The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

SkinsJock wrote: If the Seahawks were the better team they would be 'favored'

Well that couldn't be more untrue.

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote: If the Seahawks were the better team they would be 'favored'

Well that couldn't be more untrue.

that's interesting - explain how "it could not be more untrue" for the better team not to be 'favored' to win the game

SkinsJock wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote: If the Seahawks were the better team they would be 'favored'

Well that couldn't be more untrue.

that's interesting - explain how "it could not be more untrue" for the better team not to be 'favored' to win the game

Because betting lines have nothing to do with who the better team is. They are set to get even money wagered on both sides. That way, the house always wins.

I'll agree that the betting lines have nothing to do with which team is better but I do not agree with the statement that my post "could not be more untrue" - that's just typical BS from you ... it might not be the case, but to overstate the point with the words "more untrue" is so 'over-the-top' typical of you trying to make a point

and

if you think the majority of NFL fans (outside the bookies) really believe that the Seahawks are a better team than the Broncos, you are wrong

SkinsJock wrote:I'll agree that the betting lines have nothing to do with which team is better but I do not agree with the statement that my post "could not be more untrue" - that's just typical BS from you ... it might not be the case, but to overstate the point with the words "more untrue" is so 'over-the-top' typical of you trying to make a point

If you know anything about logic or math, then you would know that true/untrue(false) are boolean values. Either 1 or 0, yes or no, true or untrue. So no, it could not be more untrue.

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I'll agree that the betting lines have nothing to do with which team is better but I do not agree with the statement that my post "could not be more untrue" - that's just typical BS from you ... it might not be the case, but to overstate the point with the words "more untrue" is so 'over-the-top' typical of you trying to make a point

If you know anything about logic or math, then you would know that true/untrue(false) are boolean values. Either 1 or 0, yes or no, true or untrue. So no, it could not be more untrue.

I don't need to know anything about logic or math to recognize when I'm being 'snowed'

I made my point - se ya!

For what it's worth, The Seahawks opened at -1.

In other words, they were favored.

Betting has moved the line.

DarthMonk wrote:For what it's worth, The Seahawks opened at -1.

In other words, they were favored.

Betting has moved the line.

So, the better team switched?

DarthMonk wrote:For what it's worth, The Seahawks opened at -1. In other words, they were favored.

WRONG http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/las-vegas/?s=710

the opening line was not -1 - and now it's at -2.5

SkinsJock wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:For what it's worth, The Seahawks opened at -1. In other words, they were favored.

WRONG http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/las-vegas/?s=710

the opening line was not -1 - and now it's at -2.5

WRONG.

Your link does not show the opening line. When I posted, the line was Denver -3.

This link actually shows an opening line of Seattle -1.5.

http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/nfl/ ... odds-total

This link also shows at least one major casino CURRENTLY with Denver at -3.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/lines



Let's make it simple with no room for argument:

Seattle opened as the FAVORITE. Betting has MOVED THE LINE and made them the UNDERDOG.

I cannot tell you how much pleasure this gives me - No sir, you're WRONG and you do not know what you're posting as usual ...

maybe you need glasses or do you just have 'selective vision' and only see what you want to see? ... http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/las-vegas/?s=710

DarthMonk wrote: Your link does not show the opening line. When I posted, the line was Denver -3.
Let's make it simple with no room for argument:

Seattle opened as the FAVORITE. Betting has MOVED THE LINE and made them the UNDERDOG.

back at ya

btw - it's not an argument, it's just the facts

SkinsJock wrote:I cannot tell you how much pleasure this gives me - No sir, you're WRONG and you do not know what you're posting as usual ...

maybe you need glasses or do you just have 'selective vision' and only see what you want to see? ... http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/las-vegas/?s=710

DarthMonk wrote: Your link does not show the opening line. When I posted, the line was Denver -3.
Let's make it simple with no room for argument:

Seattle opened as the FAVORITE. Betting has MOVED THE LINE and made them the UNDERDOG.

back at ya

btw - it's not an argument, it's just the facts

Wow. You are embarrassing yourself ... but if that's what gives you pleasure ... :

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutd ... --nfl.html :

Seahawks open as favorite, then point spread flips Denver's way as early money comes in on Broncos

http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/nfl/ ... odds-total :

Super Bowl point spread report – Seahawks open as favorites, but Broncos money flips line

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eag ... oncos.html :

Super Bowl 2014 betting line: Seattle Seahawks open as favorite, but line shifts quickly to Denver Broncos

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/super-b ... r-broncos/ :

Seattle Seahawks opened as slight favorites over Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XLVIII

^^^ first 4 google hits on this issue ... but I have "selective vision."

Worthy of ...



All I can really give you is this. If you dig deeply into your link there are 15 books listed. 9 open with Seattle as the favorite. Any that show the game as pick 'em or with Denver favored set THEIR LINE after 10 pm on Jan 19 or the next day AFTER BETTING MOVED THE OPENING LINE. Again, the only books in your link favoring Denver early waited for betting to move the line AFTER SEATTLE OPENED AS A FAVORITE BY AS MUCH AS 2 POINTS.

LVH LINE MOVEMENTS
Money Line Spread Total 1st Half 2nd Half
Date Time Fav Dog Fav Dog Over Under Fav Dog Fav Dog
01/19 9:51pm SEA-2 -110 DEN+2 -110 47.0 -110 47.0 -110
01/19 10:01pm SEA-2 -110 DEN+2 -110 47.5 -110 47.5 -110
01/19 10:04pm SEA-125 DEN+105 SEA-1.5 -110 DEN+1.5 -110 47.5 -110 47.5 -110
01/19 10:22pm DEN-110 SEA-110 SEAPK -110 SEAPK -110 47.5 -110 47.5 -110
01/19 10:28pm DEN-120 SEA+100 DEN-1 -110 SEA+1 -110 47.5 -110 47.5 -110

This book shows Seattle OPENING at -2. The line moves .5 points in 13 minutes. The line moves another 1.5 points to pick 'em in the next 18 minutes. The line then moves another point in the next 6 minutes.

This is a CLASSIC CASE of one team opening as a favorite and moving to underdog status due to heavy betting.

You are right on one thing ... it's not an argument anymore ... t's just the facts.

Ouch!

SkinsJock wrote: If the Seahawks were the better team they would be 'favored'

Care to elaborate on this?

hey Darth! - which part of your post about that link "not showing the opening line" did you think I was referring to?

don't come up with a bunch of other links - I posted that this link showed an opening line that was PK which means 'even' - did you find it yet or do I have to post the whole page here for you?

DarthMonk wrote:Your link does not show the opening line

no need for an explanation - it's clear to everyone

^^^ pretty simple ... it was not the OPENING LINE.

It was a line late books set after betting moved the OPENING LINE.

SkinsJock wrote:the opening line was not -1 - and now it's at -2.5

There is a difference between the OPENING LINE and what one book first posted after they watched other books OPEN and then watched bets move the OPENING LINE.

If I am a book and I open at pick 'em 20 minutes after the first casinos establish the OPENING LINE, that does not make the spread I OPEN with the OPENING LINE.

YOU, NOT ME, clearly exercised selectivity and used what a late book opened with as the OPENING LINE.

If you read the notes to your own link you will see they do not even call it THE OPENING LINE:

NOTES:
Open Line: Consists of the first betting line received from one of our Las Vegas or Online sportsbooks.

As you admit, your link showed an opening line a book opened with NOT THE OPENING LINE.

SkinsJock wrote:I posted that this link showed an opening line that was PK ...

My work here is done. Anything else is denial/masturbation.

DarthMonk wrote: .. YOU, NOT ME, clearly exercised selectivity and used what a late book opened with as the OPENING LINE.

you're wrong ...again

I only have 1 link to the 'vegas odds' and that is what I posted - I did not 'select' the site

and, the link did show an "opening line" which you posted it did not

wrong on both counts - keep digging ... and have fun playing with yourself



we're done here ...

SJ's channeling his inner Hogster.

Deadskins wrote:SJ's channeling his inner Hogster.

No kidding. That last one took the cake.

I apologize in advance for this post which, most likely, will only do two things - briefly make me feel better and give Skinsjock another chance to write a post exhibiting more denial.

The argument seems to have shifted to my allegedly claiming that SJ's link to vegasinsiders.com did not have an opening line.

SkinsJock wrote: -snip- the link did show an "opening line" which you posted it did not -snip-

I have already demonstrated this claim by SJ to be wrong but will do so again.

Before I demonstrate the incorrectness of SJ's claim I hereby state the following: His link did show AN opening line, an opening line that, BTW, had the game at pick 'em.

I have never denied this and went to great lengths to clarify the difference between AN opening line shown in his link and THE opening line - which it did not show.

DarthMonk wrote:Your link does not show the opening line.

*** bold and color added by me just now ***

vegasinsiders.com (SJ's link) posted THEIR opening after THE opening line resulted in massive $ on Denver which moved THE opening line.

The entire Internet screams this and I do not think SJ can honestly deny this.

If the only remaining dispute is

SkinsJock wrote: -snip- the link did show an "opening line" which you posted it did not -snip-

then it should now be clear I never posted that since I posted

DarthMonk wrote:Your link does not show the opening line.

BTW, the current weather forecast:

Accuweather predicts that there will be a high of 51 degrees and a low of 27 degrees on Sunday. The players will not get to enjoy the 51-degree weather during the game, but that is a very comfortable temperature for pre-game stretches and warmups.

Showers are expected in the late afternoon. There is a 51 percent chance of rain at 5:00 p.m. and a 47 percent chance of rain at 6:00 p.m. That percentage drops all the way down to four percent from 7:00 to 11:00 p.m.

Assuming it isn't rainy, the conditions don't figure to be terrible. The temperature should never get below freezing, though the 40-degree mark Accuweather is calling for 9:00 p.m. isn't exactly comfortable.

Oh, and one other thing ...

SkinsJock wrote:I only have 1 link to the 'vegas odds' and that is what I posted - I did not 'select' the site ...

... so you didn't select the site to which you posted a link? Cherry pick city, bro.

I'd say the better team won the game, even though they weren't favored (after the opening line).