and no surprise the line moved as it did, if this was a regular season matchhup, i'd say their of equal ability on a neutral field, but can u really see the hood and the goat losing 2 SB's in a row, McVay and Goff will win the big game probably a few times, just not in 2 weeks.
and no surprise the line moved as it did, if this was a regular season matchhup, i'd say their of equal ability on a neutral field, but can u really see the hood and the goat losing 2 SB's in a row, McVay and Goff will win the big game probably a few times, just not in 2 weeks.
and no surprise the line moved as it did, if this was a regular season matchhup, i'd say their of equal ability on a neutral field, but can u really see the hood and the goat losing 2 SB's in a row, McVay and Goff will win the big game probably a few times, just not in 2 weeks.
Fanduel had them at +1 but it was really short
The opening line for the super-bowl between Seattle/Denver (2013 season/super-bowl 48) was Seattle -1 and it moved to Denver -3 and kablooey...Seattle won 43-8.
Not saying the results will be similar but food for thought at least.
ah yes, the safety on the first play and Manning looking like he was a geriatric in that game , Brady's aged better for sure.
Can I picture the Pats losing 2 SB's in a row? sure why not? nobody thought Nick Foles AKA 'BDN' the backup QB would beat him and he did. RAMS have all the ingredients needed to win this game. If the execute, they have a great shot. Brady would be reduced to a bum, if the Rams can get any semblance of pressure on him.
If my job was to set a football line to get equal action on both sides of a bet, I would NEVER have set it at Rams -1.
The books knew from which direction that they would be hit by posting that opener. That early line was like red meat to wolves.
Now the line sits at Pats -2 1/2...considering the amount of money that will be bet in any super-bowl, that is an enormous move.
If my job was to set a football line to get equal action on both sides of a bet, I would have set the opening line at Pats -3 (or Pats -4).
I am mentioning our early reactions to lines, not how we feel now, 4 days after the Sunday games. Our minds have been able to process the information. Our emotions don't run as high as that first peak of a controversial opener.
If my job was to set a football line to get equal action on both sides of a bet, I would NEVER have set it at Rams -1.
The books knew from which direction that they would be hit by posting that opener. That early line was like red meat to wolves.
Now the line sits at Pats -2 1/2...considering the amount of money that will be bet in any super-bowl, that is an enormous move.
If my job was to set a football line to get equal action on both sides of a bet, I would have set the opening line at Pats -3 (or Pats -4).
I am mentioning our early reactions to lines, not how we feel now, 4 days after the Sunday games. Our minds have been able to process the information. Our emotions don't run as high as that first peak of a controversial opener.
and no surprise the line moved as it did, if this was a regular season matchhup, i'd say their of equal ability on a neutral field, but can u really see the hood and the goat losing 2 SB's in a row, McVay and Goff will win the big game probably a few times, just not in 2 weeks.
Trends are dumbs, Everyone always sees one and its always like 5-1 SU or ATS. How about posting trends with a sample size of 50 games minimum? Then and only then are they credited
Trends are dumbs, Everyone always sees one and its always like 5-1 SU or ATS. How about posting trends with a sample size of 50 games minimum? Then and only then are they credited
the only trend that matters which is of course unprecedented is that this is the 9th SB for B&B and they're 5-3
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
