Monday Night Football Total Chase

BetCrimes1984

BetCrimes1984

CTG Big Brother
Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to NFL results this season will know that MNF is on a major run of Over results - 7 straight to this point.
Inevitably the question becomes (particularly as it's an option that is a public darling), how long can this run of results go on for unabated? the whole season (which would make for 17 straight)?

To try and find an answer to that question, it makes sense look at the context in which these results are taking place, and that context here is...

NFL Primetime Games
Since (& incl.) the 2000 season (as far back as my records go which, covering 8 full seasons and 2/5ths of one more, I think is a sizable enough stat pool from which to draw solid references from) there have been 18 previous total streaks that have reached at least 5 straight games in length from the various groupings of NFL primetime game results that I have recorded, those grouping designations being (results ordered gametime sequentially) -

All games
SNF games
MNF games
AFC games (where the home team is an AFC team)
NFC games (where the home team is an NFC team)

- and from those 18 instances, the final individual number those streaks ended at are as follows:

4 streaks of Under results ended at 5 straight games
4 streaks of Over results ended at 5 straight games​

3 streaks of Under results ended at 6 straight games
3 streaks of Over results ended at 6 straight games​

3 streaks of Over results ended at 7 straight games​

1 streak of Under results ended at 8 straight games​


Through 8 & 2/5th seasons, there has only been 1 instance of a streak of total results reaching the mark of 8 games from any particular record grouping that I keep a track of, and that was not a result whose nature could be considered a "public darling". Most noticable is the statistically expected drop off/thinning out of results the further a streak gets away from the 5 straight game mark -

5 games - 8 results
6 games - 6 results
7 games - 3 results
8 games - 1 result​

- 4 previous occasions a streak has managed to hit 7 straight, yet none have managed the "simple task" of repeating just 2 more times to surpass the 8 game ceiling.


It's this context which makes for the basis of my considering chasing in the first Under result for MNF this season. But the statistical inertia for this present run to not "go out on a limb" and become a truly anomalous streak (by, say, racking up 4-6+ more straight Over results) doesn't simply rest on the single context I've related above.


Sunday Night & Monday Night Football
My records paint a very clear picture of a "statistical dance" these 2 time slots play in relation to each other when it comes to considering total results: since (& incl.) 2000 (orange for SNF, green for MNF)....

2000 - O/U 3-12 - 14-2-1
2001 - O/U 8-8 --- 7-8
2002 - O/U 10-6 -- 6-11
2003 - O/U 8-8 --- 8-8
2004 - O/U 6-9 -- 11-5
2005 - O/U 8-8 -- 10-6
2006 - O/U 7-6-2 - 6-12
2007 - O/U 11-5 -- 6-11​

....no total result has come out ahead in both time slots. The best Unders or Overs have managed is to win one time slot, and tie in the other (which happened in 2001 w/Unders & 2005 w/Overs).
Essentially each time slot has acted as a sort of balancer to the bias of the opposite time slot. This is expressed in the fact that not only has one particular total result not "won" both timeslots, but also that no particular total result has come out ahead by more than 5 total results when each time slot is added together for a final combined season figure -

2000 - Over won by 3 results
2001 - Under won by 1 result
2002 - Under won by 1 result
2003 - Tied -------- 0 results
2004 - Over won by 3 results
2005 - Over won by 4 results
2006 - Under won by 5 results
2007 - Over won by 1 result​

- the median figure here being 3 games ahead, with the best the "public darling" Overs having managed being 4 games ahead: significantly, this was 2005's Season of the Fav, where the schedule had a heavy bias towards AFC fixtures which, matching the absurd rates the Favs won at, also went with an unusual rate of Over results (60% of the games that primetime season were AFC games, which had Overs hit in at a 71.4% rate). Minus this anomalous season, and the best Overs are seen to come out ahead by is 3 games.

The relevance of this to this chase consideration? currently Unders have shown the expected balancing act the above stats suggest should exist in the face of MNF's present heavy Over ways: they are ahead 4-2 for SNF this season. The point of interest arising when these 2 marks are combined (=> O/U 9-4) showing Overs to be ahead by 5 games thus far on the season: that's as much a lead as either total has managed for one whole season since 2000.
From this it doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe that even if SNF keeps up it's presently solid Under bias (66.6%) for the rest of the season, Overs lead is going to grow to the point where it will blow out of the water 2006's record mark of 5 games unless MNF starts to provide a few Under results of it's own. The solid grouping of results as seen above (ranging from a tied season to 5 games) suggests such a significant stretching out of the record a very unlikely reality.


But wait, THERES MORE! (Pay now and for only an extra 9.99):36_11_6:....


In considering the single grouping of All (primetime) Games, going through all the results since (& incl.) 2000 shows that it's very rare to go for very long stretches where 1 total result doesn't get registered over consecutive games. Below represents the longest stretch of games either total went for without occuring consecutively or alongside a Push result* (orange for Unders, green for Overs) -

2000 - 15 -- 11
2001 - 11 -- 12
2002 - 12 -- 12
2003 - 8 -- 8
2004 - 10 -- 6
2005 - 20 -- 8
2006 - 12 -- 14
2007 - 8 -- 9​

*I note the Push aspect because for this chase consideration, a --.0 line would be viewed as being bet at with the Under hook.

- again it's visibly a tight grouping of results (8-15 games) with the exception of the lowest number (6 games) and the highest number (20 games, which again is a mark that relates back to 2005's anomalous Year Of The Fav).

The current run of games without consecutive Under results this season? 13 games, just 2 short of the highest mark outside of that unusual 2005 season.
And the relevance of this to this chase? easy - you couldn't have consecutive Under primetime results registered from this point forward (until the current record would be well and truly smashed) without one occurring on MNF (the only time slot losing a game for the baseball WS is SNF). Even if the present run of 13 games was to equal the record of 20 games, it'd mean at worst 3 MNF Under losses. At worst because Under could hit repeatedly on MNF but SNF started providing unabated Over results for said streak to continue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So, not only from an individual run of results historical basis is MNF's present run of 7 straight Overs streak at what you might call a statistical saturation point, but it is also seen to be so both from a combined SNF/MNF primetime slots historical pov, and the historical absence of consecutive results pov.

This present MNF streak is tilting at some very solidly established statistical ceilings, whose most notable exceptions required a season beyond any reasonable deviation from the norm (2005) in order to come into existence. 2008's initial primetime results are nowhere near resembling those of 2005, and while the general season results to this point are somewhat biased towards Favs & Overs, week 6 delivered a correction which has gone some way to evening up matters.
In short, there's enough as related above to at worst conceive MNF potentially delivering 3 more Over results before an Under result finally makes an appearance (Even the greatest MNF season Over bias I have on record had 3 non-Over results - 2000's 14-2-1 mark).


Which leaves for appraisal the fixtures list for upcoming MNF games -

1st - Denver at New England
DEN was 6-4 to Over on the road w/Cutler prior to this season (which is all but a 50% rate): they are 2-0 to Over on the road this season.

DEN is U/O 3-3 their last 6 road primetime games.

DEN has averaged 17.3 points through their last 3 games.

NEG has scored more than 19 points in only 1 of 5 games this season.


2nd - Indianapolis at Tennessee
Game totals from their last 6 meetings: 26, 42, 37, 27, 38 & 41 points.​

TEN has conceded 17, 6, 10, 12 & 17 reg. points their last 5 home games.​

IND is 7-3 to Under their last 10 games on grass (prior to vs GBY, week 7)​

IND is 4-1-1 to Under their last 6 road primetime games.​


3rd - Pittsburgh at Washington
9 of WAS last 11 home games have totaled 41 points or less (prior to vs CLE, week 7)​

WAS is 7-1-1 to Under their last 9 primetime games (only Over was a road game)​

PIT is 4-2 to Under (2 pts off 5-1) their last 6 games vs NFC teams.​

PIT is 4-2 to Under their last 6 road primetime games, as opposed to 4-2 to Over their last 6 home primetime games.​


4th - San Francisco at Arizona
SFN is 4-1-1 to Under in primetime games since 2003.

These 2 teams do have a history of going Over in recent meetings in Arizona.
Click to expand...


A surface look at these games indicates that certainly the coming 3 games have some trends pointing to at least 1 contest producing 'a stinker'.

From my pov, it's just a matter now of considering individual games & their total lines close to gametime re: deciding on a bet size approach.
 
Last edited:
Took me a half hour and a few pieces of toast to get through that post but it was well worth it.

Enjoy the "thinking outside of the box" menatality here.

Great read.

Since you are looking to fade the "over , darling" bet , do you suggest waiting until gameday for placing the wager , expecting total to move upwards ??

Current total is 48 for denver at new england

Current weather prediction is clear , 61 degrees , 12 mph crosswind.
 
vk - I'll def. be betting close to gametime, meaning at the earliest it'd be prior to my hitting the sheets NZ local time (bout 14-15 hours out from the game). If the indication at that point is that the line is/odds are threatening to veer, or already have veered, back towards the Under then I'm likely to bet then. If not, I'll at least wait until I wake up.

I see the line has climbed from it's opener (46.0 -> current 48.0), which is good news for this bet since all my records are based on opening lines, as is this chase. So if this game landed on 46 (push) or 47 (Over) then it'd not be recorded as an Under result yet I/we'd get paid for it.

As far as specifics go, Denver's defense is the concerning factor (no suprise the line, in moving, has gone up not down) so, as unconnected as this sounds, unless the SNF game is a really high scoring affair I'm not likely to start this chase off with anything other than a token 300-400 bet.
 
Im dizzy :smiley_abvm: haha. Great job compiling all of your data. I'm generally not much of a totals bettor but I do enjoy predicting scores. I might throw some money on that with you just for shits and giggles. I haven't capped that game yet but now I'm curious as to what I will come up with for a score. Thanks for info :cheers:
 
No pre-game bet for me yet. Don't like the feeling I'm getting for an Under, marrying strongish line moves to Over with opinion split down the middle at wagerline (which, whatever ones personal take on is as a source, I find useful personally. With such a move I'd like to have seen Over more popular % wise).
But SNF did go Under, which sets up the possibility of the lack-of-consecutive-Unders streak ending here meaning any thoughts of passing completely are out the window. Just a matter now from my pov of seeing where things settle at gametime.
 
Was in AC this past weekend and no had time for write ups before I left on Friday. After that great 9-0-1 weekend I took a break and hit the casino tables. I'll have some goods for you guys in week 8 I hope!
 
thanks man. hope you carried that success over to the tables. i've never been to ac but have wanted to check it out. actually would be a heck of allot easier to get there than vegas too! look forward to getting into the games with you as the week moves on...
like the pats tonight however just read maroney and jordan both downgraded to doubtful. makes me a very uneasy about the running game.

sorry to take over the thread betcrimes...
 
Thoughts on the OVER---

A big reason overs are hitting is the starting field position that teams are starting with the ball--

Teams are pooch kicking and then teams are starting at the 35, also teams are also using this wedge and getting great returns almost every kickoff---

What concerns me about an UNDER is that in PRIME time games, PRIME time Players show up, meaning Marshall and Randy Moss should have big games--
The Db's in the NFL are garbage, they cannot cover, so basically if they sit back the team will just march the ball over and over resulting in an OVER----

Unless each teams approach is lots of running, which I doubt on MOnday night, because the receivers are on TV, and the QB's are so they have to play good, becasue the league is watching, the Db's are nervous about getting burned on TV, the offenses basically crush the Defenses without a doubt because they run harder and when the ball is in the air MOSS and MARSHAL are beating any db's on the other team--

Plus with Denver D, I dont think anyone can take an Under, and also with Shanahan preparation on Monday night, he has them ready to play alwyas and scores points on offense--
 
threads like this make me excited for the NBA season. (if any of you have seen BC's nba threads you'll know what I'm talking about)

BOL BC.
 
Smart move BC. Too much "public" on that unders, and neither teams recent performances would lead you to think the total would be set this high.
Look for Cassel(sp?) to break out tonight.

Pats are overdue for an offensive explosion...
 
Thanks, JP.

Hawks - It's basically an irrelevant bet, but theres a limit I'm obviously willing to lose on this, and chases can quickly get out of hand. Perfect result here is a game totaling 47-48, which doesnt get recorded as an Under result or a Push and would pay out anyway. One of the next 2 games after this one I'm certain will end this run, so I'd settle for losing this bet if it can't fall on at least 46-48.
 
As soon as the "public" falls in love with the overs again!!!

My chase will begin next week most likely as long as this game goes over...
 
Sweet mother of Jebus that was perfect - collect on a winning Under bet, but more importantly the result is recorded as an Over since the game total surpassed the opening line of 46.0, meaning the streak hits 8 straight and we get the really likely Under games up the next 2 weeks.
 
Pirate - if you want a title of your own choosing, just let me know.

And my condolences to those who didnt at least get 48.
 
bc i was starting the chase for this under as well. i got u47 unfortunately. do u recommend taking the under next week since this stat is based on opening lines? thanks.
 
buckeyes - I'm starting this chase for "real" this week.

The line opened at 42.0, the best I can do now is 41.0 which is tolerable since the point lost out on means at worst it'd get recorded as a Push (w/42 game points) should U41.0 lose, therefore a record streak would remain (except would shift in nature to a lack of an Under result, as opposed to a pure streak of Over results - such a change wouldn't be hugely significant because the longest stretch of games without either an U or O result over the period my records cover is in fact 9 games). 41 is an important number so there's no reason to hang off betting it. I've got 400 on it already, I'll consider more close to gametime.
 
Still haven't made any monetary committment to the MNF total as of yet. Would really like to see SNF register an Over result.
 
u decide anything on the under yet? Its a really low number, but i could sort of see it happening.
 
buckeyes, GT - this line is climbing and theres still a couple of hours to go before gametime, so I don't see any need to place a bet yet. Arizona & San Fran have such a high scoring recent past between each other in AZ, and their current line of 47.0 isnt anything Arizona hasnt at least matched for 5 straight games, so I won't be extending this chase next week (which was pretty much my intention before this began - I'd have to have seen a fairly high line for that game). So all I'm assessing now is how much this Under is worth beyond betting the minimum to win back what I've lost on it so far (300).
 
Hey BC - I've been reading through this thread and I disagree with the logic of betting against these runs. Sure, all runs must come to and end and certainly this one will at some point in time but (and I reference bases because of your normal contributions to that forum) isn't this like betting against a streak in baseball? "Team x has won 12 straight, they haven't done this in a long time, surely they will lose this game."

Strange things happen in sports:

The Rays were in the world series.
The city of Philadelphia won a pro sports championship.
Eli beat Brady.

I'm in the camp that going against streaks or stats like this reduces capping to something more along the lines of a coin toss. Blindly betting that a certain outcome can't continue, when in fact the probability of it continuing has absolutely nothing to do with what happened last Monday, or the Monday before that.

Again, just one guy's opinion......
 
scdoggy - the problem with your logic is this isnt the same baseball team turning up game after game, with the same batters, relievers & starting pitching staff who have the current form in play, to underpin those "12 straight wins" and potentially keep them going.

These is a series of physically unconnected football games whose combined styles of play which lead to their final outcomes are independent forces. What does connect these contests is what is being considered - the total line (for a particular time slot) designated by the linemakers. And as the history of stats that I provided shows, these linemakers do not have a penchant for delivering up sequences of 10+ runs of 1 total or the other (& it is they who deliver these results, not the teams playing on the field - because they decide what the threshold is for one result or the other. They could make any game an Over result by setting the line at 2.0, they could make any game an Under result by setting the line at 160.0, and theres nothing the 2 teams playing that particular game could do about it to change the coming result even if they wanted to, because its not in their ultimate control).

So not only is there, unlike with the baseball example you provided, no physical connection between the games involved in the streak, but the players on the field do not have ultimate control in deciding the outcome of such a streak.

As for betting blindly, I have framed my chase here in a context (3 games max.) and I'd have already gone 2-0 (and have it ended by now) except for 1 of the 3-5 stupidest coaching decisions I've ever seen in my time of following American Football (12 years). And more philosophically, contrary to your own personal take, my experience of chasing has been quite successful.
 
Hey BC - I'll pick this up tomorrow. I still disagree with you on this but am heading out for the skins game.
:shake:
 
I've been looking over the MNF schedule for the rest of this season, and beyond tonight there are 3 games that stand out as potential Under contests.

CLE at BUF
TBY at CAR
CLE at PHI

Cleveland's road games average 33.75 points this season, and of their opponents - Buffalo is 4-1 to Under vs the AFC North the last 2 seasons at an average of 30.0 points/game, and Philly has conceded an average of 11.50 points/game at home this season. Neither of those 2 teams will be particularly motivated above their norms by the sight of the Browns.

As for the middle fixture, Carolina has a 6-2 to Under record at this point and Tampa churns out sub 35 point games with an almost unsurpassed regularity.


I've bet 500 at U38.0, with no intention of betting this next week. I'd be willing to bet more if I had no intention of considering an Under bet again on MNF this season, but that's not the case.
 
Congrats fellow chasers
an_2drinks.gif
 
First off - congrats on the win last night BC. Over never had much of a chance.

And, I'm not knocking your method - hey it worked for you last night and you've said the chasing has worked for you in the past. I've employed a variety of chasing in bases where I look at expected outcomes over the course of a series between two teams, instead of simply capping an individual game. I expect an outcome based on anumber of factors and will chase 3-4 times over a series until the outcome cashes.

But there are still some aspects of this system that leave me scratching my head.

In your response last night you said:

"So not only is there, unlike with the baseball example you provided, no physical connection between the games involved in the streak, but the players on the field do not have ultimate control in deciding the outcome of such a streak."

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. Perhaps my baseball example isn't a direct parallel to your system but how can the players in the NFL not have ultimate control over this streak. Linesmakers set the total where they see fit, but most of us can predict this number within 2-3 points before the lines come out. So in actuality linesmakers are forced to set these totals where the bettors perceive the numbers should go, and ultimately it is the plays that are made (or not made) on the field that dictate whether a total goes over or under any reasonable number that is thrown out by the oddsmakers.

I just have a hard time looking at expected outcomes based on a streak of unrelated games, using the logic that the streak is "due" to end based on past history.
 
Bailey - thanks.


scdoggy - You're calling what I did a system and I don't see that as being the case, from the perspective of what I understand a system to be. When I chase,

(1) it's "95 times out of 100" going to be connected to 1 of the 2 "biggies" - an ATS result or a Total result. These 2 options, concerning the sports (NFL & NBA) I'm willing to chase in, I have extensive statistical back records for which allow me to gauge a historical context for whatever current streak is in play that I intend to see in the end of. These records show up the fact there is no real history of "insane" streaks of note for these 2 options (ie, 20+ results - the longest streaks concern individual NBA teams in a handful of instances concerning total results - namely run 'n gun teams & Overs, hardly any suprise. It's not wise to chase in an Under result with run 'n gun NBA teams), and ultimately it's these records which will green light or not whether statistically speaking a chase can be considered at all.

(2) Far from betting blindly, I cap every game which will frame the chase for it's individual suitability related to the desired result. It's ultimately the results of this step that decides if I go ahead and chase at all - the sequence of individual contests obviously must be seen to line up. For example last season I posted a number of potential chase scenarios in the NBA forum but which required the team/s involved needing to register certain results in the game/s they'd yet to play before the initial chase game fixture, which they subsequently didnt do so I abandoned starting the chases. As for this MNF Under chase example, had the next 3 games all involved teams with lower echelon defenses then, even though their lines would've reflected that reality, I wouldn't have bothered starting to chase where I did. In actuality, the first 3 games here only really involved one bad defense (Denver, at #29, the only 1 of the 6 teams w/a D not ranked in the top 15) and that was a game I'd likely have passed on but for the fact line moves crossed the crucial number of 48 which is what the game totaled (& even then still only put in a token bet).
This step ensures theres no blind element to any individual bet - the nature of the streak shapes the approach to capping individual games, the result of which then decides whether there is the basis for a chase, rather than those games being made subservient to the goal of ending the streak and therefore their individual elements being rendered irrelevant (what I'd consider a blind chase approach).

(3) The last step, after framing the context of the chase and lining up the individual elements, is deciding how much I'm willing to lose over the process as a whole. The amount then decided upon is obviously broken down for the gradient betting sequence.


While I'd recognise the above as a systematic approach, I woudn't describe it as a system. There are sequences of results which I would (& have) recognise/d as being far out of the norm that I never instigated a chase with. A true system demands plays for the instances tripped by that system's recognition factors - if one doesnt make the plays, they're undermining that system because systems are constructed on the basis of the percentages they deliver; one can't pick and choose to bet which spots a system delivers up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Linesmakers set the total where they see fit, but most of us can predict this number within 2-3 points before the lines come out. So in actuality linesmakers are forced to set these totals where the bettors perceive the numbers should go, and ultimately it is the plays that are made (or not made) on the field that dictate whether a total goes over or under any reasonable number that is thrown out by the oddsmakers.
Click to expand...

The example I gave you (about the 2.0/160.0 lines) proves the players don't have ultimate control. That's not saying they don't contribute to the outcome, it is saying they're not the primal force in play. The linemakers have the ultimate control - it's their desire which is in play, not the desire of the players playing the game on the field. And their desire isn't to guarantee Over results (by putting up 2.0 lines) or Under results (by putting up 160.0 lines) obviously.
But it's also not their desire (or better put, in their best interests) to consistently have unmitigated runs of 1 particular kind of result. Now, I know the automatic counterargument to this: that they don't care as long as the losing side is constantly the side getting most of the action. In logical theory that's fine as an answer. Only in the world of sports betting not all sides are equal - Favs ATS & Overs get more attention than their opposites, and above & beyond that it doesn't really take much to condition people and their betting patterns: What have you done for me lately is a very strong determinant for where people are willing to put their money (and obviously not without good reason). Meaning if 1 team or 1 popular time slot starts to deliver up results of a nature that are already popular to begin with, you're dealing with what amounts to an outpouring of honey being exposed to a swarm of hungry bees - a situation that will rapidly lead to imbalance. By way of example, threads started to appear last week at blankets concerning blindly betting Over on MNF simply because it had hit 8 straight, which was no suprise. I'd figure such threads would start appearing after that kind of density of result. Those threads reappeared yesterday offering no pause for thought to the fact the #1 & #4 ranked defenses were in play. That lack of pause is what leads to imbalance.

The books make money with the playing field level as it is: that is, with rare runs of abnormally long streaks (concerning - particularly popular - ATS/total results). Rare runs suit them fine, it's a crucial random element which fends off those who themselves would take up a chasing position as their betting norm. Keep in mind I differentiate the notion of rare streaks with truly rare streaks (those which may occur once every 2-3 seasons, or even once a decade, depending on the type of result concerned and it's context - ie, NBA teams delivering 16+ straight games of 1 total result).
If rare/abnormal streaks were a norm they'd not have their level playing field, instead they'd be soon out of business (people would latch onto the early signs of such streaks and, with them occuring often enough, would ride their way to riches given a decent enough starting bankroll). Who decides how many abnormally long streaks there are? the guy making the line (who can adapt it to the immediate general betting behavioural patterns that are in play), or the players on the court or field (who play without the slightest concern for said line, hence don't adapt their behaviours in any way in relation to it, at least in the professional game despite what some people are willing to think)? The answer is the same as to the question, who has ultimate control?
I'd have said an opening line of 37.0 was a tad high for last night's Pitt/Wash game: I wouldn't have blinked if it was 1 or 2 pts lower, since even at 35.0 I'd have said there was little chance you get 5 TDs in that game considering the defenses involved, and even 36.0 - 3 TDs & 5 FGs - would seem to have been more reflective than 37.0 - 4 TDs & 3 FGs - let alone the fact it climbed to 38.0, making a total of 37 a winner instead of a Push). So if the opener was high (by whatever degree), and further line moves made it even higher, was that not activity directly working for the ending of the streak in play considering the elements in play on the field (2 of the top 4 defenses in the league)? that game could easily have totaled 19 points instead of 29 but for a guy's first blocked punt ever just before half-time & a mindnumbing short kick off to start the game (10 pts right there). I could begin to guess if MNF was on a run of 9 straight Unders instead of 9 straight Overs, that that total would not be opening at 37.0 or then climbing even higher. Was it because there was a sense that people were already primed to bet Overs on MNF that contributed to this line opening as it did?

I just have a hard time looking at expected outcomes based on a streak of unrelated games, using the logic that the streak is "due" to end based on past history.
Click to expand...

My perception is that in such situations the line is going to be working - to whatever degree - against the betting behaviour conditioned by the streak concerned, not for it.
In this case an already popular option (Over totals) was hitting at a great rate in an already popular betting time slot (MNF), making for fertile ground in which to conduct a chase given the coming contests on the fixtures list viewable at the time married to an expectation the lines wouldn't be doing any intended Over bettors any particular favours. Those fixtures could easily have gone 3-0 to Under but for Tony Dungy's brain dead decision to go for it at the 50 instead of punting last week. And only went 2-1 to Under because the line rose 2.5 points for the NE/DEN fixture, making an Over result an Under one - why did it climb so much? I wonder if the 7 Overs streak at the time had any influence on betting patterns.
 
Last edited:
Goddamn it BC - why didn't you write this novel before I bet on the Over in that Skins game. Seriously, great reasponse. I didn't realize that you were looking at the situational and matchup components when chasing here. I was under the impression that you were blindly chasing. Its really the same principle I use when capping a series in bases and chasing an anticipated outcome based on past history, pitching, defense, weather, etc....

While we could get into a more philosophical discussion about the oddsmakers or the players having more control over the outcome of a game, we'd be here forever. You do make some good points about the public being conditioned to bet the over because of the recent run on MNF, and thus they can set the number higher than normal. I took a different approach and bought into the injuries to the Skins secondary a little too much. Landry and Smoot looked fine and aside from dropping an INT that was an easy TD the other way, Rogers was fine too.

Good luck the rest of the year BC:shake:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Sunday's NFL bets:
Replies
1
Views
280
Coolslaw1
Coolslaw1
BetCrimes1984
NBA Elimination Game Totals: 2024 Playoffs
Replies
16
Views
871
BetCrimes1984
BetCrimes1984
R
Sunday's NFL bets:
Replies
1
Views
169
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
B
Playoff picks
Replies
2
Views
214
blackcrow
B
R
Sunday’s NFL bets:
Replies
0
Views
163
ROASHE
R
Back
Top