Are the Packers Free Money?

[Bisket]

+5.5, extra week for rodgers to heal up, and Titans on a short week.

looks golden

[westcoastO]

IF the packers lose, it will NOT be by more than a FG.

Coming from someone who hates GB here, Packers should win though.

[The Nac]

Originally Posted by westcoastO

IF the packers lose, it will NOT be by more than a FG.

Coming from someone who hates GB here, Packers should win though.

[pittviper]

I LOVE Tennessee, and unfortunately this is a horrible spot for them, and they lose this game by 6..

BOL
PV

[Jhawk221]

seems to good to be true..... how you think this line will move? Im guessing now is the time to put this in before it moves

[Midnight Rider]

IMO the line points to the Titans...

[Bisket]

Originally Posted by Midnight Rider

IMO the line points to the Titans...

how so?

Opening Lines:

GB +1 at home vs Colts

Tennessee -3.5 vs Colts at home

Conclusion: Tennessee should be 7.5 favs against Packers, they dropped 2 pts in this comparison.


Not one of main reasons I like the Packers this week, but just wanted to point it out.

[NFLMAN]

The line is to balance action.

The Colts were -1 at Green Bay because off 2 consecutive wins the Colts can draw heavy action. In fact, so much action that the line moved to Colts -2.5 by game time.

[Vegaswiseguy]

TO CORRECT NFL man the lkine is set according to complicated process of power ratings !

then adjusted for injuries and public perception odss makers want equal action on both sides but rarerly get it !

THEY are not gambling they could cares les WHO wins or loses any game as long as they have 51 % on one side and 49% on the other side they still make money !

THEY are NOT gambling WE are !

[Jahred]

greenbay has a terrible run defense only thing i see as a negative.

like it

[NFLMAN]

Originally Posted by Vegaswiseguy

TO CORRECT NFL man the lkine is set according to complicated process of power ratings !

then adjusted for injuries and public perception odss makers want equal action on both sides but rarerly get it !

THEY are not gambling they could cares les WHO wins or loses any game as long as they have 51 % on one side and 49% on the other side they still make money !

THEY are NOT gambling WE are !

I know that there is a complicated process of power ratings. I know that the line is adjusted for injuries. I know that they are not gambling, we are. I know that if they have 51 % on one side and 49% on the other side they still make money.

All of the processes of making the line are to keep the amount of action below 55% on either side. Therefore, the line is to balance action.

[Bisket]

Sportsbooks ALWAYS wanting to balance the action is a myth.


big-time books aren't so concerned with balancing their risk; they merely need to get 'enough' action on both sides of a proposition. Here's what I learned......

Suppose a total of $11,000 is risked by bettors to win $10,000 on a favorite, but only $5,500 is risked by bettors to win $5,000 on the underdog...Look what happens:

If the dog wins, the book makes a profit of $6,000. (He keeps the $11,000 risked by bettors on the favorite, and pays the underdog bettors their profit of $5,000.)

If the favorite wins, the Bookmaker.com/?cmpid=4437" target="_blank">Bookmaker loses $4,500. (He keeps the $5,500 risked by bettors on the underdog, and pays the favorite bettors $10,000 in winnings.)

Essentially, then, in that example, the Bookmaker.com/?cmpid=4437" target="_blank">bookmaker is risking $4,500 in order to win $6,000. In that particular case, he actually breaks even if he can win only 42.9 percent of his 'bets.' Rather than laying $110 to win $100, as is the case with sports bettors, the bookmaker is in effect laying only $75 to win $100! Those are very, very big odds in favor of the house. To the house, when bettors have risked twice as much on one side as the other, every bet is +133! In order for you and me to win $6,000 we'd have to risk $6,600 - not $4,500.

[NFLMAN]

That is true, but on any one of those crazy NFL Sundays when all of the favorites cover, and the house loses $4,500 on every one, you lose your shirt... That is why they always try to balance the action.

Call your bookie and ask him if he prefers to (A) have a balance of action or (B) risk $4,500 to win $6,000

Then let us know what he says.

[Bisket]

the neighborhood bookies want equal action

bigwigs can "gamble"

now which one makes the lines?

[EdCollins]

Originally Posted by Bisket23

Sportsbooks ALWAYS wanting to balance the action is a myth.

Hi Bisket23,

You imply (somewhat) with your example that the sportsbook, after receiving $11,000 on the favorite and $5,500 on the underdog, they would "refuse" one final bet of $5,500 on the underdog, just before game time, because this bet would then "balance" the action.

As I'm sure you know, any book would, of course, love it. They always want as much action as possible. Thus, to correct your opening sentence, they DO always want balanced action.

To put it another way, they would much prefer this final bet of $5,500 just before kickoff to be on the underdog, rather than the favorite, to balance their action.

Sure, perfectly balanced action almost never occurs and thus books do have an interest in which team covers, but the goal IS balanced action. They don't want to gamble... they make their money on the vig/juice.

And yes, when balanced action doesn't occur, books will either win a lot or lose a little. They win about 50% of their bets, just like we do, but when they win they win more than when they lose.

I was an assitant manager at Las Vegas sportsbook for 5 years, in the mid to late 1980s. Often times when our books were off by more than we wanted, we'd make a bet at a competing sportsbook, just to balance our action and minimize our loss. We ALWAYS preferred balanced books.