Bator,
I have had my doubts about you for a while now...why would someone who bets that much $$$ spend their time on a website interfacing with students, degenerates (like myself), and lonely housewives about betting?
This is the most impressive write-up, pre or post game, that I have ever read in this forum since joining years ago; and I truly believe that you are legit....not that that should matter one way or the other...I just want to apologize for even what I was thinking.
Just one comment on your thoughts....and, yes, I had the Giants (several ways) along with the under. The +350 ML was, indeed, a bad bet; however, the reason it was a "bad bet" was the reason it needed to be bet.
Many discussions here in Vegas before the game addressed the issue of the ML...if the spread was 6-7, then +350 would have been legit. At -12, it was way off....which should have been the tipoff that it was the right way to go...not for value, but for success.
Post game discussions with Jay Kornegay and the guys from LVSC confirmed that supposition....and the money that just came coming in from the squares (and, yes, I am one of them) kept that ML number at +350 to +400 for the entire 2 weeks.
I know that it's 20-20 hindsight; but all the talk after the game was Vegas's apprehension of getting beat bad if the Giants won...the line of -12 was off...not where the quality of teams was concerned (although the Pats ATS had been pretty poor recently), it was off where the amount of Giants money was concerned.
Yeah, the guys that flew in here on Friday, partied on Saturday, and watched the game in the "million dollar suite" bet the Pats...but Vegas knew by early in the week that the squares were gonna beat them if the Giants won straight up.
So, from a contrarian viewpoint, the fact that the +350 was the worst bet in the history of gambling was correct..and that's why it was the best bet in the history of gambling (not really, just using "literary license")..
Once again, many thanks for your contributions to this forum
MrO