NFL Predictions - Week 4 (Resilience)

In My Humble Opinion
1

It’s late, I’ve been out for a couple cocktails, we’re gonna make this quick.

Sunday, Oct. 2
NEW ENGLAND 5 San Diego 47½
The question is simple. Is New England going to suffer from the loss of Harrison and Light? I think yes. Tomlinson is a god and I think he exerts himself in this game. The two teams passing game are a push and LT will devour the NE rush D.

The pick: Chargers, Under

**JACKSONVILLE 3½ Denver 37 **
Was the showing on Monday night a mirage? Is Leftwich close to 100%? Can Plummer function on the road? These are some difficult questions to answer, but without much analysis I’m going to trust in the Jags. They’ve been in every game so far, and they’ve played good teams. If they can hold Peyton to less than 200 yards what are they going to do to Plummer?

The pick: Jags, Under

**CINCINNATI 9½ Houston 42½ **
Well, the Bengals are all that and a bag of chips. They managed to dominate the Bears D on the road and this week they are playing the Texans at home. Um, this shouldn’t be an issue.

The pick: Bengals, Over

Indianapolis 7 TENNESSEE 45
Is this going to be the game in which Indy finally folds? They’ve struggled on offense and are playing an overachieving Titans squad. Nonetheless, Peyton just can’t be held down for 4 weeks in a row, can he? Is the McNair-Bennett connection going to get on track? Frankly, I’m guessing that Indy’s D keeps up the pace. The Titans are game, but without a stud D they will get lit up. Don’t put money on it, last week I said I’m gone wagering on Indy and I’m sticking to it.

The pick: Colts, Under

**Kansas City 2 PHILADELPHIA 45 **
I’m pretty shocked to see that Philly is a dog at home. Even with a dinged McNabb… the Chiefs got housed on MNF. KC is coming off a short week and they didn’t exactly run wild last week as expected. Philly’s D is better than Denver’s, so we’ll assume they can contain this offense. McNabb is slated to play, and I’m going to trust him.

The pick: Eagles, Over

TAMPA BAY 6½ Detroit 34
Wow, this is just silly. I won’t even justify this

The pick: Bucs, Over

N.Y. GIANTS 3 St. Louis 46½
I think the Giants are bullshit. I think that St Louis is flimsy too. However, with a injured Peterson I’m going to trust Bulger and Co to get the job done. Coughlin outmatches Martz every day of the week, but I’m just feeling the Rams to squeak one out here. I reserve the right to change my mind here however.

The pick: Rams, Under

NEW ORLEANS PK Buffalo 39½
Ooo, a pick ‘em. I’ve decided that I’m not picking the Saints any more. The displacement has just been too much for them to cope with. Buffalo has a good D and that D will create enough of those mistakes which have been the hallmark of Saints losses this year. I do think that Horn and Co will play hard, but I think McGahee will be the difference.

The pick: Bills, Over

WASHINGTON 2 Seattle 36½
I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again. I have no fucking idea what the Seahawks will do. I don’t know if Shaun can run on these guys or not. I’m going to take a flier and guess that the Seahawks manage to outscore the inept Washington O.

The pick: Seahawks, Under

BALTIMORE 7 N.Y. Jets 31
I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again – albeit with way more confidence now – THE JETS SUCK. No QB going into Baltimore? Seriously, it’s only 7 points? Yummy.

The pick: Ravens, Under

**ATLANTA 5½ Minnesota 44½ **
I’m going to assume that the Falcons D is for real (not a stretch) and that the Vikings outpouring last week was a product of a weak Saints D and home field. Everything in this game points to another bloodbath for Culpepper. Kearney is going to eat Daunte alive and the Falcons will run, run, run.

The pick: Falcons, Over

OAKLAND 3 Dallas 47
Why in the hell are the winless Raiders favored here? I know Dallas has been along ways from dominant, but it’s not like the Raiders are just waiting to explode. The key to me is the lack of a reliable Oakland running game versus as powerful attack by Mr. Jones. I’m certainly not confident in the situation, but I just haven’t been made overly confident in Collin’s ability to find Moss. The Dallas O has their own problems, but I’m guessing that Oakland won’t be able to pressure Bledsoe and that’s the key to beating him.

The pick: Cowboys, Under

ARIZONA 3 San Francisco 43
The Cards are seriously fucking favored? After the slop they’ve left on the field all season? It’s not like San Fran can score a ton, but at least Lloyd has managed to find the end zone on occasion. Lots of people seem to expect the Cards to find their stride at home against a flimsy team, but I’m not sure I by it. I was on the bandwagon, I sprained my ankle jumping off. To make things worse the Cards lost a starting D lineman and the QB is iffy at best.

The pick: Niners, Under

Monday, Oct. 3
CAROLINA 7½ Green Bay 43
At what point does the Brett Favre Experience get old? When you’re in the part of the ride where the wheels come off, I say never. Though, it’s not totally his fault. This defense is one of the most pathetic I’ve ever seen. By the end of the season people will have forgotten about the Chiefs of 2003. Don’t be fooled by that Tampa game, it was way worse than the score showed. Still, 7+ points is a lot. I’ll be bold.

The pick: Panthers, Under

2

Oakland is a bad call away from being 1-2 and the 2 losses were AT New England and AT Philadelphia.

Dallas on the other hand is a couple of bounces away from being 0-3. I really liked them going into the season, but they haven’t impressed despite their 2-1 record.

Oakland comes HOME after a disappointing road loss to a good team. Dallas stays on the road after an emotional win against a shitty team.

Lay the lumber. Oakland wins and covers.

That’s about all I like this week. Maybe Buffalo.

Oh, and the KC game is AT Kansas City. I kind of like KC there too.

3

Keep in mind that Greg Williams has had two weeks to disect and gameplan for the [del]vaunted[/del] Seattle offense. I agree about the anemic 'Skins offense but they have been pretty good at winning ugly this year.

4

I think you’re a little too vehement about the Jets SUCKING, too.

Yeah, they had like a million turnovers in week one. But they bounced back at home against Miami, who is 2-1 and not a slouchy 2-1 (Denver & Carolina).

Then, Jets lost in OT to the JAGS who appear better than most people thought, their only loss a close one at Indy. That D can look scary. . .Abraham, Ty Law, Vilma in the middle. This Free Safety Erik Coleman can play a little, too. Breakout year? Keep your eye on him. As a rook, he had 100 tackles, 2 sacks and 4 picks last year. I think these guys give the Ravens (starting anthony wright!!!) a tough time.

Then, 7 points is lot for a team with the Ravens offense to give to a team with the Jets defense. Raven’s D has also SERIOUSLY looked like they’ve lost a step or two. I’m not sure how much of that is due to the loss of Mike Nolan. Now, they are coming off a bye and the Jets are starting Bollinger so that favors the purple and black.

I wouldn’t touch that game with a 10 foot pole, but if you forced me, I like the Jets, maybe even a little to win outright.

5

1:00pm…**PATRIOTS…5…Chargers…47½…**Patriots will exploit the pass d more than Eli. Under.
1:00pm…**JAGS…3½…Broncos…37…**Jags and the over.
1:00pm…**BENGALS…9½…Texans…42½…**Bengals are a mortal lock, and so is the over.
1:00pm…**Colts…7…TITANS…45…**Too many points; avoid the Colts for now.
1:00pm…**BUCS…6½…Lions…34…**Bucs and the over.
1:00pm…**GIANTS…3…Rams…46½…**Giants continue home winning streak. Way over.
1:00pm…**SAINTS…PK…Bills…39½…**Losman bounces back for the Billies; bet the under.
1:00pm…**REDSKINS…2…Seahawks…36½…**Honestly, I have no earthly idea.

4:05pm…**RAVENS…7…Jets…31…**Jets easily. Vinny takes the helm by halftime.
4:15pm…**FALCONS…5½…Vikings…44½…**Eat the bullet. (Gun to your head, you would pick…?)
4:15pm…**CHIEFS…2…Eagles…45…**Chiefs and the over.
4:15pm…**RAIDERS…3…Cowboys…47…**Raiders and the over.

8:30pm…*Cards…3…49ers…43…**49ers and the over.
9:00pm…**PANTHERS…7½…Packers…43…**Packers should keep it close enough to cover.

  • Note that the Cards are only favored because they’re “home”, but it’s being played in Mexico.

Early Games
Risk 55 for 120 on the Bengals & the Over
Risk 30 for 60 on the Giants & the Over

Late Games
Risk 55 for 50 on the Jets, and also
If up anything, risk 55 for 120 on the Overs: Chiefs / Eagles & Raiders / Cowboys

Sunday Night
If down 140, risk 30 for 60 on the 49ers & the Over, or else
Risk 55 for 120 on the 49ers & the Over

Monday Night
Risk 30 for 25 on the Packers

[post=6624776]Standing[/post]
Last week: 7-11, -25
Season: 13-22, -60

I love the Jets getting so many points against the inept Ravens offense. But, I’m skeptical about this week because I like so many overs, and there is only one home team underdog. Something smells fishy here. Ah, well, I’ll soldier on anyway. I’m really pushing the 200 stop-loss limit this week, but I’m feeling cocky from the minor losses to date.

6

Some comments now that I’ve made my picks so I could go back and read yours. (I like to make my picks with a clean slate.) Mostly, I don’t think you’re crazy. A couple minor points:

Peyton did not struggle last week, unless 19 of 23 is now considered struggling. Granted, he threw one pick and no touchdowns, which isn’t good.

??? It’s in KC. Eagles are doomed. At least, I hope they are.

The 49ers have scored 62 points, which is 11th best in the league. Over 20 points a game may not be a ton, but it’s a fair amount.

Ugh, I think you may be right here. I based my pick off the fact that they were competitive last week. They were competitive last week, right? (Or am I mixing it up with the week before?) And aren’t the Bucs really good?

7

Can I ask a stupid question? What does the number after the second team’s name represent? In other words, where you say, “NEW ENGLAND 5 San Diego 47½,” what’s the 47½ about? I understand that the 5 is the spread (I think).

8

I know Peyton wasn’t bad, but the offense on the whole struggled a bit. Needless to say you can count me as one of the guys who’s waiting for that 4 TD game to happen, regardless of what the teams are schemeing against him.

Thats messed up, I c/ped that directly from USA Today, they were screwed up. Today they have it fixed. Putting it in KC makes me more hesitant to pick it, but I still think the Eagles will win. I will be keeping an eye on the status of McNabb though.

I watched that game pretty closely, and the Bucs had it in hand pretty much the whole time. They got a few bad breaks and were playng in Lambeau, so the final score wasn’t indicitave of the actual game. They could have put up an extra TD in the final minutes if they’d wanted to, and Favre imploded once again.

9

That’s the Over/Under. The projection of the total number of points which will be scored during the game. It’s called the over/under because you with bet that the game will go “over” 47½ or “under” 47½.

10

So that’s what they’ve been talking about all these years! Thanks for the dope.

11

OK, I’m trying to get myself more interested in football. I still will pretty much only watch the Pats games, but I am trying to understand more of the rules and so forth. One thing I still have no firggin’ clue about is all that crap in Omniscient’s OP. What are those numbers, and why does one team always have a low one and the other a high one? And what the heck is “over” or “under”?

12

When he writes this:

NEW ENGLAND 5 San Diego 47½

The Favorite is first. The underdog is last. The home team is in bold.

The first number is the point spread. The second number is the over/under. The over/under was explained in post #9.

The point spread is a device for gamblers. Essentially, you add the number to the underdogs final score, and if THAT score exceeds the favorite’s score, the people who bet on the underdog win. Otherwise, the people who bet on the favorite win.

If New England wins 20-14, the people who backed NE win.
If San Diego wins or loses by less than 5, the people who backed SD win.

If SD loses by exactly 5, no money changes hands.

13

:smack:

From now on, i will read the whoel thread before replying.

OK, so the first number is the spread, the second number the # of points predicted (why are some one-half?) So, when you predict a winner, you are saying that the team predicted will beat the other team, and if the team predicted is the first team, then you are also saying they will beat them by more than the spread? :confused: (I am still confused about what a spread is, and who it goes to.)

So in your first pick:

You’re saying the Chargers will beat the Pats (Ha!), and the total points for the game will be under 47.5?

So if I were to bet on this game, and put money on the Pats, and they won, do I get money no matter what, or do they also have to win by more than five points? What if they lose by less than five points, or win by less than five, what happens then?

14

To avoid any confusion, that should say

If San Diego loses by less than 5, or wins, the people who backed SD win.

15

OK, looks like Trunk explained it all for me. From now on, I will also preview. :stuck_out_tongue:

So when Omniscient prediocted his winners, is he predicting they will actually WIN, or just beat the spread (so in the NE vs San Diego game, he is just predicting that SD gets within 5 points, or wins.)?

16

I don’t know why the odds-makers choose to have some point spreads (and over/unders) with half points and others not, but generally speaking it’s important because in that matchup they are disallowing a “push”. A push essentially means that the outcome was exactly as predicted and in that case neither the bookie or the bettor wins. I’m sure there’s a considerable amount of research and historic analysis done by those with money at stake to decide when and why they use half points.

The spread, simply speaking, is the difference between the projected final scores of each team. It’s used primarily because the favored way to wager on the NFL is by making the two opposing bets equal. This is different from the most common wagers in other sports, but in the end its simpler.

Actually no, I’m saying that San Diego will lose by less than 5 points. Obviously a San Diego victory also fulfills that requirement, but by getting the extra 5 points it makes me more apt to wager on the lesser team.

In that same vein, you would need the Pats to win by more than 5 points in order to win the bet. If they lose or win by less than 5 points you lose. Winning by exactly 5 would mean neither side wins and everyone gets their original wager back.

17

I’m not predicting that the teams will win the game, I’m betting that they’ll lose by fewer than 5 points or win. Though in the context of my comments I do often imply a victory.

18

There’s another way to bet on games that isn’t as popular, but I like it. It’s called the moneyline.

That gives you ODDS on the game but you need to pick the team to win outright. So, if I bet on San Diego with the money, they need to win outright, but if they win, that 1 dollar I bet returns 2 (if I give the bookie 1 in advance, he returns 3 to me, my 1 plus his 2).

If I bet on NE to win outright, I need to bet 2 to get 1 (I give the bookie 2. He returns 3 if they win).

In reality, a bookie, or a sports book charges a “vig”. So, in the above scenario, I might would bet 1.00 to win 1.90, and a NE bettor has to bet 2.10 to win 1.00. That’s how baseball betting is almost always done. Basketball betting is both ways. In moneyline betting, at least your bet is in line with the team’s goals which is nice.

Further, when you’re betting against the pointspread, you usually need to bet 11 to win 10. So when Ellis Dee writes "risk 55 to win 50"m he’s figuring that in. I’m not sure about “30 to win 25” though. They’re either charging a higher rate for that bet (which they will), or they round the vig to $5 on small bets, or something. If that’s true, I’d find a better book.

Ellis Dee seems to be a fan of the parlay. When he writes

“Risk 55 for 120 on the Bengals & the Over”

He needs to Bengals to cover the spread AND the over to come up but he gets better than 2-1 on his wager.

Actually, it looks like he has a shitty book. A regular parlay with the vig thrown in should return about $145 on a $55 wager, and $30 should win about 80. He looks like he’s getting about 11/5 on his parlays, which the typical payout is 13/5 (2.6:1), or even better (sometimes 2.64:1 online).

When you bet 11 to win 20, that means you need to hit 11 out of 21 games to break even (win 10 11 times. Lose 11 10 times). That’s a percentage of 52.38%. That’s the magic number for gamblers. If you can hit your games at a higher percentage than that, you can make money sports gambling.

It ain’t easy.

I don’t normally like to put my picks out there, but since we’re bullshitting, this weekend I have

Buffalo (SU)
Oak -3.5 (at even money, +100)
KC -1.5

And, I talked myself into a small wager on the Jets +7 (mainly because I’ll be watching that one).

I take NO RESPONSIBILITY for how that might turn out for people. I’m off to a good start this year, but if you looked at my record over the last year, you’d be wise to go opposite those.

19

Packer’s win straight up.*

[sub]The Kool-Aid is grape this week. Why do you ask?[/sub]

20

Well, there is one and only one consideration in setting a spread, and that is to ensure that all action splits down the middle; half bet on one team and half on the other.

So if you set the spread at 3, and 60% of the action is being put on the favorite, you might first bump it to 3½. If the action is still 55% on the favorite, you’d then bump to 4. Now as the game draws close, you realize that all the favorite-heavy action earlier in the weak still needs to be balanced out, so even though all new action is split 50-50, you’d likely bump the spread up to 4½ to weight the underdog bets a bit more to even out the earlier favorite bets.

Notice how the possibility of a push never factors into the equation; the only consideration for the bookie is that both sides have equal action, so all the bookie has to do is collect from the losers, skim off his vig, and use the rest to pay the winners.

On over/unders, since there is no push, a whole number is actually preferable, because if the total hits it on the nose, all bets lose. Then again, you often see an over/under range. (e.g: Over 43 Under 41.) There are many more style bets, like 3 team parlays (5:1), and the incredibly seductive type of picking several games, getting a break on the spread, and getting even money. If you pick 3 teams, all 3 must cover and it only pays even money, BUT all 3 spreads are modified by 8 points each in your favor. (Help me out…what is this kind of bet called?) These are great for high spreads; turning a 12 point underdog into a 20 point dog is quite the feeling of security at kickoff.

The synopsis of the book I used 10 years ago is correct: it was a shitty book. For the first year, there was no vig on parlays. After that vigs were added. It was always a 12:5 ratio, but adding in vigs makes it 24:11, which is indeed shitty.

Also, we were cheap bastards, and always whined between ourselves that the minimum bet was 10x. Later we found out that we could do 5x bets, but the minimum vig was 1x. I was never sure the policy on how the vig was computed for 15x bets, but that rarely came up anyway.

While I could scour the net for the best odds and play by those, I prefer to abide by the rules I used when I actually bet, lo those many years ago. Also, since the spreads here are way better than you could get at a book, I figure it evens out. (No way would I have hit the Pats/Steelers Over last week, for example, but I did by the spreads here.)

We were very suspicious of the book we used, concluding that because we did so poorly, and the spreads were always 2 or more points worse than the paper, we adopted a psyche-out strategy. Using this MNF game as an example, we’d say: “What’s the spread on the Panthers?” After getting the spread, we’d say “Okay, 5x on the Packers.” hehheh.

Also, to anyone reading any posts in this thread and thinking “so-and-so record’s pretty good, I’ll book his next picks”, you’d be a fool to do that. As I mentioned in one of the previous threads, handicapping services are able to tout great records because they don’t use the actual spreads the people paying for the picks would be able to book. Like my Patriots / Steelers Over example from last week, you’ll get slaughtered by the small spread differences, and a self-proclaimed 3-0 week quickly devolves into a 1-1-1 nightmare.