Throwdowns > Forfeited

my b, maybe it's time to go to sleep, the Rams are playing the Cardinals, now that, they probably might win. Shout out to Patrick Peterson, BEAST. i'll forfeit thiis td off my stupidity. haha

Actually, I'll keep this td, i was thinkinng they were playing the 9'ers, but it's AZ, straight, I'll run with it.

I know the odds are odds, and I think it's more of an upset, I guess, but is a 3-1 team beating a 1-2 team an upset?

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 02:28 AM ET  10.02 by Marlins Fan

I was thinking somthing along the same lines. Regardless of betting odds I still think the Rams beating the Cards would be the bigger upset, mainly because of the W-L records of all of the involved teams.

But the betting lines are actually how you determine if a team is an underdog or the favorite. Win-loss records can be deceiving, but betting lines determine that stuff.

Dang it Dyhard...U done went against me Steelers....hard to vote fer ya, but dog gone it,.........I'm a feared ya might be right.

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 02:01 PM ET  10.02 by TnerB57

I'm just waiting for all the arguments to come in so I can homervote left.

i'm a hoping PCH is right and Dyhard is wrong. Gots to see the arguments tho...........

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 01:33 AM ET  10.02 by YankeesFan

I know the odds are odds, and I think it's more of an upset, I guess, but is a 3-1 team beating a 1-2 team an upset?

mild..............kind of like a mild headache compared to a migraine....both are still headaches but one puts you under the table

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 01:46 PM ET  10.02 by Dyhard is a certified stoner

But the betting lines are actually how you determine if a team is an underdog or the favorite. Win-loss records can be deceiving, but betting lines determine that stuff.

What determined the favorites and underdogs before odds making and handicapping specifically became so prevalent?

Sports gambling has been around just as long as sports themselves. Point spreads are a relatively recent thing. The spread was invented sometime in the late 40's to early 50's. It wasn't until probably some time in the 60's it gained wide spread usage and the 70's before it really became prominent. I could be off with the time frames, thats way before my time, but if I am it's not by much.

I agree records can be deceiving, but the lines can be so just as much, if not more so deceiving. Not always, but in some cases.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 05:31 PM ET  10.02 by jermur613

What determined the favorites and underdogs before odds making and handicapping specifically became so prevalent?Sports gambling has been around just as long as sports themselves. Point spreads are a relatively recent thing. The spread was invented sometime in the late 40's to early 50's. It wasn't until probably some time in the 60's it gained wide spread usage and the 70's before it really became prominent. I could be off with the time frames, thats way before my time, but if I am it's not by much.I agree records can be deceiving, but the lines can be so just as much, if not more so deceiving. Not always, but in some cases.

But they're out there and, as of today, that's how you determine the favorites/underdogs. I know it was different in a different age, but today, betting lines are the way.

QUOTE(#14):

Originally posted 07:31 PM ET  10.02 by Dyhard is a certified stoner

But they're out there and, as of today, that's how you determine the favorites/underdogs. I know it was different in a different age, but today, betting lines are the way.

I know they're the way, and really the only way that we have for the masses. I'm just saying you have to take them with a grain of salt. When non football related issues carry weight with how spreads are layed, just how reliable are they as judging true favorites and under dogs? Especially in a tight spread.

Both games picked in this TD are good examples of how unreliable the spread can be. With the way the Cards D is playing and lack thereof from the Rams, 1.5 points seems a bit fishy to me. I think the Rams are bigger underdogs going into this week than the Eagles, but thats not what the spread says.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 07:50 PM ET  10.02 by jermur613

I know they're the way, and really the only way that we have for the masses. I'm just saying you have to take them with a grain of salt. When non football related issues carry weight with how spreads are layed, just how reliable are they as judging true favorites and under dogs? Especially in a tight spread.

Both games picked in this TD are good examples of how unreliable the spread can be. With the way the Cards D is playing and lack thereof from the Rams, 1.5 points seems a bit fishy to me. I think the Rams are bigger underdogs going into this week than the Eagles, but thats not what the spread says.

The point spread is not an indication of who the odds maker thinks is the better team.

The idea behind the spread, is the house wants there to be 50% of the bets on one team and 50% on the other. That way they win automatically.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 07:50 PM ET  10.02 by jermur613

I know they're the way, and really the only way that we have for the masses. I'm just saying you have to take them with a grain of salt. When non football related issues carry weight with how spreads are layed, just how reliable are they as judging true favorites and under dogs? Especially in a tight spread. Both games picked in this TD are good examples of how unreliable the spread can be. With the way the Cards D is playing and lack thereof from the Rams, 1.5 points seems a bit fishy to me. I think the Rams are bigger underdogs going into this week than the Eagles, but thats not what the spread says.

Yeah, like MattUSA says in #16, the point spreads just indicate who the betting public as a whole favors to win and the exact line perpetually adjusts over time with the dollars that are bet.
The house just takes a commission on all bets.

If you lay $30 million on a +3 underdog team (as a random example), that team would no longer be priced as the underdog for subsequent betters as the line would immediately adjust and make that team the new favorite (say -4) so that there is incentive for betters to bet the other team and balance out the money pools.

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 08:27 PM ET  10.02 by YODA

Yeah, like MattUSA says in #16, the point spreads just indicate who the betting public as a whole favors to win and the exact line perpetually adjusts over time with the dollars that are bet. The house just takes a commission on all bets. If you lay $30 million on a +3 underdog team (as a random example), that team would no longer be priced as the underdog for subsequent betters as the line would immediately adjust and make that team the new favorite (say -4) so that there is incentive for betters to bet the other team and balance out the money pools.

That's pretty much exactly what I'm trying to get at. A 1.5 spread vs a 3.5 spread doesn't make one team a bigger dog compared to another necessarily. It's all about getting the money to lay as close to even as possible, with the desired outcome being the slightly less bet side.

QUOTE(#18):

Originally posted 09:22 PM ET  10.02 by jermur613

That's pretty much exactly what I'm trying to get at. A 1.5 spread vs a 3.5 spread doesn't make one team a bigger dog compared to another necessarily. It's all about getting the money to lay as close to even as possible, with the desired outcome being the slightly less bet side.

And in some instances, teams will be made dogs when they probably should be favorites try influence the way the money is bet.