Posted:
#51
Yep. NFL is simple to bet on. Identify the better qb in the matchup and win money.
Vegas will soon be closing. 
0
My Old Man always told me 3 things about Betting NFL
Posted:
#52
Great call on Brady in the playoffs. Jake Plummer was a legend at ASU. That's a great story about Jake though. I'm having trouble remembering the teams, however, I believe it was ASU vs. UCLA. This was when OT just started in college. I wanna say I was getting 11 with UCLA. Game goes to OT, ASU goes first and scores a TD, UCLA gets their chance, pick 6, lose the game by 13 and blow a DD cover in OT. Gotta be one of the biggest mooses of all time. Anyone remember that game? Teams?
Tom Brady is 163-56 as a starter (124-90 ATS). Tom Brady is 18-8 in the playoffs (11-15 ATS).
0
Posted:
#56
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Fitzpatrick 109.3 QB Passer Rating
Luck 97.7
Fitz was actually a more effecient QB than Luck was in this game.
Colts received all the Luck in this game and I don't mean Andrew Luck.
Think what you want, the right play was on the Texans who out-played the Colts and should of won SU.
What do you call an Eternal Optimist? An accordion player with a beeper!
0
Posted:
#58
mac he may be gloating but facts are facts. as gamblers we want to be on the right side whether its backing the great ones or fading them but if these stats are indeed correct there is no need to guess which games theyll cover and which ones they wont. if you just back these guys week in and week out with some exceptions of course you come out a winner. and their record against the spread is one that puts ours to shame.
0
Posted:
#59
Quote Originally Posted by Macwestie1:
QUOTE Originally Posted by theclaw:
Fitzpatrick 109.3 QB Passer Rating
Luck 97.7
Fitz was actually a more effecient QB than Luck was in this game.
Colts received all the Luck in this game and I don't mean Andrew Luck.
Think what you want, the right play was on the Texans who out-played the Colts and should of won SU.
What a joke of a post. The Texans outplayed the Colts. High comedy in full effect.
Colts total yards; 456
Texans total yards: 332
Colts TOP: 36:49
Texans TOP: 23:11
Colts first downs: 27
Texans first downs: 18
Fitzy 
0
Posted:
#60
Fitzpatrick is 41-45 ATS all time.
Fitzpatrick is 22-25 ATS when facing a team .500 or better.
Your reasoning has no logic behind it. Bad QBs cover just as much as good QBs. Just look at Brady and Manning's playoff ATS rate for an example. Good QBs and good teams have inflated lines due to public perception.
0
Posted:
#61
Quote Originally Posted by LeagueCapper:
Fitzpatrick is 41-45 ATS all time.
Fitzpatrick is 41-45 ATS all time.
Fitzpatrick is 22-25 ATS when facing a team .500 or better.
Your reasoning has no logic behind it. Bad QBs cover just as much as good QBs. Just look at Brady and Manning's playoff ATS rate for an example. Good QBs and good teams have inflated lines due to public perception.
What do you call an Eternal Optimist? An accordion player with a beeper!
0
Posted:
#65
Quote Originally Posted by LeagueCapper:
Fitzpatrick is 41-45 ATS all time.
Fitzpatrick is 41-45 ATS all time.
Fitzpatrick is 22-25 ATS when facing a team .500 or better.
Your reasoning has no logic behind it. Bad QBs cover just as much as good QBs. Just look at Brady and Manning's playoff ATS rate for an example. Good QBs and good teams have inflated lines due to public perception.
Dude. Reread the stats for good QBs and tell me that Fitz is a good play. C'mon man. I'm not talking just playoffs, look at their entire body of work. Brady is 124-90 ATS. I swear people on this site just read what they want to believe.
0
Posted:
#69
Quote Originally Posted by gfinger:
Besides, at least when Brady or Manning have bad ATS records it is at least in the playoffs when they face other quality QBs. Keep backing Fitz and Geno Smith over a 5 year period and let me know how it goes.
Besides, at least when Brady or Manning have bad ATS records it is at least in the playoffs when they face other quality QBs. Keep backing Fitz and Geno Smith over a 5 year period and let me know how it goes.
Geno Smith: 11-10 ATS past 5 years
Ryan Fitzpatrick: 35-35 ATS past 5 years
Bad QBs cover just as much as good QBs due to inflated lines. Oddsmakers adjust spreads, if not people would just autobet elite QBs.
0
Posted:
#70
Quote Originally Posted by LeagueCapper:
Geno Smith: 11-10 ATS past 5 years
Ryan Fitzpatrick: 35-35 ATS past 5 years
Bad QBs cover just as much as good QBs due to inflated lines. Oddsmakers adjust spreads, if not people would just autobet elite QBs.
So it is clear you do not read, as expected. You continue to contradicted yourself all over the place.
0
Posted:
#71
Quote Originally Posted by gfinger:
So it is clear you do not read, as expected. You continue to contradicted yourself all over the place.
How do I contradict myself. My post above was an add-on to:
Fitzpatrick is 41-45 ATS all time.
Fitzpatrick is 22-25 ATS when facing a team .500 or better.
Your reasoning has no logic behind it. Bad QBs cover just as much as good QBs. Just look at Brady and Manning's playoff ATS rate for an example. Good QBs and good teams have inflated lines due to public perception.
In other words, fading bad QBs just because there bad is not a winning proposition.
0
Posted:
#72
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:
Yep, its just that easy. Never bet against Marino or Manning and never bet on the underdog (cuase the favorite is the better team)....and never listen to anyone that might know more about a game than you....
Yep, its just that easy. Never bet against Marino or Manning and never bet on the underdog (cuase the favorite is the better team)....and never listen to anyone that might know more about a game than you....
Great advice.
Dan Marino couldn't even cover +54.5 his last game...Against Mark Brunell.
There goes OP's theory 
0
Posted:
#73
Quote Originally Posted by begginerboy:
in other words why bet on guys who have a 50% mark against the ats when i can bet on guys who are at 65%? that makes no sense in the long run.
in other words why bet on guys who have a 50% mark against the ats when i can bet on guys who are at 65%? that makes no sense in the long run.
It's no surprise that they are not responding to you. Mac and LC are 2 clowns who get their rocks off on this website. When you hit them facts they resort to BS.
BB much respect to you.
0
Posted:
#74
Quote Originally Posted by ActionMagnet:
It's no surprise that they are not responding to you. Mac and LC are 2 clowns who get their rocks off on this website. When you hit them facts they resort to BS.
BB much respect to you.
Well, Action, I was hoping to initiate a dialogue about this but some people just want to have a pissing contest. My questions are genuine and I really want to know if there is an edge to be gained here (statistically). If LC is right, and I assume he is, then Brady's numbers against the spread have evened out in the last 60 or so games. But that doesn't explain his remarkable numbers against the ATS prior to the last 60 games. Is the recent trend (i.e., the last 60 games) a result of the books finally adjusting or is it because there was a drop off in performance by Brady and/or the team? And what about Rodgers? Have the books caught up to him as well in the last couple of years, or is he still beating the spread at a high percentage? And what about the greats of the past? Montana, Marino, Young...how did they fair against the ATS over time? The answers to these questions might give us an edge in relation to the new crop of elite QBs (Wilson, Luck, etc). But no one seems that interested.
0
Posted:
#75
Quote Originally Posted by begginerboy:
those stats on the great QBs vs the spread are very convincing. i dont understand how anyone with half a brain can refute them. Train are you saying they are made up? Or are you just arguing for arguments sake?
those stats on the great QBs vs the spread are very convincing. i dont understand how anyone with half a brain can refute them. Train are you saying they are made up? Or are you just arguing for arguments sake?
I don't disagree to your response to those numbers, but we have to think about what we are talking about. We are talking about the dominate elite QBs and their records against the spread. They only became dominant elite qbs beacuse they were WINNING and probably covering too (a lot). So after 5 years of covering like crazy (just a hypothetical) everyone wants to bet them constantly. Thats when you are no longer getting gifted lines with them. So yes all of those QBs have great ATS records in their entire career, yet almost all of them have losing ATS records in this season...If in 7 years Terry Bridgewater was to become a legendary hall of famer dominant QB in the league, that would mean he tore it up for the better part of his first 6 seasons, no? I wonder if you took down the top 3 QB's in terms of popularity prestige whatever preseason every season, and then saw how they did ATS that year what it would look like...
I'm not fighting you or the OP just something to think about...
Overall I don't refute the advice in general, but it is hard not to view it as a bit of an oversimplification as far as profitting is concerned. With no numbers or stats to defend myself it sure seems like MOST people lose betting over time & MOST people bet the better QBs and better teams. Do you guys feel otherwise? Do most people (the majority) bet weaker QBs and weaker teams? Or do most people win at this?
0
Hot Forum Topics
