it on 4th down in chip-shot range in the first quarter, could easily have been 7 points off the total with a Saints stop there.

Overall, I'll admit it I felt very lucky when the game went under given where it was after three quarters - but I can't imagine you'd come out ahead if you bet over 57 very often.

statnerds · 12-01-09, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Limey

but I can't imagine you'd come out ahead if you bet over 57 very often.

that was the 9th game this season with a Total set at 50 or higher and they are now 7-2 Under

yisman · 12-01-09, 11:01 PM

[quote=Limey;2669277]I didn't think the game would be within 10 points. I thought the Saints would win quite comfortably. I bet them at -2 and I don't bet a game unless I fancy my team to cover by at LEAST a TD.

I do see where you're coming from honestly, but there are just so many ways for a game to fall short of 60 points and not many ways for a game to go over it.[/quote[

It's worth mentioning that New England went for it on 4th down in chip-shot range in the first quarter, could easily have been 7 points off the total with a Saints stop there.

It's worth mentioning that there were two missed FGs AND a play where Belichick eschewed a 28 yard FG and went for it. They didn't convert. Three points off the board right there, and that was the difference.

Overall, I'll admit it I felt very lucky when the game went under given where it was after three quarters - but I can't imagine you'd come out ahead if you bet over 57 very often.

You were damn lucky and obviously I wouldn't recommend betting over 57 in most cases* (rare total anyway). Pats-Saints in New Orleans this season, I would.

So many things had to happen for it to stay under, and they all did. It was so bad that a bunch of posters said it was fixed.

*- in fact, I can't remember betting a high total to go over once this season until last night.