Why does the NFL think that including all the variables instrumental towards the destruction that was 9-11 has to be re- visited every 10 years? Those in the know could give a F less. Another obvious money grab by the NFL.
But I thought they were advantageous from a schedule perspective. It's the least damaging possible time and place to lose a division game, but it's an opportunity to make a division opponent start their season in the worst way possible. You also know it isn't going to be a short week or anything like that.
Beat me to it. Shurmur factor could be interesting, too.
This game could really set the tone for the year. Type of game where both teams absolutely think they can win and will be terribly disappointed if they lose.
But I thought they were advantageous from a schedule perspective. It's the least damaging possible time and place to lose a division game, but it's an opportunity to make a division opponent start their season in the worst way possible. You also know it isn't going to be a short week or anything like that.
Don't like opening at home as much.
Terps, this is all very rationale, but I'll be damned if you haven't taken unpopular opinions to an art form. More power to you.
Strategically, opening in Dallas (or any other divisional foe) does seem in the long run somewhat advantageous, as laid out. Still, I feel like there may be a subconscious psychological benefit to opening at your home. Doesn't it play in the back of your mind just a little bit that the reason Dallas always starts at home because the league loves them the most? Because they are the most popular team, and that the league is at least that much in the bag for them? I'm obviously talking straight out of my ass here, but think there might be some benefit for a team to feel as if they are recognized in some way as a 'big team', and that opening at home might help to do that on a minute level.
But I thought they were advantageous from a schedule perspective. It's the least damaging possible time and place to lose a division game, but it's an opportunity to make a division opponent start their season in the worst way possible. You also know it isn't going to be a short week or anything like that.
Don't like opening at home as much.
Terps, this is all very rationale, but I'll be damned if you haven't taken unpopular opinions to an art form. More power to you.
Strategically, opening in Dallas (or any other divisional foe) does seem in the long run somewhat advantageous, as laid out. Still, I feel like there may be a subconscious psychological benefit to opening at your home. Doesn't it play in the back of your mind just a little bit that the reason Dallas always starts at home because the league loves them the most? Because they are the most popular team, and that the league is at least that much in the bag for them? I'm obviously talking straight out of my ass here, but think there might be some benefit for a team to feel as if they are recognized in some way as a 'big team', and that opening at home might help to do that on a minute level.
That could be, I don't know. I may be influenced by the fact that both 2007 (@ Dallas) and 2011 (@ Washington) started with road divisional losses.
But I thought they were advantageous from a schedule perspective. It's the least damaging possible time and place to lose a division game, but it's an opportunity to make a division opponent start their season in the worst way possible. You also know it isn't going to be a short week or anything like that.
Don't like opening at home as much.
Agreed. Only solace I take is that this is a less stressful game than usual, but i'd prefer nightmare opener on the road and hope to steal one early.
have gone both ways win or lose that opener, but it just seemed as if the Cowboys were always more prepared to start the season than the Giant-coached teams. At least it looked that way.
But I thought they were advantageous from a schedule perspective. It's the least damaging possible time and place to lose a division game, but it's an opportunity to make a division opponent start their season in the worst way possible. You also know it isn't going to be a short week or anything like that.
Don't like opening at home as much.
Even if the argument had merit, why would you want Dallas away, rather than home?
Myself, I would much rather play a southern team at home in the early part of the year and at their place when it's winter here.
Why does the NFL think that including all the variables instrumental towards the destruction that was 9-11 has to be re- visited every 10 years? Those in the know could give a F less. Another obvious money grab by the NFL.
What are the 'variables' that 'those in the know' know that the rest of us don't know?
They must think the Giants are going to be horrendous.
No. They must think what the bettors thoughts are on the Giants.
They believe at least half of the bettors think a team that wasn’t good last season and doesn’t know who their starting quarterback will be is 4+ points better on a neutral field?
It’s easier to believe that there’s some Aaron Rodgers wishfullness baked in there.
I think Rodgers ends up in Denver this year. I would not expect MVP Rodgers game 1 in NY though. I suspect it will take him some time to get used to new everything.
Denver has been linked to Rogers. They are the only team with enough cap space to accommodate him that did not recently pick a QB. I really hope he stays with the Packers so that the Giants do not face him on opening day and he can beat the Bears twice.
Some information that may be helpful to some here.
In an ideal world, sportsbooks would like to have balanced action on both sides of each market. If they have an equal amount of wagering on both sides, they can collect the vig with no risk. Let’s look at an example:
Let’s say a sportsbook takes in $55,000 in wagers on the Steelers -7 (-110). They also take in exactly $55,000 on the Browns at +7 (-110). The Browns and the Steelers are playing in Pittsburgh on an NFL Sunday.
nfl betting
In total, this gives the sportsbooks a handle of $110,000 on this particular market. The sportsbook’s handle is the amount of wagers they take in on both sides of a betting market. The game itself and the sportsbook have three possible outcomes when it comes to payouts.
The Steelers win the game and cover the -7. The sportsbook pays out $55,000 to customers who took the Steelers.
The Browns win the game or cover +7. The sportsbook pays out $55,000 to customers who took the Browns.
The game ends with the Steelers winning the game by exactly 7 points. In this case, the game is a push and all wagers, including juice would be returned to customers.
Let’s forget that the game may end in a push and look at what the sportsbook stands to make if the game ends with the Steelers or Browns covering. Regardless of which team covers, the sportsbook owes $55,000 to the customers that backed the winner.
How Sportsbooks Make Money – Explained
Either way, the sportsbook is profiting $5,000, regardless of which side wins the game. Since they took in a total of $110,000 and they are paying out $55,000 to Steelers’ backers and will keep $50,000 in profits from customers betting on the Browns.
Of course, it doesn’t always work out that way. In many markets such as NFL football sides and totals, it’s impossible for the bookmakers to achieve balanced betting on both sides.
The important thing to understand here is the sheer volume of bets across a variety of sports. Online betting sites don’t take one bet and hope for a positive outcome but spread their risk across thousands of bets on hundreds of sports.
When you factor the vig they take you start to see clearly how profitable is the whole gambling industry.
Sports Betting Market – How Betting Sites Make Money
In today’s world of sophisticated bookmakers and sharp gamblers, the sharps always seem to be ahead. As we went over in our article on “fading the public” as a betting strategy, the sportsbooks may want to alter the odds to cater to public betting opinions, (which they sometimes do) but their first priority is stopping sharp bettors from having a field day.
The reason why betting limits are in place is that without them, the sharp bettors would run the sportsbooks and not the oddsmakers. Once the odds are released, it’s the sharp gamblers betting big money who are shaping and moving the odds.
While adjusting the odds as best as possible to achieve a 50% split in betting action might sound ideal for the sportsbooks – this is not the reality.
The sharp bettors wager more money than the general public, and their opinion means a lot more too. A bookmaker can’t usually justify not moving a line if the public is pounding one side, but the sharps are all over the other. This is known as reverse line movement.
Many recreational sports bettors think the sportsbooks don’t want them to win. They’re right, of course, but in reality, they’re not too worried about them.
Their goal is to limit the amount sharps can win off of them by producing accurate lines. The squares will bet into these odds and lose, just like they always do. How Sportsbooks work. - ( New Window )
How Sportsbooks Make Money – Explained
Either way, the sportsbook is profiting $5,000, regardless of which side wins the game. Since they took in a total of $110,000 and they are paying out $55,000 to Steelers’ backers and will keep $50,000 in profits from customers betting on the Browns.
Of course, it doesn’t always work out that way. In many markets such as NFL football sides and totals, it’s impossible for the bookmakers to achieve balanced betting on both sides.
When you factor the vig they take you start to see clearly how profitable is the whole gambling industry.
While adjusting the odds as best as possible to achieve a 50% split in betting action might sound ideal for the sportsbooks – this is not the reality.
The sharp bettors wager more money than the general public, and their opinion means a lot more too. A bookmaker can’t usually justify not moving a line if the public is pounding one side, but the sharps are all over the other. This is known as reverse line movement.
Many recreational sports bettors think the sportsbooks don’t want them to win. They’re right, of course, but in reality, they’re not too worried about them.
Their goal is to limit the amount sharps can win off of them by producing accurate lines. The squares will bet into these odds and lose, just like they always do. How Sportsbooks work. - ( New Window )
Which is exactly why the opening line here means so much. Only professionals hop on week 1 odds like this early. It will tell even more where that line moves throughout the preseason. Vegas clearly doesn’t think much of us, but what about the professionals as a whole?
Especially with the reductions in practice time it's a poor time and place for a critical matchup.
Same. All too often we're seeing teams not ready to hit, tackle, or play 60 minutes the first 2-3 weeks of the season.
The football is such garbage that I never really understood why they wouldn’t try to get their low marquee games out of the way week1 . Week 1 NFL people are going to be watching regardless what matchups you throw out there.
The Saints, who wanted to trade up for Mac Jones to be their QB.
That tells you the money isn't presuming Rodgers in Green Bay. And if he isn't there, he's going to be somewhere else.
So I wouldn't take the opening NYG line as too much of an insult.
Other week 1 lines:
Russell Wilson 2.5 point dog to Carson Wentz.
Jets 4 point dog to Sam Darnold.
oddshark - ( New Window )
You are reading waaaay too much into the QBs of these teams and not the teams as a whole. The Saints have a very good overall roster and are home. Colts the same. The panthers are a much better team than the Jets at this point. Nobody is giving the Broncos points because there is an off chance Rodgers plays there.
RE: RE: Packers are Week 1 underdogs to the Saints
You are reading waaaay too much into the QBs of these teams and not the teams as a whole. The Saints have a very good overall roster and are home. Colts the same. The panthers are a much better team than the Jets at this point. Nobody is giving the Broncos points because there is an off chance Rodgers plays there.
Disagree about the Packers and Broncos lines and the Rodgers' factor.
The other lines are simply statements of fact. I presume people know the QBs don't play each other and can see who the home team is.
4:25 kickoff at MetLife Stadium on FOX
20 years ago, night before 9/11, Giants were in Denver for MNF.
Now #NYG host Broncos day after 20-year anniversary of 9/11.
Agreed. I wonder if the Jets will also play at home week 1, maybe Monday night? Do tributes to 9/11 both Sunday and Monday?
Don't like opening at home as much.
Beat me to it. Shurmur factor could be interesting, too.
This game could really set the tone for the year. Type of game where both teams absolutely think they can win and will be terribly disappointed if they lose.
+ 1 million. I love this.
Don't like opening at home as much.
Terps, this is all very rationale, but I'll be damned if you haven't taken unpopular opinions to an art form. More power to you.
Strategically, opening in Dallas (or any other divisional foe) does seem in the long run somewhat advantageous, as laid out. Still, I feel like there may be a subconscious psychological benefit to opening at your home. Doesn't it play in the back of your mind just a little bit that the reason Dallas always starts at home because the league loves them the most? Because they are the most popular team, and that the league is at least that much in the bag for them? I'm obviously talking straight out of my ass here, but think there might be some benefit for a team to feel as if they are recognized in some way as a 'big team', and that opening at home might help to do that on a minute level.
And may Dallas start 0-1 after being embarrassed on the road!
Was trying to remember if Giants had ever faced Bridgewater, and they have, once: the horrendous 49-17 blowout in Minny, late December 2015.
Quote:
But I thought they were advantageous from a schedule perspective. It's the least damaging possible time and place to lose a division game, but it's an opportunity to make a division opponent start their season in the worst way possible. You also know it isn't going to be a short week or anything like that.
Don't like opening at home as much.
Terps, this is all very rationale, but I'll be damned if you haven't taken unpopular opinions to an art form. More power to you.
Strategically, opening in Dallas (or any other divisional foe) does seem in the long run somewhat advantageous, as laid out. Still, I feel like there may be a subconscious psychological benefit to opening at your home. Doesn't it play in the back of your mind just a little bit that the reason Dallas always starts at home because the league loves them the most? Because they are the most popular team, and that the league is at least that much in the bag for them? I'm obviously talking straight out of my ass here, but think there might be some benefit for a team to feel as if they are recognized in some way as a 'big team', and that opening at home might help to do that on a minute level.
That could be, I don't know. I may be influenced by the fact that both 2007 (@ Dallas) and 2011 (@ Washington) started with road divisional losses.
either home or away.
Glad we are playing them in NJ instead of Mile High.
I suspect some considerstion was given to stadiums still being far less than full capacity and trying to push division games back a tad.
Also, will be a good game to have depth at corner to match up with all of the Broncos WRs.
I suspect some considerstion was given to stadiums still being far less than full capacity and trying to push division games back a tad.
Murphy came out yesterday and said he exoects Mrtlife to be full capacity by week 1
Quote:
vs Tampa Bay.
I suspect some considerstion was given to stadiums still being far less than full capacity and trying to push division games back a tad.
Murphy came out yesterday and said he exoects Mrtlife to be full capacity by week 1
Right, but not all of the stadiums will be at that level early on.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/game?gameId=210910007
Even with blue tinted glasses, that's horse shit imo.
Don't like opening at home as much.
Agreed. Only solace I take is that this is a less stressful game than usual, but i'd prefer nightmare opener on the road and hope to steal one early.
Just win it is all that matters.
Quote:
In comment 15261648 jvm52106 said:
Quote:
vs Tampa Bay.
I suspect some considerstion was given to stadiums still being far less than full capacity and trying to push division games back a tad.
Murphy came out yesterday and said he exoects Mrtlife to be full capacity by week 1
Right, but not all of the stadiums will be at that level early on.
I think most will except for California
Don't like opening at home as much.
Even if the argument had merit, why would you want Dallas away, rather than home?
Myself, I would much rather play a southern team at home in the early part of the year and at their place when it's winter here.
They must think the Giants are going to be horrendous.
Quote:
at +1.5
They must think the Giants are going to be horrendous.
No. They must think what the bettors thoughts are on the Giants.
Same. All too often we're seeing teams not ready to hit, tackle, or play 60 minutes the first 2-3 weeks of the season.
What are the 'variables' that 'those in the know' know that the rest of us don't know?
Quote:
In comment 15261884 Dnew15 said:
Quote:
at +1.5
They must think the Giants are going to be horrendous.
No. They must think what the bettors thoughts are on the Giants.
They believe at least half of the bettors think a team that wasn’t good last season and doesn’t know who their starting quarterback will be is 4+ points better on a neutral field?
It’s easier to believe that there’s some Aaron Rodgers wishfullness baked in there.
But Luck sucks, so that doesn't explain the line.
But Luck sucks, so that doesn't explain the line.
In an ideal world, sportsbooks would like to have balanced action on both sides of each market. If they have an equal amount of wagering on both sides, they can collect the vig with no risk. Let’s look at an example:
Let’s say a sportsbook takes in $55,000 in wagers on the Steelers -7 (-110). They also take in exactly $55,000 on the Browns at +7 (-110). The Browns and the Steelers are playing in Pittsburgh on an NFL Sunday.
nfl betting
In total, this gives the sportsbooks a handle of $110,000 on this particular market. The sportsbook’s handle is the amount of wagers they take in on both sides of a betting market. The game itself and the sportsbook have three possible outcomes when it comes to payouts.
The Steelers win the game and cover the -7. The sportsbook pays out $55,000 to customers who took the Steelers.
The Browns win the game or cover +7. The sportsbook pays out $55,000 to customers who took the Browns.
The game ends with the Steelers winning the game by exactly 7 points. In this case, the game is a push and all wagers, including juice would be returned to customers.
Let’s forget that the game may end in a push and look at what the sportsbook stands to make if the game ends with the Steelers or Browns covering. Regardless of which team covers, the sportsbook owes $55,000 to the customers that backed the winner.
How Sportsbooks Make Money – Explained
Either way, the sportsbook is profiting $5,000, regardless of which side wins the game. Since they took in a total of $110,000 and they are paying out $55,000 to Steelers’ backers and will keep $50,000 in profits from customers betting on the Browns.
Of course, it doesn’t always work out that way. In many markets such as NFL football sides and totals, it’s impossible for the bookmakers to achieve balanced betting on both sides.
The important thing to understand here is the sheer volume of bets across a variety of sports. Online betting sites don’t take one bet and hope for a positive outcome but spread their risk across thousands of bets on hundreds of sports.
When you factor the vig they take you start to see clearly how profitable is the whole gambling industry.
Sports Betting Market – How Betting Sites Make Money
In today’s world of sophisticated bookmakers and sharp gamblers, the sharps always seem to be ahead. As we went over in our article on “fading the public” as a betting strategy, the sportsbooks may want to alter the odds to cater to public betting opinions, (which they sometimes do) but their first priority is stopping sharp bettors from having a field day.
The reason why betting limits are in place is that without them, the sharp bettors would run the sportsbooks and not the oddsmakers. Once the odds are released, it’s the sharp gamblers betting big money who are shaping and moving the odds.
While adjusting the odds as best as possible to achieve a 50% split in betting action might sound ideal for the sportsbooks – this is not the reality.
The sharp bettors wager more money than the general public, and their opinion means a lot more too. A bookmaker can’t usually justify not moving a line if the public is pounding one side, but the sharps are all over the other. This is known as reverse line movement.
Many recreational sports bettors think the sportsbooks don’t want them to win. They’re right, of course, but in reality, they’re not too worried about them.
Their goal is to limit the amount sharps can win off of them by producing accurate lines. The squares will bet into these odds and lose, just like they always do.
How Sportsbooks work. - ( New Window )
Still alittle shocked with that opening line.
nfl betting
How Sportsbooks Make Money – Explained
Either way, the sportsbook is profiting $5,000, regardless of which side wins the game. Since they took in a total of $110,000 and they are paying out $55,000 to Steelers’ backers and will keep $50,000 in profits from customers betting on the Browns.
Of course, it doesn’t always work out that way. In many markets such as NFL football sides and totals, it’s impossible for the bookmakers to achieve balanced betting on both sides.
When you factor the vig they take you start to see clearly how profitable is the whole gambling industry.
While adjusting the odds as best as possible to achieve a 50% split in betting action might sound ideal for the sportsbooks – this is not the reality.
The sharp bettors wager more money than the general public, and their opinion means a lot more too. A bookmaker can’t usually justify not moving a line if the public is pounding one side, but the sharps are all over the other. This is known as reverse line movement.
Many recreational sports bettors think the sportsbooks don’t want them to win. They’re right, of course, but in reality, they’re not too worried about them.
Their goal is to limit the amount sharps can win off of them by producing accurate lines. The squares will bet into these odds and lose, just like they always do. How Sportsbooks work. - ( New Window )
Which is exactly why the opening line here means so much. Only professionals hop on week 1 odds like this early. It will tell even more where that line moves throughout the preseason. Vegas clearly doesn’t think much of us, but what about the professionals as a whole?
Quote:
Especially with the reductions in practice time it's a poor time and place for a critical matchup.
Same. All too often we're seeing teams not ready to hit, tackle, or play 60 minutes the first 2-3 weeks of the season.
The football is such garbage that I never really understood why they wouldn’t try to get their low marquee games out of the way week1 . Week 1 NFL people are going to be watching regardless what matchups you throw out there.
That tells you the money isn't presuming Rodgers in Green Bay. And if he isn't there, he's going to be somewhere else.
So I wouldn't take the opening NYG line as too much of an insult.
Other week 1 lines:
Russell Wilson 2.5 point dog to Carson Wentz.
Jets 4 point dog to Sam Darnold.
oddshark - ( New Window )
That tells you the money isn't presuming Rodgers in Green Bay. And if he isn't there, he's going to be somewhere else.
So I wouldn't take the opening NYG line as too much of an insult.
Other week 1 lines:
Russell Wilson 2.5 point dog to Carson Wentz.
Jets 4 point dog to Sam Darnold.
oddshark - ( New Window )
You are reading waaaay too much into the QBs of these teams and not the teams as a whole. The Saints have a very good overall roster and are home. Colts the same. The panthers are a much better team than the Jets at this point. Nobody is giving the Broncos points because there is an off chance Rodgers plays there.
You are reading waaaay too much into the QBs of these teams and not the teams as a whole. The Saints have a very good overall roster and are home. Colts the same. The panthers are a much better team than the Jets at this point. Nobody is giving the Broncos points because there is an off chance Rodgers plays there.
Disagree about the Packers and Broncos lines and the Rodgers' factor.
The other lines are simply statements of fact. I presume people know the QBs don't play each other and can see who the home team is.
Quote:
and an improved shot at starting 1-0 for a change.
+ 1 million. I love this.
Couldn't agree more.
Pretty funny seeing comments about the opener..........
People don't like the team.
People don't like being home.
Sheesh.