Maybe the worst halftime show ever. Coldplay is lame. Bruno Mars is a Michael Jackson wannabe. Beyonce has gotten so fat that Bruno could now fit into one of her swollen thighs. Chris Martin trying to dance with Bruno and Bey was an abomination. Beyonce's salute to the Black Panthers doesn't really belong in a show that is supposed to be about inclusion. It was just one big turd.
Super Bowl 50 Thread
- Thread starter catfan in loserville
- Start date
^That's the absolute fact, Jack. Embarrassingly bad. And social media-ites talking like it's the 'greatest SB show ever' - wow. First, the bar is REALLY low for that compliment. And, second, Prince has more talent in his left pinkie toe than the combined 'talents' on display last night. And I don't even like his music at all. But, damn, the 'man' is quite talented.
I almost always skip the halftime shows. Good time to head to the food & drink table, as far as I'm concerned.
Did she really do that? If so, that's total BS on her part. The NFL should have a clause in the contract about that crap... then take the money paid to these supposed "stars" and give it to a charity.
Pretty sure the answer is never.
The line moved significantly after early money poured in on Carolina, going from -3.5 to -5.5 or -6. Sports books are not dumb, and they're not going to move it to -7 (a key number) and get middled. A -2.5 point swing in the line is pretty significant anyways. But moving on or off a key number requires a lot. And from what I read, it was up to 80% of public money coming in on Carolina. That's not unprecedented that a favorite, especially one coming off a big win, takes in almost all the public money. But what about the sharps coming in with big money late on the underdog (i.e. what happens almost every week)? That has to factor in.
While the general principle is sports books want 50/50 action (so they win b/c of the vig), they are not afraid to set a number that they know will result in more money on a side if they feel it's the right number. Their projections favored Denver more than the general public did, so they're not going to recklessly move the number up to (or past) a key number when they've already moved it 2.5 points. Factor in all the other things like teasers, parlays (including all the individual ones for the Super Bowl, which are based on most likely outcomes aka the line they already set at -3.5), and anticipated sharp money and it's barely even suspicious for tin hatters.
No. it's not. The Colts roster is terrible. This Denver team is so stacked they just took an anemic offense with the worst QB in the Super Bowl era to a championship despite ~ 12 yards of offense. Team game, etc, etc. But, sure, QBWINZ! RINGZ!
"With references to the Black Lives Matter movement, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, Beyoncé’s half-time show at the Super Bowl on Sunday might be the most radical political statement from the superstar in her 20-year career......"
http://www.theguardian.com/music/20...thers-homage-black-lives-matter-super-bowl-50
So, the NFL had a halftime entertainment committee that thought that BLM's agenda , along with Coldplay's gay support, would be A-OK, I guess? Geez whiz.
I watch Sports to get away from all of that crap.
I haven't watched the halftime show in years. Also, I really thought all lives mattered.
Take three unrelated artists, add in poor stadium acoustics, mix in random local kids pretending to be excited, and voila! You get a really weird and terrible entertainment experience.
Make sure to add in some liberal political talking points as well and we got last night's show.
You have an entire year and that's what they came up with?
1- you never saw Carolina -3.5, I bet Denver the second the line came out at +4.5. The line dipped to 4 and then shot up, and I could go on and on explaining things, but I won't. If you think 80/20 on a Super Bowl is like 80/20 on a normal damn game your and idiot. And I see lines move all the time 3-5 pts.
2- the same strategy was upheld for N.E. Money was 5/1 on N.E. And the line never moved.
Again, when it's not operating per usual Vegas is saying they are betting on a team. In this case it was Denver.
Plain and simple really. Anything you try to say to justify line setting is nonsense.
2- the same strategy was upheld for N.E. Money was 5/1 on N.E. And the line never moved.
Again, when it's not operating per usual Vegas is saying they are betting on a team. In this case it was Denver.
Plain and simple really. Anything you try to say to justify line setting is nonsense.
1. I was just going by what I heard and then read re: -3.5. See http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index...._for_denver_broncos_vs_carolina_panthers.html, http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2016/2/3/10904360/super-bowl-50-odds-panthers-vs-broncos-spread, http://heavy.com/sports/2016/02/sup...-odds-total-over-under-broncos-panthers-2016/. They all mention that Carolina opened at -3.5 (-3 or -3.5 in the heavy.com link). Another site said Carolina opened at -4.5. See http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...ne-panthers-now-6-point-favorite-over-broncos. So I absolutely saw that number out there. Shop around or get in quicker.
I'm not the grammar police, but I hope you were being ironic when stating "your and idiot." Autocorrect is also acceptable. And of course I never said or implied that Super Bowl money is like regular game money, so the whole basis for that unprovoked attack is missing.
It's not common for a line to move 3-5 points going to/off/through a key number. No. Key number middling is death for sports books.
2. The NE/Denver line moved from NE -2.5 to NE -3.5. See http://heavy.com/sports/2016/01/new...favored-preview-peyton-manning-and-tom-brady/. That's through a key number, and the line moved back to 3 (because key numbers are key). See http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/24/bettors-are-lining-up-with-new-england/. Going from -2.5 to -3.5 takes a lot of money because books would have a ~15% chance of getting middled. Not so "[p]lain and simple really." Not at all.
50/50 is an ideal outcome assuming the line never moves (or moves very little), but getting there can lead to a significant risk of a middle. Start at -3.5 and take Carolina up to -7 and see an influx of Denver money might lead to 50/50 total bets each side, but not off the same spread number. If you have two brain cells to rub together you understand that there is a middle risk there where Carolina wins by 4-6 and books take a bath. In fact, late money poured in on the Broncos -6. See http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/story.cfm/story/1743429 (lots of stuff in there, but here's one: "We were extremely high with Panthers action through Tuesday with 86 percent of our overall (point-spread) cash taken in on them, but that number dropped to 59 percent through Wednesday and now we're at 56 percent."). So the books have to hedge against a huge middle risk. See http://www.wunderdog.com/line-movements.html ("A middling opportunity arises when a line moves by a large amount, and/or moves over a key number. This opportunity gives the bettor a chance to win two bets, with little risk. The sportsbooks don't like this
"). And some sports books needed the Panthers to cover, like MGM: "It's been all Broncos since yesterday -- our position has completely changed. We need the Panthers now." http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/story.cfm/story/1743429.And sports books don't just take bets on the spread. There's money line, parlays (which get pretty exotic for the Super Bowl), over/unders, teasers, etc... And Vegas has other ways to induce betting on either side of a line - the vig (which you don't mention or allude to). Those often go together with the spread. For instance, the public tends to love favorites and overs. And teasers are a way of changing the number on multiple games. A couple of weeks ago on Chad Millman's podcast (maybe the week after the conference championship games), Bob Scucci (runs Boyd gaming sports books for all of Nevada) talked about the weird situations that can occur re: parlays and teasers. He laid out that they can have > 50% on a side, have that side lose against the number (that's good for the books re: spread bets), and still suffer a net loss due to other, non point spread bets (or point spreads teased down). For example, Carolina and New England (both favorites) in a teaser won, even though NE lost against the number without the tease. He's also stated, on many occasions, that knee-jerk moves are how books get killed. And he has frequently talked about how public money came in early on the favorite, but then they got hammered near kickoff by pros (and sometimes the public) once the line swings too far. So the line moves (which occurred similarly at, what, all sports books? Almost all?) were almost certainly "per usual Vegas."
There's a lot more to running a successful sports book than just throwing out a number that might get 50/50:
"It's true that their goal is often to split betting activity, getting about 50% of the bets on one side and 50% on the other side. This way they can't lose. They simply pay out the winners (minus their 10% juice/vig) and collect from the losers. The vig/juice on the winning bets ensures them a profit. They can't lose.
"But, the oddsmakers' goal sometimes is to actually take lopsided action. They sometimes roll the dice, believing the betting public will be on the wrong side and they can score a huge win.
"Despite popular belief, bets are rarely split 50/50 on most games. There is quite often very lopsided betting. To see this in action, check out this consensus betting tool. As you can see, there are often games in which 60%, 70% or even 80% of the action is on one side." http://www.wunderdog.com/line-movements.html (emphasis added).
In short, throwing out your theories on how the line should have moved, with incomplete information (you didn't even mention changes in the vig, let alone prop and other exposure) does not prove, or even suggest, a conspiracy theory. It's not even fishy, let alone fixed: "Surprisingly, it's not clear cut or unified who the books need." http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/story.cfm/story/1743429, February 7, 2016 at 2:35 PM ET (3 hours before kickoff).
So I'm going to go ahead and bow out here because I don't have the time or inclination to further educate people on how sports books work. They're much more complicated than people think, and the tinfoil hat crowd will likely never be convinced. Hope you have a good day.
Sincerely,
"and idiot"
P.S. - sorry if I sound snarky, but after living in Las Vegas for a decade and following sports betting (because they're the best at analyzing outcomes) for almost 20 years, I can't stand the conspiracy theory stuff. Yeah, a public corporation (and onshore places tend to be) is going to risk their sports book license that makes tens or hundreds of millions every year by trying to influence the Super Bowl. And they're all going to do it secretly, together or something, and nothing will leak. Just doesn't hold water. Why risk everything when you can practically print money from the public for the foreseeable future?
More:
In an unexpected development, the wagering tide turned Wednesday, when sharp money came in waves on the Broncos, and public money followed. Public or sharp, it all proved to be smart money.
"There was a lot of Broncos money late," Wynn Las Vegas book director John Avello said.
Avello said the biggest bet he took was for $500,000 on Denver. Jason Simbal, vice president of CG Technology books, said the biggest bet he took was for $600,000 on the Broncos. Suddenly, 90 percent of the money was no longer on Carolina.
"I was surprised because we actually ended up being about 50/50 on the money," said Simbal, who calculated the numbers and came up with 51.2 percent of the point-spread action on the Panthers, who closed as 5-point favorites.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports...erers-sniff-out-panthers-fraudulent-favorites.
TEH FIX WAS IN!
In an unexpected development, the wagering tide turned Wednesday, when sharp money came in waves on the Broncos, and public money followed. Public or sharp, it all proved to be smart money.
"There was a lot of Broncos money late," Wynn Las Vegas book director John Avello said.
Avello said the biggest bet he took was for $500,000 on Denver. Jason Simbal, vice president of CG Technology books, said the biggest bet he took was for $600,000 on the Broncos. Suddenly, 90 percent of the money was no longer on Carolina.
"I was surprised because we actually ended up being about 50/50 on the money," said Simbal, who calculated the numbers and came up with 51.2 percent of the point-spread action on the Panthers, who closed as 5-point favorites.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports...erers-sniff-out-panthers-fraudulent-favorites.
TEH FIX WAS IN!
1. I was just going by what I heard and then read re: -3.5. See http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index...._for_denver_broncos_vs_carolina_panthers.html, http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2016/2/3/10904360/super-bowl-50-odds-panthers-vs-broncos-spread, http://heavy.com/sports/2016/02/sup...-odds-total-over-under-broncos-panthers-2016/. They all mention that Carolina opened at -3.5 (-3 or -3.5 in the heavy.com link). Another site said Carolina opened at -4.5. See http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...ne-panthers-now-6-point-favorite-over-broncos. So I absolutely saw that number out there. Shop around or get in quicker.
I'm not the grammar police, but I hope you were being ironic when stating "your and idiot." Autocorrect is also acceptable. And of course I never said or implied that Super Bowl money is like regular game money, so the whole basis for that unprovoked attack is missing.
It's not common for a line to move 3-5 points going to/off/through a key number. No. Key number middling is death for sports books.
2. The NE/Denver line moved from NE -2.5 to NE -3.5. See http://heavy.com/sports/2016/01/new...favored-preview-peyton-manning-and-tom-brady/. That's through a key number, and the line moved back to 3 (because key numbers are key). See http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/24/bettors-are-lining-up-with-new-england/. Going from -2.5 to -3.5 takes a lot of money because books would have a ~15% chance of getting middled. Not so "[p]lain and simple really." Not at all.
50/50 is an ideal outcome assuming the line never moves (or moves very little), but getting there can lead to a significant risk of a middle. Start at -3.5 and take Carolina up to -7 and see an influx of Denver money might lead to 50/50 total bets each side, but not off the same spread number. If you have two brain cells to rub together you understand that there is a middle risk there where Carolina wins by 4-6 and books take a bath. In fact, late money poured in on the Broncos -6. See http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/story.cfm/story/1743429 (lots of stuff in there, but here's one: "We were extremely high with Panthers action through Tuesday with 86 percent of our overall (point-spread) cash taken in on them, but that number dropped to 59 percent through Wednesday and now we're at 56 percent."). So the books have to hedge against a huge middle risk. See http://www.wunderdog.com/line-movements.html ("A middling opportunity arises when a line moves by a large amount, and/or moves over a key number. This opportunity gives the bettor a chance to win two bets, with little risk. The sportsbooks don't like this
And sports books don't just take bets on the spread. There's money line, parlays (which get pretty exotic for the Super Bowl), over/unders, teasers, etc... And Vegas has other ways to induce betting on either side of a line - the vig (which you don't mention or allude to). Those often go together with the spread. For instance, the public tends to love favorites and overs. And teasers are a way of changing the number on multiple games. A couple of weeks ago on Chad Millman's podcast (maybe the week after the conference championship games), Bob Scucci (runs Boyd gaming sports books for all of Nevada) talked about the weird situations that can occur re: parlays and teasers. He laid out that they can have > 50% on a side, have that side lose against the number (that's good for the books re: spread bets), and still suffer a net loss due to other, non point spread bets (or point spreads teased down). For example, Carolina and New England (both favorites) in a teaser won, even though NE lost against the number without the tease. He's also stated, on many occasions, that knee-jerk moves are how books get killed. And he has frequently talked about how public money came in early on the favorite, but then they got hammered near kickoff by pros (and sometimes the public) once the line swings too far. So the line moves (which occurred similarly at, what, all sports books? Almost all?) were almost certainly "per usual Vegas."
There's a lot more to running a successful sports book than just throwing out a number that might get 50/50:
"It's true that their goal is often to split betting activity, getting about 50% of the bets on one side and 50% on the other side. This way they can't lose. They simply pay out the winners (minus their 10% juice/vig) and collect from the losers. The vig/juice on the winning bets ensures them a profit. They can't lose.
"But, the oddsmakers' goal sometimes is to actually take lopsided action. They sometimes roll the dice, believing the betting public will be on the wrong side and they can score a huge win.
"Despite popular belief, bets are rarely split 50/50 on most games. There is quite often very lopsided betting. To see this in action, check out this consensus betting tool. As you can see, there are often games in which 60%, 70% or even 80% of the action is on one side." http://www.wunderdog.com/line-movements.html (emphasis added).
In short, throwing out your theories on how the line should have moved, with incomplete information (you didn't even mention changes in the vig, let alone prop and other exposure) does not prove, or even suggest, a conspiracy theory. It's not even fishy, let alone fixed: "Surprisingly, it's not clear cut or unified who the books need." http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/story.cfm/story/1743429, February 7, 2016 at 2:35 PM ET (3 hours before kickoff).
So I'm going to go ahead and bow out here because I don't have the time or inclination to further educate people on how sports books work. They're much more complicated than people think, and the tinfoil hat crowd will likely never be convinced. Hope you have a good day.
Sincerely,
"and idiot"
P.S. - sorry if I sound snarky, but after living in Las Vegas for a decade and following sports betting (because they're the best at analyzing outcomes) for almost 20 years, I can't stand the conspiracy theory stuff. Yeah, a public corporation (and onshore places tend to be) is going to risk their sports book license that makes tens or hundreds of millions every year by trying to influence the Super Bowl. And they're all going to do it secretly, together or something, and nothing will leak. Just doesn't hold water. Why risk everything when you can practically print money from the public for the foreseeable future?
I'm not wasting my time reading all of that mess. I too follow sports betting and it doesn't take all that source quoting to make a point.
Actually the fact that you went so far out of your way to make an argument then following it up with not having time is the definition of ironic.
Whatever that "heavy" website is that is your source for both bogus lines on both games I mentioned is just more reason for me to be confident in what I'm saying. Had you quoted a Vegas book, or a qualifying online book I'd think maybe your on to something.
No one ever said money is bet evenly ever, and I'm well aware of how/why lines move like they do. I see it everyday and yes the lines move 3-5 pts on at least 1-2 games almost every week during NFL season, and on college it's even worse.
Also I understand how and why lines are made and what they are enticing everyday gamblers to do.
Thanks for the overkill retort there boss.
Also congrats to me for winning over 1000 between the two games.
Did skip it. Came on here until I heard the game coming back in the living room.
^ thanks for conceding. You threw out "fishy" regarding line movements based on a flawed argument (amg 80% early public money on Carolina!), injected ad hominem attacks for no reason, speculated on what I saw ("you never saw Carolina -3.5") and then got proven wrong (plenty of non-Heavy.com sources if you don't like that one, but you seem to abhor sources), attack sources ("bogus lines") without providing your own (maybe run a Google search and see how wrong your "facts" are?), and generally show no understanding of betting markets because you ignored everything but early public point spread betting. And that apparent ignorance (maybe you're smart on this, but I have no evidence of that) is why I sourced everything.
BTW, it's not at all ironic that I spent time on that post and said I do not have "the time or inclination to further educate people." This post is ironic in light of that, not my prior one.
Congrats on your winnings.
BTW, it's not at all ironic that I spent time on that post and said I do not have "the time or inclination to further educate people." This post is ironic in light of that, not my prior one.
Congrats on your winnings.
Plenty of non heavy sites? I'd be interested in that. I saw multiple sites with 4 and most with 4.5. I never saw the line at 3.5 at any betting point much less opening line.
I didn't attack you, I said if you think 80/20 on Super Bowl is the same as 80/20 for regular season then your and idiot. If you disagree with that, which seems clear you dont, then I'm truly sorry.
Proven wrong? Where? Jesus dude let it go and quit taking your BS schtick so serious. I'm well aware of gambling and the ins and outs.
Your need to stand up against those saying something is fixed or fishy is silly, but thanks for that over saturated information piece. I officially feel dumber than before I ever read it so good job.
I didn't attack you, I said if you think 80/20 on Super Bowl is the same as 80/20 for regular season then your and idiot. If you disagree with that, which seems clear you dont, then I'm truly sorry.
Proven wrong? Where? Jesus dude let it go and quit taking your BS schtick so serious. I'm well aware of gambling and the ins and outs.
Your need to stand up against those saying something is fixed or fishy is silly, but thanks for that over saturated information piece. I officially feel dumber than before I ever read it so good job.