T1B

Steelers are a 3 pt favorite on the road against Cinci this week. I figured Vegas would align the spread to be a pick em or so given the events that have unfolded the last 2 weeks. But a 6 seed favored by a FG over the 3??? Wow.

Anyway...

I like the Jags, getting 7.5 points against NE. Bruschi will be a shell of his former self, if he plays at all. Dillon is hurting. I don't like their secondary... Hank Poteat (who?) or no. The Jags are one of the hottest teams in the NFL, winners of 8 of their past 9 games... the only blemish being a loss at home to Indy. I'd like to see Leftwich out there, but won't be too disappointed if Garrard plays. Their defense will keep this game close (1st against the pass, 6th overall, and 3rd in sacks). They could easily win outright. Before all you NE geeks come in here and start running your mouths about the Jags SOS, keep this in mind: they have more wins against playoff teams (Pitt, Sea, and Cinci) than the Patriots do (Tampa and Pitt). Take the points.

UCant Unretires Again wrote:Steelers are a 3 pt favorite on the road against Cinci this week. I figured Vegas would align the spread to be a pick em or so given the events that have unfolded the last 2 weeks. But a 6 seed favored by a FG over the 3??? Wow.

When said #3 seed tanks games to Buffalo and Kansas City that 3 point spread is deserved. It's payback time for the Bengals. Take the Steelers and give the points. The Steelers would have swept the Bengals this year had they not fumbled away the second game. Parker has learned his lesson and hasn't fumbled since that game. He's also doing a much better job running north and south for more positive yards. It's going to be a long day for the Bengals.

As for the Jags-NE matchup, there is no way you take the Jags. New England is a dangerous football team that has won 6 of 7 since being humiliated by the Colts, the only loss being in Arrowhead against the Chiefs. Belicheck will play Jedi mind games with either Gerrard or Leftwich and the Pats will roll in this one. The Pats remind me of the 1993 Bills who gutted out an AFC Championship in spite of being past their prime.

#1 - I thought you had me on ignore.

#2 - Your comments about the Cinci game are meaningless coming from a homer such as you.

#3 - Sig Bet on the Jags +7.5 or get the fuck out of my thread.

#4 - Take your stank bleeding gash out of my thread, you No Sig bet taking pussy.

UCant Unretires Again wrote:#1 - I thought you had me on ignore.

The great thing about Firefox is that it allows me the choice to ignore you or not. Most of the time I do.

#2 - Your comments about the Cinci game are meaningless coming from a homer such as you.

All football smack is essentialy meaningless unless backed up on the field. We'll see on Sunday now won't we.

#3 - Sig Bet on the Jags +7.5 or get the fuck out of my thread.

I don't bet with shit trolls.

The NE-Jax spread was 8.5 in my office pool. I took the Jags and the points. I think NE wins, but by 3 or less.

BSmack wrote:The great thing about Firefox is that it allows me the choice to ignore you or not.

You need an auto function to choose whether or not to ignore me?
Either you ignore me... or you don't. You don't turn the filter on and off.
Otherwise, what's the sense? God gawd... if that isn't kicking your own ass, I don't know what is.

KC Fan, Charger Fan and Cowboy Fan all saying they would have beat team ____, once that team gets their ass kicked in Round One.

Cicero wrote:KC Fan, Charger Fan and Cowboy Fan all saying they would have beat team ____, once that team gets their ass kicked in Round One.

Nope, not this Cowboy fan. Being 9-7 and the way they played at the end of the year doesn't do much for one's confidence.

Frankly, (sup Frank Football) I'm a little bit scared of J'Ville. They've only given up 269 pts all year.

Looks like Leftwich will get the nod.

Easier to prepare against Pittsburgh than the Jags.

Pats 27
Jags 17

Bucs get slammed and I get free lunch for a month.
Skins 30
Bucs 21


Pittsburgh rolls Cincy, 37-3.

BSmack wrote:As for the Jags-NE matchup, there is no way you take the Jags.

Holy fucking retards, Batman!

Dude, do you even understand the concept of what a "point spread" is?

While our state-run parlay program isn't up yet, these guys are talking 7.5-8.5 spreads. That's almost unheard of in the playoffs. Personally, I'd leave this one alone unless I was deserate for another event to fill up a parlay, but if you put a gun to my head, I'd take **Insert random playoff team name here** and the points.

Dinsdale wrote:While our state-run parlay program isn't up yet, these guys are talking 7.5-8.5 spreads. That's almost unheard of in the playoffs.

Exactly.

Even if the Jags win outright, it wouldn't exactly be categorized as the biggest upset in the history of the NFL. Sheesh, NE is one or two injured players away from being blown out at home, all things considered.

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:As for the Jags-NE matchup, there is no way you take the Jags.

Holy fucking retards, Batman!

Dude, do you even understand the concept of what a "point spread" is?

While our state-run parlay program isn't up yet, these guys are talking 7.5-8.5 spreads. That's almost unheard of in the playoffs. Personally, I'd leave this one alone unless I was deserate for another event to fill up a parlay, but if you put a gun to my head, I'd take **Insert random playoff team name here** and the points.

You would have been wrong 50% of the time last year for the wildcard round alone. In divisional play, the winner covered 7.5 points 3 out of 4 games. Blowouts are not exactly uncommon in the playoffs.

Maybe you should strick to posting about liver disease or hash oil. You know, things you know about?

BSmack wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:As for the Jags-NE matchup, there is no way you take the Jags.

Holy fucking retards, Batman!

Dude, do you even understand the concept of what a "point spread" is?

While our state-run parlay program isn't up yet, these guys are talking 7.5-8.5 spreads. That's almost unheard of in the playoffs. Personally, I'd leave this one alone unless I was deserate for another event to fill up a parlay, but if you put a gun to my head, I'd take **Insert random playoff team name here** and the points.

You would have been wrong 50% of the time last year for the wildcard round alone. In divisional play, the winner covered 7.5 points 3 out of 4 games. Blowouts are not exactly uncommon in the playoffs.

Maybe you should strick to posting about liver disease or hash oil. You know, things you know about?

Are you retarded?

If you want to cite last year's games as an example, maybe you should list the spreads...the initial spreads (yeah, go ahead and look that up). Otherwise, shut the hell up.

See if you can follow along -- A point spread has nothing to do with how many points difference there is between the two teams at the end of the game, besides the obvious fact that one team wins and one team loses. A point spread is how many points you're willing to give up/get in order to put your paycheck on it. Dumbass.

So, since you're bringing up how many points teams won by in last years WC round, put up your numbers. How many of those teams that won (nevermind that a couple of dogs won) were favored by more than 7, dumbass? The post you so cleverly tried to respond to makes no mention of any estimated point differential -- only that 7.5 point spreads are almost unheard of in the postseason, except for the occasional Rams-made-it-to Atlanta game. While you're grabbing those numbers, you can look up what percentage of road teams cover 7+ spreads in the playoffs, which would be a MUCH more usefull stat than how many teams won by more than 7.5 points in last years' playoffs (what a fucking sucker you must be to post that. I don't have last years' spreads, but I wouldn't be even the little bittiest tiniest slightest little bit suprised if...wait for it....wait for it...


...wait for it...OK, I wouldn't be suprised if...here we go...HALF OF THE TEAMS COVERED, AND HALF DIDN'T! (Kinda how the oddsmakers like it)

So go ahead and try and look anything but stupid here, but telling others to "stick to things they know about" when you have no fucking clue about the subject at hand is quite...BSmacklike.

Anyone who takes a road team at -7.5 in the playoffs is either an idiot or a compulsive gambler(sup UCan't). I'm not taking a home fav or a road dog at 7.5 points. That's putting the "gamble" in gambling. If that line moved later in the week, I might be tempted, depending on the move. Keep your 7.5, unless it's a home dog, which is going to cover approximately 75% of the time...and at this point, you may be asking yourself "But BSmack, if road dogs cover 75% of the time, how do the bookmakers not lose their ass?" Darn good question, BSmack -- it's because idiots like you don't understand how point spreads work, and will bet against them.

Dins,

I just want to give props to that U&L chronic for enabling that last post of yours.

When you come down, try to remember that we are not talking about percentages; we are talking about the likelihood of a single game, being played by a southern team in an outdoor stadium in Massachusetts being won by said home team by more than 7.5 points.

I am quite aware of the function a point spread serves. Maybe you should make yourself aware of the grossly under performing nature of the Jacksonville offense before you drop all that money you saved after giving up the sauce on J-Ville +7 1/2.

BSmack wrote: When you come down, try to remember that we are not talking about percentages; we are talking about the likelihood of a single game, being played by a southern team in an outdoor stadium in Massachusetts being won by said home team by more than 7.5 points.

You sir, are a booky's dream come true.

And the funny part is, you don't even realize why.

Why no, BSmack -- as a matter of fact, we AREN'T talking about the likelihood of any team beating any other team by any given amount of points.

Although thank you. I, and I'm quite sure anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of bookmaking, is laughing quite hard at your expense. After I'm done letting you dangle like a fool in the wind, maybe UCan't or someone who isn't clueless might let you in on why you're a moron...this time.

HINT -- it has a great deal to do with those "percentages" that you so quickly dismissed.

I can't believe you're even trying to argue about this, but please continue.

BSmack wrote:Maybe you should make yourself aware of the grossly under performing nature of the Jacksonville offense before you drop all that money you saved after giving up the sauce on J-Ville +7 1/2.

Dinsdale wrote:I'm not taking a home fav or a road dog at 7.5 points.

If marijuana is to blame for my messageboard shortcomings, what's your excuse then?

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:Maybe you should make yourself aware of the grossly under performing nature of the Jacksonville offense before you drop all that money you saved after giving up the sauce on J-Ville +7 1/2.

Dinsdale wrote:I'm not taking a home fav or a road dog at 7.5 points.

If marijuana is to blame for my messageboard shortcomings, what's your excuse then?

So you're arguing with yourself eh?

Let us know when you come down. I'm sure that will be a while.

BSmack wrote:
So you're arguing with yourself eh?

Let us know when you come down. I'm sure that will be a while.

Dude, the Board Bitch contest is in a different forum, although changing the subject and trying to deflect the onslaught would score you some major brownie points, I'm sure.

Dinsdale wrote:I won't bet on either team at 7.5

BSmack wrote:when you bet on JVille at +7.5

Uhm, I'd say ONE of us was arguing with themself, but I'll let you and you work it out amongst yourselves to determine who that is.

And really -- it's OK if you don't know how bookmaking works. No big deal, really. Just don't try to come on here and act like you have a clue, and you sure the fuck shouldn't be trying to use your ignorance to insult others.

Dins,

Got a football take? I'll be waiting if you come down enough to offer one. Try constructing one that explains away the Jags impotent offense and the home field advantage the Pats will be enjoying. If your only take is that you won't take a stand, then go fuck yourself.

Excellent use of the old "I'm getting clowned, so I'll change the subject" technique.

I'm sorry about bringing your ignorance to light, but you forced my hand.

Here's another hint, since you really are ignorant(I was just poking you with a stick, but you proved your ignorance beyond all shadow of doubt). It's in the form of a question --

Are there more people in the greater Jacksonville area, or in the greater Boston area?

Light coming on yet?

Oh wait -- I forgot that percentages have nothing to do with bookmaking, only how many points the oddsmaker thinks the favorite will win by.

I'll give you some more hints as you continue flailing...hard.

Oh, and --

BSmack wrote:Dins,

Got a football take?

Uhm, in your little tizzy you're having, you must have missed the title/subject of this thread. You were the one changing the subject there, cowboy. Can't say I blame you at this point, but calling me out for what you did is quite WarWagonesque.

BSmack wrote:The Steelers would have swept the Bengals this year had they not fumbled away the second game.

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:Pats cover the spread EASILY. Easiest no-brainer EVAH....;)

Nice try Paul, when will you learn that posting that crap has zero outcome on the game one way or another. Besides, I have already sacrificed the neighbor's cat that looked too much like a Jaguar :twisted: As fate would have it, we can use Jim in Fall River's donkey's for the Broncos and the Colts when that time comes

Shine wrote:

BSmack wrote:The Steelers would have swept the Bengals this year had they not fumbled away the second game.

Laugh all you want, the Bungles got that game gift wrapped.

Dins,

You can spin all you want about population statistics and "moving the line" or whatever the hell you problem gamblers talk about, the fact remains that 50% of the wild card games last year covered a 7.5 point spread. Follow that trend back further if you like. I guarantee it doesn't get any better for you. The moral of the story is that if you have a team, like the Pats, who are on a roll, you should not let 7.5 points scare you away. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?

Dinsdale wrote:Oh wait -- I forgot that percentages have nothing to do with bookmaking, only how many points the oddsmaker thinks the favorite will win by.

I'll give you some more hints as you continue flailing...hard.

Pretty epic beatdown... for the most part. Either I mistinterpreted something you wrote or you were slightly off. Bookies don't want a certain team or situation to cover 50% of the time (half favor/dog and half home/road)... they want 50% of the total money wagered on every game to cover. The lines are forecasted so that the betting public will put half of the money on one team and half on the other. That way, they pocket the juice and the vast majority of the idiot bets (teasers, parlays, etc, etc). You get an A-

BSmack wrote:When you come down, try to remember that we are not talking about percentages; we are talking about the likelihood of a single game, being played by a southern team in an outdoor stadium in Massachusetts being won by said home team by more than 7.5 points.

The Jags have a 3-4 record in games where the game time temperature is 32 degrees or less. Their record against the spread in those games is 4-2-1. Last year, they went into Lambeau in December and beat a playoff bound team in 3 degree weather, 28-25.

Your point is.....

UCant Unretires Again wrote:

BSmack wrote:When you come down, try to remember that we are not talking about percentages; we are talking about the likelihood of a single game, being played by a southern team in an outdoor stadium in Massachusetts being won by said home team by more than 7.5 points.

The Jags have a 3-4 record in games where the game time temperature is 32 degrees or less. Their record against the spread in those games is 4-2-1. Last year, they went into Lambeau in December and beat a playoff bound team in 3 degree weather, 28-25.

Your point is.....

How many of those games were at Gillette?

UCant Unretires Again wrote:they want 50% of the total money wagered on every game to cover. The lines are forecasted so that the betting public will put half of the money on one team and half on the other. That way, they pocket the juice and the vast majority of the idiot bets (teasers, parlays, etc, etc).

NOOOOO!!!!!!

Sin,
BSmack


You let him off too easy. I was going to give the word "juice" as the next hint. Oh well. BSmack probably thinks those lines move because a player got injured, or the oddsmaker suddenly changed his mind, no doubt because he got the real skinny from an internet BBS.

Get it, BTard? The book wants to BREAK EVEN on the bets, every single time (on single event bets). If you don't understand this, no problem, but just shut the fuck up. The way a book guarantees they make money every single week is by breaking even. They use the money from the losers to pay the winners...and they charge the winners 5% for their services.

BS sticking by his argument that "oh yeah, half of the WC games last year were decided by 7 or more" is killing me over here. At least one of those was a dog. I never said that actual point differentials over 7 were uncommon in the playoffs -- I said that spreads that high were. Tell me how that orange tastes after a big bite of apple.

Bringing up population statistics isn't "spinning," believe it or not -- it's how it works, dumbass. There's a lot more Patsies fans than Jag fans. There's a lot of dumb gamblers who are willing to bet on the team they root for. When the Chowds bet too much money on the Pats, you'll never guess what's going to happen? The book is going to move the line farther in JAX favor. If need be, they'll give them 14.5 the day before the game, or whatever it takes to get the numbers even.

Casinos and sportsbooks are masters of gambling. The way they achieve this mastery...is by not doing it. Having the sides uneven is a gamble to them. Having them both the same is a guaranteed winner. A stone cold lead pipe lock, if you will.

It's no sin to not know this, but trying to explain it to people who do is moronic.

If I had to, I'd take the Jags at +7.5, but if I was going to bet, I'd be sandbagging to see what the line did. If it dropped below 7(unlikely), I'd be all over NE. If it goes to 8.5, then it would be hard for me to bet against the Jags, but there's a big possibilty for a blowout, so I don't think I'd be too comfortable with 8.5. Of course, if it went over 9, I'd probably be all over the Jags.

Dinsdale wrote:The book wants to BREAK EVEN on the bets, every single time (on single event bets). If you don't understand this, no problem, but just shut the fuck up. The way a book guarantees they make money every single week is by breaking even. They use the money from the losers to pay the winners...and they charge the winners 5% for their services.

No shit Sherlock. Water wet much?

My point in saying that half or more of the games every year are decided by 7.5 points or more is simply to say that if, from a football handicaping perspective, you think a team is ripe to blow out another team, you should not let a 7.5 point line scare you from betting the correct team.

Now, you may have figured this out by my av, but I am FAR from a Pats fan. So bringing up the host of NE fans mindlessly dropping 50 large on their home team means absolutely nothing to me. I am speaking simply from the perspective of a guy who watches a LOT of NFL football and knows a bit more about the game than say... YOU.

Dimsdale wrote:If I had to, I'd take the Jags at +7.5, but if I was going to bet, I'd be sandbagging to see what the line did. If it dropped below 7(unlikely), I'd be all over NE. If it goes to 8.5, then it would be hard for me to bet against the Jags, but there's a big possibilty for a blowout, so I don't think I'd be too comfortable with 8.5. Of course, if it went over 9, I'd probably be all over the Jags.

If you HAD to? Oh please do tell when you HAVE to bet. This ought to be rich.

BSmack wrote:I am speaking simply from the perspective of a guy who watches a LOT of NFL football and knows a bit more about the game than say... YOU.

You've demonstrated zero understanding in this forum when it comes to anything not related to your favorite team... furthermore, dipshit, you actually show less than zero when it does relate to the Steelers. How is this possible, you ask???? Because you absolutely do not look at anything subjectively when it comes to Pittsburgh. To sum up: You know jack about football... and you know less than jack when it comes to matters relating to your favorite team. You, sir, can go fuck yourself.

UCant Unretires Again wrote:

BSmack wrote:I am speaking simply from the perspective of a guy who watches a LOT of NFL football and knows a bit more about the game than say... YOU.

You've demonstrated zero understanding in this forum when it comes to anything not related to your favorite team... furthermore, dipshit, you actually show less than zero when it does relate to the Steelers. How is this possible, you ask???? Because you absolutely do not look at anything subjectively when it comes to Pittsburgh. To sum up: You know jack about football... and you know less than jack when it comes to matters relating to your favorite team. You, sir, can go fuck yourself.

All this comming from a shit troll who is incapable of backing up even one word of what he says.

Why?

Because he knows he's full of shit.

BSmack wrote: No shit Sherlock. Water wet much?

BWAHAHA!!!

Excellent defense. When you're getting pummelled senseless, when somebody finally points out why you're such a tard, immediately go to the "I knew that" card...well played, asswipe.

Don't think for one second that you're going to live that down any time soon.

I am speaking simply from the perspective of a guy who watches a LOT of NFL football and knows a bit more about the game than say... YOU.

Yeah, and I'm speaking from the perspective from a guy who knows a bit more about how a sportsbook works than say...YOU. And yet another check (this doesn't seem to be getting through your skull) of the thread verifies that this topic was BETTING on football, which you've proven thoroughly and frequently that you're clueless about. Sure didn't stop you from trying to talk the talk, though.

If you HAD to? Oh please do tell when you HAVE to bet. This ought to be rich.

Do me and the world a favor -- go to http://www.dictionary.com and look up the word "hypothetical." You might want to review the word "if" while you're there.

Now that you're armed with this new knowledge of this new concept, try and bear in mind that the phrase "If I had to" and several others really come into play when dealing with this concept of "hypothetical."

And "Dimsdale?" Did you make that up yourself? Pretty clever.

UCant Unretires Again wrote:The Jags have a 3-4 record in games where the game time temperature is 32 degrees or less. Their record against the spread in those games is 4-2-1.

Yeah, I knew that.

Sin,
BSmack

Dins,

Plan on offering up a take on the game? I seriously think that the Pats will win by 2 TDs or more. Their defense is back to full strength, they have the best QB in the game managing an offense that is more than capable of breaking even the best defenses in the league and they are playing at home. Furthermore, the Jags are trotting out Leftwich, who has been idle for half a season or so and was less than spectacular when he was playing. Look for a Pats defense designed to pressure Leftwich and force turnovers from a rusty QB who is not in synch with his receivers.

7.5 points in this case is a well warranted spread. It is designed to make suckers like you and UCant think twice about laying money on the Pats.

I eagerly await your spell check.... not.

All I never wanted to know about betting is right here, in this very thread! There's probably vastly more too, but it's hard to care verrah much.

Basically, Dinsdale and UcantdoitdoggiestyleInfinity don't even realize that they appear only one step above two crackheads harmonizing with one another about how they skooled some non-crack addict concerning the best way to roast up some rock. 'Yay' for you two fukkin' degenerates. This thread is the equivalent of a goddamn crack house opening up on a street and bringing down the neighborhood... in this case, the forum. The crime of it all is not victimless: you two knuckleheads are ace posters the rest of the time and we who read more and post less are the victims of your poor choice of subject. It does not represent you well in the least. For shame, you cock-careerists.










velocet

velocet wrote:Basically, Dinsdale and UcantdoitdoggiestyleInfinity don't even realize that they appear only one step above two crackheads harmonizing with one another about how they skooled some non-crack addict concerning the best way to roast up some rock.

I knew that.

Sin,
BSmack

velocet wrote:The crime of it all is not victimless: you two knuckleheads are ace posters the rest of the time and we who read more and post less are the victims of your poor choice of subject.

What? The? Fuck?

As long as I've been posting on these boards, I believe there's always been "Stone Cold Lead Pipe Lock" threads. And every last one of them had one thing in common -- they were about betting the spread. Every last one of them. Sorry if it's taken you 5 years to figute that out, but really, it's true. If it's that big of a deal, I'm sure a mod would be kind enough to move this to Main Street, but that's up to them.

By far the stupidest thing I've ever read from velo.

BSmack wrote:Dins,

Plan on offering up a take on the game?

Did I post in the Pats/Jags thread?

Do I really have to go the slow-typing route?

OK. BSmack -- look up at the top of the page. Here, you will find what we usually call a "thread title."

Now, for $64,000 -- does that thread title refer to the finer points of indivdual matchups in the Pats/Jax game, or does it imply that the thread is about betting the spread on this weekend's games?

I'd try to change the topic as quickly as possible if I were in your shoes too, but really...get a grip.


This thread is about betting the spread? Yeah, I knew that.

Sin,
BSmack


When I have specific insight as to certain matchups and their effects regarding the Pats/Jags game, I will certainly post them in the Pats/Jags thread, if I feel like it at the time. But, in this thread dedicated to...ready, BS and velo...in this thread about BETTING THE SPREAD, I think I'll stick to betting the spread...kind of why I posted in this thread in the first place, rather than...check this out...POSTING A PATS/JAGS THREAD OF MY OWN.

It is just absolutely mindboggling that the concept is flying over your heads. Absolutely mindboggling.

Don't like a gambling thread in the NFL forum? I don't see the big deal, but if it's a violation of some sacred thingy, then I can certainly see why you'd feel that way, velo. But it would seem to me that you should take this up with the mods who actually have the ability to move an offending thread, as opposed to UCan't and I, who have no such abilities. Duh.

I have more football takes than you can shake a stick at, but if this is the level of bitchitude you plan on maintaining...well, have fun with that.

Dinsdale wrote:I have more football takes than you can shake a stick at...

Just one is all we ask.

Yeah, maybe I should post some intricacies about the NE/JAX game in a thread that isn't about the NE/JAX game. Then, I could be every bit the tard that you and velo are right now.

For bonus points, maybe I could come into a NE/JAX thread, and bitch about how nobody is posting about the betting lines from the other games.

Dinsdale wrote:Yeah, maybe I should post some intricacies about the NE/JAX game in a thread that isn't about the NE/JAX game. Then, I could be every bit the tard that you and velo are right now.

For bonus points, maybe I could come into a NE/JAX thread, and bitch about how nobody is posting about the betting lines from the other games.

Nah, just a simple football take will suffice.

I won't be holding my breath.