Rams vs Saints- a betting perspective needed.

[Rambition]

Wouldn't bet on preseason. Fisher has proven he could care less.

you're saying he cares?

 

[ZigZagRam]

If someone could get 65% against the spread consistently- they should move to Vegas and become rich- very doubtful.

After the vig, a 65% hit rate doesn't mean much. Trust me! Also, unless you're betting large sums on each game you're take isn't that high.

Say you're betting $10 on 4 games a week. Hit around 65% and you'll win $396 after the books take their cut. Take the $10 for those 35% losses and you're only left with $156 bucks for what is basically a $680 bet ($10 x 4 bets x 17 weeks).

I never said I always hit 65%, but I have hit that twice and came very close a third time (63.2%) in the last 5 seasons.

Taking money off the top of every bet is what makes sports books profitable.

I'd really like to see this 65% winner against the spread rate you've got. Maybe we could all pick our 5 favorite games against the spread each week and see how we do over time?

Everybody knows about the books profiting on the vig. But you don't think those games where 60% of the public is on the loser (happens frequently) bring in a substantial chunk of change to the books? I love fading the public once the numbers hit that 60%. It's helped me a lot in my ML baseball wagers.

I'll be happy to do a pick 4 here if someone wants to organize it. Your constant cynicism is motivating.

 

[MrMotes]

After the vig, a 65% hit rate doesn't mean much. Trust me! Also, unless you're betting large sums on each game you're take isn't that high.

Say you're betting $10 on 4 games a week. Hit around 65% and you'll win $396 after the books take their cut. Take the $10 for those 35% losses and you're only left with $156 bucks for what is basically a $680 bet ($10 x 4 bets x 17 weeks).

I never said I always hit 65%, but I have hit that twice and came very close a third time (63.2%) in the last 5 seasons.



Everybody knows about the books profiting on the vig. But you don't think those games where 60% of the public is on the loser (happens frequently) bring in a substantial chunk of change to the books? I love fading the public once the numbers hit that 60%. It's helped me a lot in my ML baseball wagers.

I'll be happy to do a pick 4 here if someone wants to organize it. Your constant cynicism is motivating.

So what do you think your average is, counting the good years and the bad years?

The books also lose a lot on favorites that keep covering no matter how much they move the spread over the week, and that happens a lot. Spread opens at 7, gets bet up to 10, team wins by 14, way more winners than losers, Vegas takes a bath. But in the long run it evens out and they make their money on the vig.

At -110 you have to win 52.4% of the time just to break even...

 

[dieterbrock]

I would say it's their 10% take that makes them profitable. They can't lose when there is equal money bet on both sides.

IMO, the book's dont live on the vig. They cash in on sucker bets, parlays, teasers etc.

 

[HE WITH HORNS]

IMO, the book's dont live on the vig. They cash in on sucker bets, parlays, teasers etc.

They make the most money on those bets, but the most action is on the straight up betting, against the point spreads. I know for a fact they change the point spread later in the week to try and get equal money on both sides. Then it's a guaranteed win. I lived in Vegas for years, so I have a bit of inside knowledge on casinos.

 

[RamWoodie]

Why would you bet on a preseason game anyway?

I'm just glad the game is on here in Memphis!