[DJK]

A lot of bettors will remember getting burned betting on the patriots in last year’s super bowl and this will cause them to take rams and lose their money.

That's possible and I thought of that too, but the bottom line is it's all about the teams and their players and what they are capable of doing in the game and as capable as the Pats are, I see the Rams being more capable.

The Pats backers better hope that they don't lay an egg like they did in one of their away games as they were all pretty ugly.

20-31 vs Jacksonville, 10-26 vs Detroit(are you serious???), 10-34 vs Tennessee, 33-34 vs Miami (that was fluke), 10-17 vs Pittsburgh.

Two worst losses for the Pats were against their former player turned head coach or just a former coach.

You do realize that a former NE player in Brandin Cooks is now with the Rams and you don't think he can provide inside information to beat the Pats?

I am ALMOST CERTAIN that the Rams got Cooks just for that purpose when they meet the Pats in Super Bowl. McVay is a sneaky smart of coach and looking at all angles to beat the Pats and he is light years ahead instead of taking years to win the SB.

On the other hand, the Rams never really had an ugly game except when Gurley was injured and wasn't himself and they didn't have C.J. Anderson either.

[eddycash]

A lot of bettors will remember getting burned betting on the patriots in last year’s super bowl and this will cause them to take rams and lose their money.

Good points made but the Alabama game was more of a 55/45 money split, what concerns me on the SB is this 75/25 split across the spread and ml.

[eddycash]

If Pats win, then yes riverdog it will most likely be by 1 point I agree with you

[jjgold]

You guys realize stats don’t mean anything once the game kicks off throw that garbage out a few turnovers here and there will decide it

Nobody can predict turnovers

[DJK]

One last comment and that's it for me until the game time as I have too many things to do with work and everything else.

The way I see it, the line is set to influence people to bet one way than the other as it's nearly impossible to have 50/50 action on both sides.

With the opening line of Rams -1, which side do you think the books wanted you to bet?

With the current line of Pats -2.5, which side do you think the books want you to bet? It's obvious to me that they want you to keep on taking the Pats. If they wanted you to bet the Rams, the books would have most certainly moved the line to Pats -3.5 a long time ago.

All I need is a confirmation from two twitters that the lop-sided money is on the Pats and I'm golden.

Good luck with your bets whichever side you are on.

[eddycash]

I'm curious if vegas has ever paid out the majority bet side in a SB ever.

[DJK]

I'm curious if vegas has ever paid out the majority bet side in a SB ever.

Yes, twice in 52 years. I read about it in two different websites.

[DJK]

I'm curious if vegas has ever paid out the majority bet side in a SB ever.

This is from ESPN, so it isn't 2 in 52 years but 2 in the last 27 years since they tracked it only from 1991.


2: The number of Super Bowls that Nevada sportsbooks have suffered net losses on since state gaming control began tracking the betting action on the NFL championship in 1991. The books lost $396,674 on Super Bowl XXIX (Chargers-49ers) and $2.5 million on Super Bowl XLII (Giants-Patriots).

[DJK]

This is also from ESPN. Seriously? Whopping 94% on the Pats? It's not only the sharps but every dick and harry are on the Pats too. I can only hope it stays that way. Then, they will pay off the commissioner too to make sure the Rams win. If the Pats cover, then the commissioner has the power to replay the game and keep on replaying until the Rams win.


• As of Wednesday morning, 94 percent of the money that has been wagered on the Super Bowl point spread at Las Vegas sportsbook operator CG Technology was on the Patriots. The largest bets to this point were in the five-figure range, "all of which are on the Patriots," CG Technology vice president of risk Jason Simbal told ESPN.

[eddycash]

$2.5 million extra dollars was on the giants to beat the pats?

[LT Profits]

$2.5 million extra dollars was on the giants to beat the pats?

Books got crushed on Money Line that year.

[DJK]

$2.5 million extra dollars was on the giants to beat the pats?

Since $92.1 million was bet on that year's SB, that's only 2.7% that the books lost. A chump change for them if anything.

[DJK]

$2.5 million extra dollars was on the giants to beat the pats?

If that's the case, then the books lost a TON more. But like what LT Profits said, the books lost on the Giants ML and probably on the spread as well.

[eddycash]

I'm surprised the pats weren't heavily bet that year. Interesting info

[DJK]

I'm surprised the pats weren't heavily bet that year. Interesting info

The line was way too high (Pats -12 to -12.5) and the Pats barely beat the Giants 38-35 in the regular season.

[LT Profits]

I'm surprised the pats weren't heavily bet that year. Interesting info

Giants had over 70% of money line bets and closed at +435. Throw in Super Bowl volume and Voila!

[LT Profits]

The line was way too high (Pats -12 to -12.5) and the Pats barely beat the Giants 38-35 in the regular season.

ATS wasn't much of an issue, Giants were in the 55% area. It was the ML that killed the books

[eddycash]

If the books can pay that out then the Pats might be good this SB

[DJK]

If the books can pay that out then the Pats might be good this SB

Your math is flawed.

The books lost only $2.5 million on 02/03/2008.

Do you know what the bet percentage is at the moment? SBR's numbers are 67%-33% Pats-Rams and it's even worse at Sports Insights as theirs is 82% to 18%.

If it's like that across all books and ends there, then 67% of $100 million wagered (approximating it) this Super Bowl is $67 million.

$67 million Pats winners - $33 million Rams wagers = $34 million that the books are on the hook if the Pats cover.

Of course these numbers aren't with the juice being calculated, but they aren't too far off.

Do you really think the books are stupid enough to lose $34 million because the Pats win and cover?

At CG Technology, it's 94% of money on the Pats as of Wednesday. I highly doubt it will end at that percentage, but if it does and the Pats win and cover, then CG Technology is toast.

[eddycash]

Maybe the Pats win but the rams cover. They gave Peyton Manning his final ring when he had a rubber arm and couldn't throw over 15 yards.

[gauchojake]

I'd be curious to know what the books exposure to Rams futures vs Pats futures is.

[kidcudi92]

This is also from ESPN. Seriously? Whopping 94% on the Pats? It's not only the sharps but every dick and harry are on the Pats too. I can only hope it stays that way. Then, they will pay off the commissioner too to make sure the Rams win. If the Pats cover, then the commissioner has the power to replay the game and keep on replaying until the Rams win.


• As of Wednesday morning, 94 percent of the money that has been wagered on the Super Bowl point spread at Las Vegas sportsbook operator CG Technology was on the Patriots. The largest bets to this point were in the five-figure range, "all of which are on the Patriots," CG Technology vice president of risk Jason Simbal told ESPN.

You actually belieber that?





My God

[DJK]

Maybe the Pats win but the rams cover. They gave Peyton Manning his final ring when he had a rubber arm and couldn't throw over 15 yards.

it could happen but the final number ending in a two point window is slim to none.

Either the Pats win and cover easily or they lose SU and the Rams are the champions and the latter is what I would like to see happen if anything.

[DJK]

You actually belieber that?






My God

I absolutely positively believe it 100%, because it isn't the final number anyway as it's as of this past Wednesday and it's only for CG Technology sportsbook and not all Vegas books.

All I know is whenever Jason Simbal or David Purdum tweeted what the books are on the hook for, they almost always won.

When the word lop-sided is used as to the final numbers of where the money is bet, then I just need to be on the opposite side and nothing more.

[kidcudi92]

I absolutely positively believe it 100%, because it isn't the final number anyway as it's as of this past Wednesday and it's only for CG Technology sportsbook and not all Vegas books.

All I know is whenever Jason Simbal or David Purdum tweeted what the books are on the hook for, they almost always won.

When the word lop-sided is used as to the final numbers of where the money is bet, then I just need to be on the opposite side and nothing more.

Good Luck with all that

[DJK]

You actually belieber that?





My God

Of course I don't believe Roger Goodell would ever order a replaying of a game even if it's in the NFL rule/policy book that he could.

I'm just saying what ESPN reported is accurate and I believe it 100%. It's highly unlikely the money will continue to flow towards the Pats and I'm sure it will offset somewhat near the kick off, but I just don't see more money being bet on the Rams and that's a good thing for the Rams backers.

[DJK]

I'd be curious to know what the books exposure to Rams futures vs Pats futures is.

ESPN reported something about that here. It's an interesting reading. I wish they would do that right before the kick off or at least by early Sunday.

I remember one time when ESPN reported at the last minute that Billy Walters was on a team for the Super Bowl one year and it was dead on and I won 3K that Super Bowl. I already made my bet and hearing that Billy Walters was on the same side made it even better.


http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id...otal-prop-bets

[kidcudi92]

Of course I don't believe Roger Goodell would ever order a replaying of a game even if it's in the NFL rule/policy book that he could.

I'm just saying what ESPN reported is accurate and I believe it 100%. It's highly unlikely the money will continue to flow towards the Pats and I'm sure it will offset somewhat near the kick off, but I just don't see more money being bet on the Rams and that's a good thing for the Rams backers.

Thinking ESPN is being 100% accurate is your first problem man

[DJK]

More I read about what the books are offering more I'm feeling better about my Rams bet.

It said on ESPN that Westgate is offering EVEN odds for Brady to win MVP. It's like they are begging you to bet it as it's the easiest bet to make if you like the Pats.


The Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook opened Brady as the favorite at EVEN odds ($100 bet would win $100) to win MVP of Super Bowl LIII. Los Angeles RamsQB Jared Goff is the only other player with odds in single digits at 2-1.

[KiDBaZkiT]

She looks rank as f*** tf are you guys talking about??? Looks like she has a stinky p***sy and i bet her feet are DISGUSTING! She looks like they pulled her out of an 80's time portal and tried to make her over for 2019 in 20 minutes.

[DJK]

Thinking ESPN is being 100% accurate is your first problem man

I never said ESPN was 100% accurate on everything they reported. I'm just saying I believe 100% of what was reported about what Jason Simbal had said as to where the money is being bet on at his sportsbook. I don't believe everything I read on ESPN, but what reason would they have to lie about what Jason Simbal had said where the money was bet?

It would have been better if Jason Simbal had tweeted that, but he didn't. However, he almost always seem to tweet where the money is for his sportsbook for major events near the game time, so I'm just waiting for that info to come out.

David Purdum on the other hand tweets about where the money is for all books in Vegas in general and that's more useful. I'm just waiting to hear him say that the books needs are the Rams.

[KiDBaZkiT]

Djk you know the books are up. so big lifetime it's a figure no human could mentally conceive without the aide of technology?

[kirby]

I too like the Rams but will be watching the movement

[eddycash]

With the change in distance to the extra point, winning by 2,6, and 8 are more common than before.

[DJK]

Djk you know the books are up. so big lifetime it's a figure no human could mentally conceive without the aide of technology?

I have no clue what you are trying to say.

It's no brainer that the books always win; may not be 100% but close to it since they lost only 2 Super Bowls in the last 27 years and that's 92.6% win rate for the books.

People running the books aren't stupid to let a vital information such as who's betting where get out when the bets are lopsided and the books aren't trying to even the action.

I understand the books cannot always win as there are unpredictable turnovers that affect the outcome of the games that no one can foresee. Regardless, they win more often than not; otherwise they wouldn't be in business.

I'm surprised that Jason Simbal and David Purdum are even tweeting the info on the lop-sided bets as they couldn't possibly be beneficial for the books.

Since there is over a week left to the game, anything can happen and the action could be more balanced by the kick off, but seeing how the majority on SBR is on the Pats, I'm sure it's not too much different with how everyone (public and sharps) is betting with the Vegas books.

I just have to make sure I'm on the other side of the lop-sided bets with whatever little information I have; mainly the tweets, the SBR bet percentages and the Sports Insights bet percentages.

I'm not always relying on the bet percentages to make my bets. I first pick the side I want to bet on my own and I watch the bet percentages to make sure I'm not on the lop-sided betting side. It has worked for me this season as I didn't have a single losing weekend, so why change what works?