All Forums | Penalty Box

My Old Man always told me 3 things about Betting NFL

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 5835
Posts: 92
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2002
Posts: 54446
Posted: #51

Yep. NFL is simple to bet on. Identify the better qb in the matchup and win money.

 

Vegas will soon be closing.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2003
Posts: 8346
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). 
    •  
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jun, 2003
    Posts: 8346
    Posted: #53
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionMagnet:

    Great stuff Gfinger. Thanks for posting.

    Good QBs win, great QBs cover. 
     
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2009
    Posts: 1472
    Posted: #54
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionMagnet:

    On occasion ofcourse the bad QB will cover but more often than not they won't. Especially the starting Qbs who are really 3rd stringers like Fitzy
      You must be a wealthy man.  What else did your old man tell you?
     
    All-Star
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2013
    Posts: 14890
    Posted: #55
    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?
     
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2004
    Posts: 154117
    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 with a beeper!
     
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2004
    Posts: 154117
    Posted: #57
    ActionMagnet starting this THREAD are you Gloating after the Fact?
    What do you call an Eternal Optimist? An accordion with a beeper!
     
    All-Star
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2013
    Posts: 14890
    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.
     
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 8476
    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 
     
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Mar, 2011
    Posts: 9317
    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.




     
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2004
    Posts: 154117
    Posted: #61
    Quote Originally Posted by LeagueCapper:

    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 with a beeper!
     
    All-Star
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2013
    Posts: 14890
    Posted: #62
    lc fitzpatricks ats marks are not even close to rodgers and bradys. am i missing something?
     
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2004
    Posts: 154117
    Posted: #63
    Bottom Line the Final Score was 33-28 Was it a BLOWOUT?

     So what's your point involving your Dad & starting  this thread?

    What do you call an Eternal Optimist? An accordion with a beeper!
     
    All-Star
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2013
    Posts: 14890
    Posted: #64
    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.
     
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jun, 2003
    Posts: 8346
    Posted: #65
    Quote Originally Posted by LeagueCapper:

    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. 
     
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jun, 2003
    Posts: 8346
    Posted: #66
    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.
     
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Mar, 2011
    Posts: 9317
    Posted: #67
    Tom Brady is 31-28 ATS last 60 games

    Ryan Fitzpatrick is 35-35 ATS last 70 games

    Anything else?
     
    Legend
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2004
    Posts: 154117
    Posted: #68
    By the way why are your early threads about Indy/Houston in the Penalty Box .... Interesting?
    What do you call an Eternal Optimist? An accordion with a beeper!
     
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Mar, 2011
    Posts: 9317
    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.

    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. 
     
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jun, 2003
    Posts: 8346
    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.
     
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Mar, 2011
    Posts: 9317
    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.
     
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Sep, 2011
    Posts: 6196
    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....

    Great advice.

    Dan Marino couldn't even cover +54.5 his last game...Against Mark Brunell.

    There goes OP's theory 
     
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Oct, 2010
    Posts: 8476
    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.

    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.
     
    All-Star
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2013
    Posts: 14890
    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.
     
     
    All-Star
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2010
    Posts: 13130
    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?

    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?




    All Forums | Penalty Box
    About Us
    Contact Us
    Careers
    Our Team
    Brand
    Testimonials
    Betting Guides
    Sportsbook Reviews
    Sports Betting News
    Podcasts
    Responsible Gaming
    Sports Betting
    US Betting Sites
    Canada Betting Sites
    Canada Casinos
    Best Betting Apps
    Contests
    Streak Survivor
    King of Covers
    Ultimate Race
    Office Pools
    The Covers community has
    618,670
    lifetime members worldwide
    Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
    Covers is the world
    leader in sports
    betting information.
    Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
    Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
    Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

    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.