Honestly couldn't disagree more with your theory here. The only ones that are worried about whether a line is a fishy/trap are the ones betting a couple hundred at most that the books aren't worried about.
The ones that ARE betting real money are looking for the best line. That and that only. They aren't worried about the massive conspiracy theories that most on covers worry about when they see a line and ask themselves "hmm what does this line mean."
If they set the Wings at +150, the Hawks would be a lot less than -200 and the books didn't want that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
Honestly couldn't disagree more with your theory here. The only ones that are worried about whether a line is a fishy/trap are the ones betting a couple hundred at most that the books aren't worried about.
The ones that ARE betting real money are looking for the best line. That and that only. They aren't worried about the massive conspiracy theories that most on covers worry about when they see a line and ask themselves "hmm what does this line mean."
If they set the Wings at +150, the Hawks would be a lot less than -200 and the books didn't want that.
Those who like Detroit and would pass on them at +180, and jump all over them at +150 cause it seems like a secret little birdie is telling them the winner will not make money in this business. Period. Those are not the players books are worried about when they post an opening line.
But this is a whole other point. Your originally said that you can't tell you the books like by the opening line they put out. That is massively false. Wings dominating and winning three straight and then they come out at +180?
That doesn't scream at you?
You're debating apples and oranges here.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
Those who like Detroit and would pass on them at +180, and jump all over them at +150 cause it seems like a secret little birdie is telling them the winner will not make money in this business. Period. Those are not the players books are worried about when they post an opening line.
But this is a whole other point. Your originally said that you can't tell you the books like by the opening line they put out. That is massively false. Wings dominating and winning three straight and then they come out at +180?
Those who like Detroit and would pass on them at +180, and jump all over them at +150 cause it seems like a secret little birdie is telling them the winner will not make money in this business. Period. Those are not the players books are worried about when they post an opening line.
No, they are worried about the whales betting five figures. That is why Detroit is +180, not +135 or so as they should have been, so they can make THE RIGHT SIDE a whopping -200 and limit their losses, on both the whales and the chasers.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
Those who like Detroit and would pass on them at +180, and jump all over them at +150 cause it seems like a secret little birdie is telling them the winner will not make money in this business. Period. Those are not the players books are worried about when they post an opening line.
No, they are worried about the whales betting five figures. That is why Detroit is +180, not +135 or so as they should have been, so they can make THE RIGHT SIDE a whopping -200 and limit their losses, on both the whales and the chasers.
But this is a whole other point. Your originally said that you can't tell you the books like by the opening line they put out. That is massively false. Wings dominating and winning three straight and then they come out at +180?
That doesn't scream at you?
You're debating apples and oranges here.
2 problems:
1.) The Wings have not been close to DOMINATING. It has been an extremely even series with the Wings pulling out two closely contested home games.
2.) You clearly don't understand how series lines work. The books originally had the Hawks as -200 + favorites in their first 2 home games. Had the "dominating" you spoke of taken place, then sure they need to severely adjust the lines. That hasn't been the case, and therefore there is absolutely no reason for them to massively move the game 5 line from the first two. The +130 you suggested as a fair line is ludicrous in every sense of the word. Series lines are 100% mathematical and only move off the preseries numbers if a team is simply blowing out the other or injuries. Neither have happened here.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HeadOverHeart:
But this is a whole other point. Your originally said that you can't tell you the books like by the opening line they put out. That is massively false. Wings dominating and winning three straight and then they come out at +180?
That doesn't scream at you?
You're debating apples and oranges here.
2 problems:
1.) The Wings have not been close to DOMINATING. It has been an extremely even series with the Wings pulling out two closely contested home games.
2.) You clearly don't understand how series lines work. The books originally had the Hawks as -200 + favorites in their first 2 home games. Had the "dominating" you spoke of taken place, then sure they need to severely adjust the lines. That hasn't been the case, and therefore there is absolutely no reason for them to massively move the game 5 line from the first two. The +130 you suggested as a fair line is ludicrous in every sense of the word. Series lines are 100% mathematical and only move off the preseries numbers if a team is simply blowing out the other or injuries. Neither have happened here.
1.) The Wings have not been close to DOMINATING. It has been an extremely even series with the Wings pulling out two closely contested home games.
2.) You clearly don't understand how series lines work. The books originally had the Hawks as -200 + favorites in their first 2 home games. Had the "dominating" you spoke of taken place, then sure they need to severely adjust the lines. That hasn't been the case, and therefore there is absolutely no reason for them to massively move the game 5 line from the first two. The +130 you suggested as a fair line is ludicrous in every sense of the word. Series lines are 100% mathematical and only move off the preseries numbers if a team is simply blowing out the other or injuries. Neither have happened here.
Winning three in a row against a team which didn't lose in 26 straight games is domination. I didn't mean 8 goal blowouts or walks in the park, just a win. Three straight wins in the Playoffs is very hard to do, especially against the Hawks. If you don't like that word, then ignore or omit it, let's not be semantic.
You are right, Hawks were -200 for the first two home games. But you said nothing has changed since then? Sure has! Hawks went from clear favorite to one away from golfing, unable to score, Coach Q juggling lines like a circus, and the Wings seemingly still had an answer for everything.
The result?
Line still opens at -200.
What does that tell you?
0
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
2 problems:
1.) The Wings have not been close to DOMINATING. It has been an extremely even series with the Wings pulling out two closely contested home games.
2.) You clearly don't understand how series lines work. The books originally had the Hawks as -200 + favorites in their first 2 home games. Had the "dominating" you spoke of taken place, then sure they need to severely adjust the lines. That hasn't been the case, and therefore there is absolutely no reason for them to massively move the game 5 line from the first two. The +130 you suggested as a fair line is ludicrous in every sense of the word. Series lines are 100% mathematical and only move off the preseries numbers if a team is simply blowing out the other or injuries. Neither have happened here.
Winning three in a row against a team which didn't lose in 26 straight games is domination. I didn't mean 8 goal blowouts or walks in the park, just a win. Three straight wins in the Playoffs is very hard to do, especially against the Hawks. If you don't like that word, then ignore or omit it, let's not be semantic.
You are right, Hawks were -200 for the first two home games. But you said nothing has changed since then? Sure has! Hawks went from clear favorite to one away from golfing, unable to score, Coach Q juggling lines like a circus, and the Wings seemingly still had an answer for everything.
But this is a whole other point. Your originally said that you can't tell you the books like by the opening line they put out. That is massively false. Wings dominating and winning three straight and then they come out at +180?
That doesn't scream at you?
You're debating apples and oranges here.
In 4 out of the 5 games played thus far in this series, the wings have been outshot and outchanced in every single one except game 2. "Dominating" is not a synonym for wining, Howard playing out of his mind is the only reason the red wings are up in this series.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HeadOverHeart:
But this is a whole other point. Your originally said that you can't tell you the books like by the opening line they put out. That is massively false. Wings dominating and winning three straight and then they come out at +180?
That doesn't scream at you?
You're debating apples and oranges here.
In 4 out of the 5 games played thus far in this series, the wings have been outshot and outchanced in every single one except game 2. "Dominating" is not a synonym for wining, Howard playing out of his mind is the only reason the red wings are up in this series.
Take a look at Pitt/Ott Games One and Two and then Five.
-185, -190.............then -210, 25 cents off Game One. That is what one might expect after seeing the first four games of that series. Pens dominating, line gets chalkier and chalkier.
Wings win three straight and pull the BIGGEST DOG LINE OF THE ENTIRE SERIES in Game Five.
Hello!!!
0
Take a look at Pitt/Ott Games One and Two and then Five.
-185, -190.............then -210, 25 cents off Game One. That is what one might expect after seeing the first four games of that series. Pens dominating, line gets chalkier and chalkier.
Wings win three straight and pull the BIGGEST DOG LINE OF THE ENTIRE SERIES in Game Five.
In 4 out of the 5 games played thus far in this series, the wings have been outshot and outchanced in every single one except game 2. "Dominating" is not a synonym for wining, Howard playing out of his mind is the only reason the red wings are up in this series.
Read my post above. Quit playing semantics. I wasn't even my point.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bhawksfan:
In 4 out of the 5 games played thus far in this series, the wings have been outshot and outchanced in every single one except game 2. "Dominating" is not a synonym for wining, Howard playing out of his mind is the only reason the red wings are up in this series.
Read my post above. Quit playing semantics. I wasn't even my point.
Take a look at Pitt/Ott Games One and Two and then Five.
-185, -190.............then -210, 25 cents off Game One. That is what one might expect after seeing the first four games of that series. Pens dominating, line gets chalkier and chalkier.
Wings win three straight and pull the BIGGEST DOG LINE OF THE ENTIRE SERIES in Game Five.
Hello!!!
I was going to respond to your previous question then came across this gem.
If we IN ANY FASHION are going to compare the Pitt domination over the Sens to the Wings "domination" over the Hawks you are simply kidding yourselves and should quit now.
I know you didn't mean it to say they are similar, but they cannot be used in any sense of your argument. HELLO.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HeadOverHeart:
Take a look at Pitt/Ott Games One and Two and then Five.
-185, -190.............then -210, 25 cents off Game One. That is what one might expect after seeing the first four games of that series. Pens dominating, line gets chalkier and chalkier.
Wings win three straight and pull the BIGGEST DOG LINE OF THE ENTIRE SERIES in Game Five.
Hello!!!
I was going to respond to your previous question then came across this gem.
If we IN ANY FASHION are going to compare the Pitt domination over the Sens to the Wings "domination" over the Hawks you are simply kidding yourselves and should quit now.
I know you didn't mean it to say they are similar, but they cannot be used in any sense of your argument. HELLO.
In 4 out of the 5 games played thus far in this series, the wings have been outshot and outchanced in every single one except game 2. "Dominating" is not a synonym for wining, Howard playing out of his mind is the only reason the red wings are up in this series.
And quite frankly, since you went there, you were the guy yapping at how many more goals the Hawks scored this year, etc., etc.
Holding them to TWO GOALS IN THREE GAMES, the undisputed NUMBER ONE TEAM IN THE NHL......that qualifies as a dominating performance.
But again, go back to my original point and forget my choice of adjectives.
How about I said, "playing well for three games" instead?
0
Quote Originally Posted by bhawksfan:
In 4 out of the 5 games played thus far in this series, the wings have been outshot and outchanced in every single one except game 2. "Dominating" is not a synonym for wining, Howard playing out of his mind is the only reason the red wings are up in this series.
And quite frankly, since you went there, you were the guy yapping at how many more goals the Hawks scored this year, etc., etc.
Holding them to TWO GOALS IN THREE GAMES, the undisputed NUMBER ONE TEAM IN THE NHL......that qualifies as a dominating performance.
But again, go back to my original point and forget my choice of adjectives.
How about I said, "playing well for three games" instead?
I was going to respond to your previous question then came across this gem.
If we IN ANY FASHION are going to compare the Pitt domination over the Sens to the Wings "domination" over the Hawks you are simply kidding yourselves and should quit now.
I know you didn't mean it to say they are similar, but they cannot be used in any sense of your argument. HELLO.
Stop focusing your responses on a single adjective I used that wasn't even the main point I was making. Supplant domination with playing well. Makes no difference to the point I was making.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
I was going to respond to your previous question then came across this gem.
If we IN ANY FASHION are going to compare the Pitt domination over the Sens to the Wings "domination" over the Hawks you are simply kidding yourselves and should quit now.
I know you didn't mean it to say they are similar, but they cannot be used in any sense of your argument. HELLO.
Stop focusing your responses on a single adjective I used that wasn't even the main point I was making. Supplant domination with playing well. Makes no difference to the point I was making.
Stop focusing your responses on a single adjective I used that wasn't even the main point I was making. Supplant domination with playing well. Makes no difference to the point I was making.
The problem is it absolutely 100% DOES MATTER! If you are watching an NFL game and the -14 pregame dog is up 14, by your logic the second half line would be pk em due to the fact the 14 pt dog is dominating.
INSTEAD of the real -7 line for the team down 14. The only way this changes is an injury.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HeadOverHeart:
Stop focusing your responses on a single adjective I used that wasn't even the main point I was making. Supplant domination with playing well. Makes no difference to the point I was making.
The problem is it absolutely 100% DOES MATTER! If you are watching an NFL game and the -14 pregame dog is up 14, by your logic the second half line would be pk em due to the fact the 14 pt dog is dominating.
INSTEAD of the real -7 line for the team down 14. The only way this changes is an injury.
What we saw in Pitt/Ottawa would warrant the books deviating from their original line.
What we saw in Chicago/Detroit does not.
Now that's a fair argument. S would you agree that besides the OT slip, the Pens were dominating the Sens? Oh man, I mean, playing extremely well over the Sens? Hahaha.
Is that why it would warrant a line change?
0
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
What we saw in Pitt/Ottawa would warrant the books deviating from their original line.
What we saw in Chicago/Detroit does not.
Now that's a fair argument. S would you agree that besides the OT slip, the Pens were dominating the Sens? Oh man, I mean, playing extremely well over the Sens? Hahaha.
The problem is it absolutely 100% DOES MATTER! If you are watching an NFL game and the -14 pregame dog is up 14, by your logic the second half line would be pk em due to the fact the 14 pt dog is dominating.
INSTEAD of the real -7 line for the team down 14. The only way this changes is an injury.
No, I was expecting the Wings to be a smaller dog in Game Five than in One and Two, not an even bigger dog. I just threw out +135 as a reference point as a smaller line. Even five cents less than Game One or Two, not higher.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
The problem is it absolutely 100% DOES MATTER! If you are watching an NFL game and the -14 pregame dog is up 14, by your logic the second half line would be pk em due to the fact the 14 pt dog is dominating.
INSTEAD of the real -7 line for the team down 14. The only way this changes is an injury.
No, I was expecting the Wings to be a smaller dog in Game Five than in One and Two, not an even bigger dog. I just threw out +135 as a reference point as a smaller line. Even five cents less than Game One or Two, not higher.
And quite frankly, since you went there, you were the guy yapping at how many more goals the Hawks scored this year, etc., etc.
Holding them to TWO GOALS IN THREE GAMES, the undisputed NUMBER ONE TEAM IN THE NHL......that qualifies as a dominating performance.
But again, go back to my original point and forget my choice of adjectives.
How about I said, "playing well for three games" instead?
Hawks have had more puck possession by a large margin and the chances/shots stats are lopsided. Howard dominating (see, this is where you can use the word) and the hawks hitting posts does not equal the Red Wings dominating...
Also the books are sharp and they are not going to overreact to the hawks losses to a really hot goalie, the first seed who has destroyed everything in its paths is not going get a major line adjustment vs a seventh seed. To further prove my point, you will see that even next game the Blackhawks will be a favourite -140 favourite (little bit less or more)
0
Quote Originally Posted by HeadOverHeart:
And quite frankly, since you went there, you were the guy yapping at how many more goals the Hawks scored this year, etc., etc.
Holding them to TWO GOALS IN THREE GAMES, the undisputed NUMBER ONE TEAM IN THE NHL......that qualifies as a dominating performance.
But again, go back to my original point and forget my choice of adjectives.
How about I said, "playing well for three games" instead?
Hawks have had more puck possession by a large margin and the chances/shots stats are lopsided. Howard dominating (see, this is where you can use the word) and the hawks hitting posts does not equal the Red Wings dominating...
Also the books are sharp and they are not going to overreact to the hawks losses to a really hot goalie, the first seed who has destroyed everything in its paths is not going get a major line adjustment vs a seventh seed. To further prove my point, you will see that even next game the Blackhawks will be a favourite -140 favourite (little bit less or more)
My original point, since it's been lost, was that you CAN tell who the books like by the line they set. Not who will win or who they predict to win or any of that rubbish. Just who the linesmen have confidence on.
Wings opening Game Five as the biggest dog line of the series after taking three straight and holding Chicago to an embarrassing two goals in three games is A MASSIVE TELL that the Hawks will be hugely competitive and that they are the right side.
0
My original point, since it's been lost, was that you CAN tell who the books like by the line they set. Not who will win or who they predict to win or any of that rubbish. Just who the linesmen have confidence on.
Wings opening Game Five as the biggest dog line of the series after taking three straight and holding Chicago to an embarrassing two goals in three games is A MASSIVE TELL that the Hawks will be hugely competitive and that they are the right side.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
