Line interpretations anyone?

[Stifler's Mom]

Someone who understands line movements and such, let me know if I'm wrong here...

At my book where I can see the % of plays on each side, the numbers are EXACTLY the same now for both games.

68% on NE
32% on Pitt

68% on Philly
32% on Atlanta

Philly/Atlanta line has moved 2 pts since opening, while Pittsburgh/NE has not budged. This has been a steady increase on the line in the Atlanta/Philly game all week, so it cannot be explained by 1 huge hit on Philly moving the line, or by the "Atlanta will lose in the snow" theory, cause those moves would have been bigger and more sudden, no?

Now WHY would they keep giving Atlanta more points in the same situation to try and level out the money, while leaving the Pittsburgh line alone with most people on NE?

Sure doesn't look to me like they're trying to invite Pittsburgh action...cause the +3.5 hook would do it for sure, yet they have not once all week offered that hook.

Reminds me of the games last week where the public nailed the teams who looked good the week before (Jets, Minny, Indy and St. Louis) while ignoring the obvious fact that the home team was the better team in each game, and went 1-3 ATS and 0-4 on the ML.

[Sally2Trees]

NE has been at -2.5 for most of the week. It has moved to -3 but only laying 5% at most sportsbooks (which is really like a -2.5 line adjusted by juice). 3 is the strongest line in a football game. If the casinos moved it off of 3 (to 3.5) to get Pitt bets, they could get STEAMED on Pittsburgh. This would move the percentages closer to even but set up a HUGE MIDDLE for the bookies. The bookies DO NOT WANT TO GET MIDDLED and lose both sides of the bet if the game ends with NE winning by 3.

[Stifler's Mom]

The line never moved off of 3 at any of the books I use....so I find the 2.5 quite interesting. Even bodog has it at 3, and if anyone was gonna add a hook looking for Pittsburgh money, it would be them.

It opened at 3, and is still at 3 on every one I use.

Bottom line is that they're gonna get squashed on that game if NE wins and covers, and they don't seem to care. The spread rarely ever comes into play in an NFL game (about 10-15% of the time)....and they know this, yet they haven't adjusted it.

I can see your argument though with the moving to +3.5 thing, but what about this? Now I've noticed that while the number of plays on Pittsburgh has not increased, the juice has. NE is now -3 (+110) again while Pittsburgh is +3 (-120). This is the 2nd time they've done that this week. Pittsburgh was even up to +3 (-130) earlier in the week, and the money was coming in even heavier on NE then than it is now.

So the only adjustment on this line has been to make Pittsburgh cost more, even though the $$ isn't coming in on them.

That's ass backwards.

It sure seems like they inviting NE money and they're definitely getting it.

Guess they wanna lose if NE wins and covers....

[Sally2Trees]

You said
"The spread rarely ever comes into play in an NFL game (about 10-15% of the time)....and they know this, yet they haven't adjusted it. "

10-15% is a HUGE percentage of the time to get middled and lose both sides of your bet.

I dont think the casinos want to push very often either. My opinion on this type spread movement is that the oddsmakers liked Pittsburgh in this game and wanted the NE action. They are after all paid to make money for the casinos. This game could of been down to the wire. Take away that first Big Ben interception (which resulted in TD) and you would have had a tie game in the 4th quarter.

I know a lot of bookies who will generally not give out 3 or 7 point lines on Monday Night or Sunday night (or any) games for fear of getting middled. Losing 70% of your bets while winning 30% only results in a 37% loss while getting middled results in a 100% loss.

This is my opinion.

[Stifler's Mom]

That's what I was getting at. I was thinking the linesmakers thought Pittsburgh had the edge too...and if that's the case, it's a good bet more times than not.

Weather they thought that or not, it didn't turn out that way yesterday though.

It was actually a tough game to watch, cause you could tell Pitts could play with em, but they kept making big time costly errors and just got in too deep of a hole they couldn't dig out of against another great team.

[Sally2Trees]

I heard on ESPN today that Tom Brady had a 103' fever the night before the Steelers game. No wonder the oddsmakers liked Pittsburgh!!!