So, you think the books would lie about their money bet percentages to draw people into betting the other way? Come on now, even I don't believe that and neither do you.
I don't depend on the books' bet percentages to make my bets. I pick and make my bet, which I already did for this Super Bowl, then I watch the bet percentages in hopes that I'm not on the majority; especially if it's the lop-sided majority like how it is now on the Pats.
It's still way too early and lots of money could come in on the Rams like it did for all William Hill books when they moved their line to Pats -3.0 this past weekend. If the money bet becomes even, then I'm good with that but if it tilts towards the Rams, then I would start to worry. If it stays lop-sided like how it is now because none of the other books move the line up, then I can only interpret that as the books gambling with the Rams and letting the public bet away on the Pats.
As to the future liabilities, there is a blog on ESPN showing it's more on the Pats if anything.
If you haven't seen this yet on ESPN, then maybe you should as it's an interesting reading. BetCris odds maker has the Rams pegged at 3.5 points better than the Pats, but he could not see them opening the line at Rams -3.5 so he opened it at Rams -1.5 instead before it got bet to cross zero to Pats -2.5 in the end. That's a 4 point move. It doesn't mean his model is right as it's the total opposite of what ESPN's FPI model picked where ESPN picked NE on both ML and ATS. ESPN's model sucks like hell as they are worse than 50%.
http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id...s-sunday-night
All I can say is if you are on the Pats, then good luck to you.