Are Bookmakers Are Making Mistakes Again?

**Razz** · 11-29-05, 07:57 AM

First of all, the mistakes everybody said the bookmakers were making (Dallas -2 vs. Denver; Washington +3 vs. San Diego) turned out to be right on the nose, and the betting public should have lost on those games.
On the first game, TB is a bad road favorite (it's not to hard to remember the last time, when they lost SU as a double digit fav). But, I think they will win this game, as Aaron Brooks has almost never put consecutive solid performances together, especially against the caliber defense he will face Sunday.
I don't see a problem with the Seattle spread at all. If anything, it should be lower. The Eagles are actually a better value play now than at any point in the Andy Reid era, because he has no choice but to run the football, and they have been doing so successfully since the TO debacle, and the rash of injuries. Seattle is nowhere near as coherent away from home, especially on the east coast. They have played two games on the east coast, and those are their only two losses of the season. They also missed ATS in those losses at Jacksonville and Washington. I think Philly will win this one outright as well.

**imgv94** · 11-29-05, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Razz

I don't see a problem with the Seattle spread at all. If anything, it should be lower. The Eagles are actually a better value play now than at any point in the Andy Reid era, because he has no choice but to run the football, and they have been doing so successfully since the TO debacle, and the rash of injuries. Seattle is nowhere near as coherent away from home, especially on the east coast. They have played two games on the east coast, and those are their only two losses of the season. They also missed ATS in those losses at Jacksonville and Washington. I think Philly will win this one outright as well.

I am begging you not to play the eagles next monday!!
You brought up great points as to why you think the
eagles are going to win,but please consider this the eagles
offense without McNabb is completely lethargic,they were
at home last week against the"packers"and won
a game they shouldn't of won.They had 91 yards passing
and now is going to have to keep up with the NFL's
# 1 total offense?Eagles Defense is nothing to brag about ranking 26th in total defense.Eagles offensive line is fluttered with injuries and has been poor all season anyway,And Seattle leads entire NFL with 34 sacks.. Razz?
You still like the eagles?
total !

**Razz** · 11-29-05, 09:53 AM

Their defensive numbers appear worse than reality, because early in the season, they were on the field so much because Reid insisted on throwing the ball with reckless abandon. If the Eagles do end up being one of my plays, they would certainly be at the back end.

**imgv94** · 11-29-05, 09:56 AM

Razz I like the 49ers this week against ariz have u put
any thought into that game? 49ers are a different team at home!!

**Razz** · 11-29-05, 10:25 AM

Uh oh, we agree on one.

Besides Cincinnati, this was the second game I took a serious look at.

**Illusion** · 11-29-05, 12:56 PM

Any opinions on GB/Chi? I know the Packers have packed it in, but Favre owns the Bears and at +7 I see some value especially with that weak Bears offense.

**Quarm** · 11-29-05, 01:01 PM

A wise man once said: gambling addiction starts as soon as you think that you are smarter than the bookmakers.

Sounds good to me...i cant imagine that all those big books make mistakes. If all have that line than it should be exactly the correct value.

**Senator7** · 11-29-05, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Razz

First of all, the mistakes everybody said the bookmakers were making (Dallas -2 vs. Denver; Washington +3 vs. San Diego) turned out to be right on the nose, and the betting public should have lost on those games.

When a line moves from Denver +2 to Denver -2.5, you've made a mistake. If the game had opened as a PK or -1 or -2 for Denver, I would say they were right on the nose. You can't have a 5 point swing and say they were right on the nose. That's like saying they were right on the nose on West Virginia (4 point swing) last week.

They were right on with the San Diego game though.

Its pretty bold to say the betting public should have lost on any game if they didn't lose. Are you a bookie by chance, Razz?

**Senator7** · 11-29-05, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Illusion

Any opinions on GB/Chi? I know the Packers have packed it in, but Favre owns the Bears and at +7 I see some value especially with that weak Bears offense.

I'm taking the Packers if the line gets to 7.5. I see the Bears winning by only 3 or 4 points.

**Senator7** · 11-29-05, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Quarm

A wise man once said: gambling addiction starts as soon as you think that you are smarter than the bookmakers.

I have never saw myself as more intelligent than the bookmakers. I will say that they have made more mistakes this season than any previous season since I have been betting. Its either that or maybe I'm finally beginning to understand this stuff!

**Razz** · 11-29-05, 02:19 PM

Senator, I didn't mean in reference to getting equal action, which is obviously the true goal. I meant in terms that it would be a close game, and Dallas should win at the end, which they somehow managed not to. In retrospect, they probably should have opened Dallas at pk, but its hard to think that would really make a difference in the money coming in.

Everyone I know loves the Packers this week, which kind of scares me.

**Senator7** · 11-29-05, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Razz

Senator, I didn't mean in reference to getting equal action, which is obviously the true goal. I meant in terms that it would be a close game, and Dallas should win at the end, which they somehow managed not to. In retrospect, they probably should have opened Dallas at pk, but its hard to think that would really make a difference in the money coming in.

Everyone I know loves the Packers this week, which kind of scares me.

OK, I understand now.

I'm beginning to wonder if the problems that some books have had this season are being caused by greediness. It seems like the books aren't satisfied with just their 10% and they seem to be gambling themselves on certain games.

**moses millsap** · 11-29-05, 02:33 PM

If you want to compromise and give me 5.5 with the Saints and 6 with the Eagles, I'm in. You think those teams should be a touchdown minimum road chalk? Give me a break. The public squares have been blessed all year in the NFL and got damn lucky to get the two road chalks laying 3.5 (Chargers and Rams) to cover this weekend with those miracle OT finishes. On top of that, the public got even luckier that Feely couldn't make a FG to close it out, so their sucker teasers with the Seahawks cashed too.

**imgv94** · 11-29-05, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by OWNED

If you want to compromise and give me 5.5 with the Saints and 6 with the Eagles, I'm in. You think those teams should be a touchdown minimum road chalk? Give me a break. The public squares have been blessed all year in the NFL and got damn lucky to get the two road chalks laying 3.5 (Chargers and Rams) to cover this weekend with those miracle OT finishes. On top of that, the public got even luckier that Feely couldn't make a FG to close it out, so their sucker teasers with the Seahawks cashed too.

Well I'm getting the feeling that i am being called
someone who is a square and bets nothing but
road chalks and favorite and such.To everyone who
thinks that about me consider this ok maybe i got
lucky and won two games i shouldn't have with rams
and Sd,but consider this people who wagered
on SD and the Rams were also wagering against
Wash and Texans and both those teams gave up
big leads at home,it was luck but i've seen
plenty worse.And looking at two isolated situations
and making an opinion of me after is unfair.When
i gave out my college football lock of the
year with oregon 2 wks ago and they won by 42pts
was that luck? or my 49 unit teaser with bengals
and titans they won fair and square. square yeah!!

**Quarm** · 11-29-05, 10:48 PM

Id just call you a hyperactive :-P
To answer your question, was that luck? Yes of course it was luck too, in sports betting theres always a big part of luck involved...just in case you didnt notice that yet i mean.

**CrazyHorse** · 11-29-05, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Senator7

OK, I understand now.

I'm beginning to wonder if the problems that some books have had this season are being caused by greediness. It seems like the books aren't satisfied with just their 10% and they seem to be gambling themselves on certain games.

Sportsbooks always gamble. A study has been done on this, I will look for it if I have the time. They lean just enough so that the sharps don't beat them, to maximize their profit. If the true line is 3 points even, they won't make it -110 both ways, they'll make it say -119 on the fav and -101 on the dog. Since the public usually goes around 65-70% for the favorite, they get more than they would the other way. That's why dogs have done so much better historically.

**Senator7** · 11-29-05, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by BuddyBear

It's just something you have to accept...the linesmaker is always right when it comes to the line.

I disagree with you on this one, BB. Linesmakers can't see the future and they're human just like you and I. If we as handicappers can make mistakes, why is it that the bookmaker can't? The lines each week are opinions formulated from a lot of research and information, just like an opinion that you or I might have on the game. I don't think that linesmakers make many mistakes, but to say that the linesmaker is always right is incorrect. Like I said before, either they're making more mistakes this year than usual or I'm finally starting to figured this stuff out!