Maybe I can take a stab at this..There's a ton of public money on the Redskins, everyone is picking them..They're undefeated at home, Romo is out.. blah blah blah..If Vegas needs Dallas to win or expects them to, they want as much money on Washington as possible...to entice bettors even more, they lower the line, similar thing happened last week with the Packers at home..The sharp bettors are with the house..(house usually wins)..
0
Quote Originally Posted by naesiy:
If heavy action on WAS, why would the line drop?
Maybe I can take a stab at this..There's a ton of public money on the Redskins, everyone is picking them..They're undefeated at home, Romo is out.. blah blah blah..If Vegas needs Dallas to win or expects them to, they want as much money on Washington as possible...to entice bettors even more, they lower the line, similar thing happened last week with the Packers at home..The sharp bettors are with the house..(house usually wins)..
Vanzack - let's talk elections. Going to be some opportunities this year. Especially with the discrepancies between live, phone and internet polling. Let's talk about the narrative the media is painting and how Gallup is no longer polling the 2016 election.
0
Vanzack - let's talk elections. Going to be some opportunities this year. Especially with the discrepancies between live, phone and internet polling. Let's talk about the narrative the media is painting and how Gallup is no longer polling the 2016 election.
Vanzack - let's talk elections. Going to be some opportunities this year. Especially with the discrepancies between live, phone and internet polling. Let's talk about the narrative the media is painting and how Gallup is no longer polling the 2016 election.
Was looking at election lines earlier this week.
This might be a very interesting year for gamblers.
Clinton is now about -120. But honestly - there are some good scenarios to favor her - even at those odds.
The biggest being Donald Trump. The best thing Hillary Clinton has is Donald Trump. Because there are really two scenarios that I see with him:
1. He wins the Repub nomination, and has no chance in the general election. He can probably get 25% or so in the Repub election and win with split votes amongst the other 6 or so candidates. But he cant beat clinton in a one on one with months of debates and scrutiny. Lots of those Rubio and Bush voters will vote for Clinton.
2. He loses Reupb nomination - and runs as independent. He will take enough votes away from the Repub nomination that Clinton will again win easily.
The only scenario I see (as of today - things can change on a dime) that Clinton isnt a good wager is if Trump drops out altogether.
Thats how I see it - a year ahead of time. There will be massive changes and probably go back and read this and laugh.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Caper03:
Vanzack - let's talk elections. Going to be some opportunities this year. Especially with the discrepancies between live, phone and internet polling. Let's talk about the narrative the media is painting and how Gallup is no longer polling the 2016 election.
Was looking at election lines earlier this week.
This might be a very interesting year for gamblers.
Clinton is now about -120. But honestly - there are some good scenarios to favor her - even at those odds.
The biggest being Donald Trump. The best thing Hillary Clinton has is Donald Trump. Because there are really two scenarios that I see with him:
1. He wins the Repub nomination, and has no chance in the general election. He can probably get 25% or so in the Repub election and win with split votes amongst the other 6 or so candidates. But he cant beat clinton in a one on one with months of debates and scrutiny. Lots of those Rubio and Bush voters will vote for Clinton.
2. He loses Reupb nomination - and runs as independent. He will take enough votes away from the Repub nomination that Clinton will again win easily.
The only scenario I see (as of today - things can change on a dime) that Clinton isnt a good wager is if Trump drops out altogether.
Thats how I see it - a year ahead of time. There will be massive changes and probably go back and read this and laugh.
Maybe I can take a stab at this..There's a ton of public money on the Redskins, everyone is picking them..They're undefeated at home, Romo is out.. blah blah blah..If Vegas needs Dallas to win or expects them to, they want as much money on Washington as possible...to entice bettors even more, they lower the line, similar thing happened last week with the Packers at home..The sharp bettors are with the house..(house usually wins)..
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understood it just like you and had the same thought process. I was questioning the statement by Caramel that "Heavies are on Washington therefore the line is dropping." That makes no sense at all by itself so I was wondering his thought process.
Heavies (i.e. sharps) on WAS, line would rise.
Heavies (i.e. big money) on WAS, line would still rise (unless Vegas WANTED action, like you said and I read.
Again, I wanted to clarify what his thinking was because that single sentence alone made no sense. Maybe if he qualified it as "books want WAS money" therefore the line drop, then it would have been clear.
Thanks.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MacTaylor:
Maybe I can take a stab at this..There's a ton of public money on the Redskins, everyone is picking them..They're undefeated at home, Romo is out.. blah blah blah..If Vegas needs Dallas to win or expects them to, they want as much money on Washington as possible...to entice bettors even more, they lower the line, similar thing happened last week with the Packers at home..The sharp bettors are with the house..(house usually wins)..
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understood it just like you and had the same thought process. I was questioning the statement by Caramel that "Heavies are on Washington therefore the line is dropping." That makes no sense at all by itself so I was wondering his thought process.
Heavies (i.e. sharps) on WAS, line would rise.
Heavies (i.e. big money) on WAS, line would still rise (unless Vegas WANTED action, like you said and I read.
Again, I wanted to clarify what his thinking was because that single sentence alone made no sense. Maybe if he qualified it as "books want WAS money" therefore the line drop, then it would have been clear.
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.
I understood it just like you and had the same thought process. I was questioning the statement by Caramel that "Heavies are on Washington therefore the line is dropping." That makes no sense at all by itself so I was wondering his thought process.
Hot Forum Topics
