Re: Middles, the most I’ve ever seen the line move in absolute terms was a couple of years ago on a Sunday Night game, the Jets versus the . . . Falcons or Saints, I forget. Anyway, one team opened as a 2 point favorite, but closed as a 2.5 point underdog. That’s actually not as much of a move as it seems because it didn’t cross any “key numbers.” A move from 2 to 4 would have been half as big in absolute terms, but realistically would’ve represented a larger line movement because the game is so likely to end with exactly a 3 point margin.
Anyway, I only mention it because I got in a bet with the early line and set up the 4.5 point middle for myself. It was a great gambling moment. In the closing seconds the team that opened as two point underdogs was trailing by exactly two and had a FG to take a 1 point lead, which would mean I won both bets if they made it. But they missed, and I only “sided” the game, winning one bet and pushing the other.
[QUOTE=Loach]
I’m not so much annoyed at “people” who talk about spreads. I have been listening to a lot of sports radio lately. This is talk from experts and sports journalists. People who should know better.
[/QUOTE]
Corporate media is good at entertaining but if you’re looking for sound information you’re in the wrong spot. This holds for any topic – politics, world events, sports, the name of Paris Hilton’s newest dog, whatever. I’d recommend finding reliable blogs instead. That’s not to say we can’t have fun pointing out egregious examples of their flagrantly unsound approach. Just don’t let it get to you. Just laugh along with them.
[QUOTE=VarlosZ]
I imagine that ESPN doesn’t necessarily care about talking gambling, but the NFL cares a lot, so they avoid the topic in deference to the league.
[/quote]
That may be true. If so, it’s rather hypocritical, since gambling has been good to both the NFL and ESPN.