Welcome back, gents (and ladies, and transgendered persons--all are welcome here).
-
Last week, we discussed the importance of bankroll management. This week, we'll touch on a topic that we will revisit throughout the season: rules (as in "rules for picking games", also known as "betting rules", though we don't use the word "betting" here, as the information on this blog is for news material only.) (Another note: if any of the following appears to be plagiarized from Bill Simmons, I apologize--it is certainly unintentional.) Anyone who picks games, from novice to degenerate, follows at least one rule. Many of our readers are longtime followers of the rule that says, "Pick all home dogs of 7 points or more." Other people avoid picking either for OR against their favorite team, because emotion can cloud judgment. Another rule, and one that we ALWAYS follow here, says this: "If a line looks too good to be true, stay the HELL away from that game." A textbook example of that rule took place last weekend.
Last week, we discussed the importance of bankroll management. This week, we'll touch on a topic that we will revisit throughout the season: rules (as in "rules for picking games", also known as "betting rules", though we don't use the word "betting" here, as the information on this blog is for news material only.) (Another note: if any of the following appears to be plagiarized from Bill Simmons, I apologize--it is certainly unintentional.) Anyone who picks games, from novice to degenerate, follows at least one rule. Many of our readers are longtime followers of the rule that says, "Pick all home dogs of 7 points or more." Other people avoid picking either for OR against their favorite team, because emotion can cloud judgment. Another rule, and one that we ALWAYS follow here, says this: "If a line looks too good to be true, stay the HELL away from that game." A textbook example of that rule took place last weekend.
-
As many of you know, unlike our house, this blog is run as a democracy (or at least a dictatorship MASQUERADING as a democracy). Therefore, throughout each week, we solicit input from a variety of people--friends, family, strangers, gas station cashiers, etc. Leading up to last weekend, one view was repeated more than any other: the Redskins were an absolute GIMME at -3. Even when heavy action on the 'Skins forced the bookmakers to go to -5, the drumbeat continued: there was NO WAY the hapless Rams were going to lose by anything less than double digits.
As many of you know, unlike our house, this blog is run as a democracy (or at least a dictatorship MASQUERADING as a democracy). Therefore, throughout each week, we solicit input from a variety of people--friends, family, strangers, gas station cashiers, etc. Leading up to last weekend, one view was repeated more than any other: the Redskins were an absolute GIMME at -3. Even when heavy action on the 'Skins forced the bookmakers to go to -5, the drumbeat continued: there was NO WAY the hapless Rams were going to lose by anything less than double digits.
-
Thankfully, that game was not televised and we didn't have to pick it, because the impossible happened--the Rams thrashed the ‘Skins. But if you follow our rule, that outcome was not a shock, it was EXPECTED. (For the sake of honesty, we must admit that if we HAD been forced to pick that game, we probably would have gone down the crapper with the ‘Skins like everyone else--but because of the rule, it definitely would have been a 1-unit pick.) So why is this a rule? Glad you asked. THIS is why: Vegas didn’t build all those fancy hotels by “not knowing stuff”. When the bookmakers set a line that seems to contradict common sense, it is for one reason only: THEY know things the rest of us DON’T. When they set a line, they do it to make money, not because they suddenly feel like giving charity to us numbskulls sitting on our couches, dripping chili down the fronts of our replica jerseys. Which is why, when you see one of these lines, you shouldn’t ask “Why?” or start shopping for that new boat you’re gonna buy with your winnings. You should take a deep breath, put the paper down and JUST WALK AWAY.-Now that we have that out of the way, let’s go to the picks...
-
1. Lions at Packers: Last week, we called the Lions/Vikings contest a “turdburger”. This game is not a full-sized turdburger; it’s more of a Jimmy Dean breakfast turdwich--but it sucks nonetheless. The Lions, despite being a crappy team that has played for the most part with their backup quarterback, are somehow 2-1 ATS. At first glance, it would appear that Green Bay should be favored by about 58 points over 0-3 Detroit. (That’s almost not a joke: scoresandodds.com calculates a “power line” for each game, giving an estimate of what the line SHOULD be, based on recent performance. The power line here? Green Bay -26.) However, in the age of parity, and “Any Given Sunday”, and all the rest of that crap, we simply HATE to go anywhere near a game with a two-touchdown spread. But there are rules here, so go near it we must. For the sake of bankroll preservation, this will be a one-unit pick. (In fact, we may establish another rule here: never go more than one unit on Detroit games...we’ll see.) But here are some numbers that may be useful: Detroit has averaged 18.7 “points for” and 26.0 “points against”; Green Bay has averaged 26.0 PF and 15.7 PA. Those numbers suggest an approximate score here of 26-17, Green Bay. That would be less than the total (as of this writing) of 45.5. Also, of the combined 6 games these two have played, 5 have gone under the total. And if we take the under, there is the added benefit of the Lions’ incompetence being HELPFUL.
-
The pick: UNDER 45.5 (1 unit) (Spread is Green Bay -14)
-
2. Redskins at Eagles: The popular sentiment here seems to be that McNabb’s return and last week’s embarrassment will propel the ’Skins to a decisive...well, cover, at least. But the numbers don’t lie: Washington’s D is giving up an Arena League-like 423.7 (!) yards per game, including 98.0 per game on the ground (133 by the Rams last week). Vick is gonna run as wild as a pit bull escaping from a dungeon.
-
The pick: Eagles -5.5 (4 units) (Total is 43)
-
3. Colts at Jaguars: This pick is brought to you by Mad Libs: Last week, we said “If Matt Hasselbeck could put up 233 yards in the air against Denver, how many can Peyton Manning put up?” This week, we change the name to Michael Vick, the number to 267 and the team to Jacksonville, but the song remains the same. (And yes, we know that this pick will make many of you cringe over the violation of the “7-Point Home Dogs Rule”--as a tribute to you, we will make this just a 2-unit game.)
-
The pick: Colts -7 (2 units) (Total is 46)
-
4. Bears at Giants: This game may bring two of the rules discussed above into play: the “Stay Away from Your Favorite Team” rule and the “Too Good to Be True” rule. But because we are picking ALL games televised in Chicago, and since EVERY Bears game is televised in Chicago, we, as Bears fans, will be breaking that rule every week. So forget that one. But let’s look at the second rule: is this line, favoring by more than a field goal a 1-2 team that appears to be on the decline, against a 3-0 juggernaut, too good to be true?
-
If we can easily point to reasons why the line is where it is, then it is NOT too good to be true--or something like that (Confused? Us too.) What ARE the reasons? They seem to be: the Giants have faced a tougher schedule; the Giants can run the ball better than any of the Bears’ opponents thus far; the Giants are at home; and, the Bears gotta lose SOMETIME. Our opinion? The last is true and the first three MAY be true, but are irrelevant. The Packers were no creampuff opponent, the Bears have put on a STRANGLING rush defense (39.7(!) yards per game), AND the Bears showed no ill effects of travel in their win at Dallas. Also, New York’s offensive line, to use a scientific term, SUCKS. Julius Peppers and company will be (in the immortal words of the wise Rev. Jeremiah Wright) “RIDINNN DURRTY” all day on Eli.
-
Or maybe we’re just picking our favorite team--whatever.
-
The pick: Bears +3.5 (4 units) (Total is 44)
-
5. Patriots at Dolphins: Too much “typey-typey” this week, so let’s make this short. After last week, we have a hard time trusting the Dolphins. Plus, Tom Brady’s new hairstyle is SO. FREAKING. HOT.
-
The pick: Patriots -1 (4 units) (Total is 46.5)
-
As always, we'll track our record by picks AND units. Powodzenia!
Thankfully, that game was not televised and we didn't have to pick it, because the impossible happened--the Rams thrashed the ‘Skins. But if you follow our rule, that outcome was not a shock, it was EXPECTED. (For the sake of honesty, we must admit that if we HAD been forced to pick that game, we probably would have gone down the crapper with the ‘Skins like everyone else--but because of the rule, it definitely would have been a 1-unit pick.) So why is this a rule? Glad you asked. THIS is why: Vegas didn’t build all those fancy hotels by “not knowing stuff”. When the bookmakers set a line that seems to contradict common sense, it is for one reason only: THEY know things the rest of us DON’T. When they set a line, they do it to make money, not because they suddenly feel like giving charity to us numbskulls sitting on our couches, dripping chili down the fronts of our replica jerseys. Which is why, when you see one of these lines, you shouldn’t ask “Why?” or start shopping for that new boat you’re gonna buy with your winnings. You should take a deep breath, put the paper down and JUST WALK AWAY.-Now that we have that out of the way, let’s go to the picks...
-
1. Lions at Packers: Last week, we called the Lions/Vikings contest a “turdburger”. This game is not a full-sized turdburger; it’s more of a Jimmy Dean breakfast turdwich--but it sucks nonetheless. The Lions, despite being a crappy team that has played for the most part with their backup quarterback, are somehow 2-1 ATS. At first glance, it would appear that Green Bay should be favored by about 58 points over 0-3 Detroit. (That’s almost not a joke: scoresandodds.com calculates a “power line” for each game, giving an estimate of what the line SHOULD be, based on recent performance. The power line here? Green Bay -26.) However, in the age of parity, and “Any Given Sunday”, and all the rest of that crap, we simply HATE to go anywhere near a game with a two-touchdown spread. But there are rules here, so go near it we must. For the sake of bankroll preservation, this will be a one-unit pick. (In fact, we may establish another rule here: never go more than one unit on Detroit games...we’ll see.) But here are some numbers that may be useful: Detroit has averaged 18.7 “points for” and 26.0 “points against”; Green Bay has averaged 26.0 PF and 15.7 PA. Those numbers suggest an approximate score here of 26-17, Green Bay. That would be less than the total (as of this writing) of 45.5. Also, of the combined 6 games these two have played, 5 have gone under the total. And if we take the under, there is the added benefit of the Lions’ incompetence being HELPFUL.
-
The pick: UNDER 45.5 (1 unit) (Spread is Green Bay -14)
-
2. Redskins at Eagles: The popular sentiment here seems to be that McNabb’s return and last week’s embarrassment will propel the ’Skins to a decisive...well, cover, at least. But the numbers don’t lie: Washington’s D is giving up an Arena League-like 423.7 (!) yards per game, including 98.0 per game on the ground (133 by the Rams last week). Vick is gonna run as wild as a pit bull escaping from a dungeon.
-
The pick: Eagles -5.5 (4 units) (Total is 43)
-
3. Colts at Jaguars: This pick is brought to you by Mad Libs: Last week, we said “If Matt Hasselbeck could put up 233 yards in the air against Denver, how many can Peyton Manning put up?” This week, we change the name to Michael Vick, the number to 267 and the team to Jacksonville, but the song remains the same. (And yes, we know that this pick will make many of you cringe over the violation of the “7-Point Home Dogs Rule”--as a tribute to you, we will make this just a 2-unit game.)
-
The pick: Colts -7 (2 units) (Total is 46)
-
4. Bears at Giants: This game may bring two of the rules discussed above into play: the “Stay Away from Your Favorite Team” rule and the “Too Good to Be True” rule. But because we are picking ALL games televised in Chicago, and since EVERY Bears game is televised in Chicago, we, as Bears fans, will be breaking that rule every week. So forget that one. But let’s look at the second rule: is this line, favoring by more than a field goal a 1-2 team that appears to be on the decline, against a 3-0 juggernaut, too good to be true?
-
If we can easily point to reasons why the line is where it is, then it is NOT too good to be true--or something like that (Confused? Us too.) What ARE the reasons? They seem to be: the Giants have faced a tougher schedule; the Giants can run the ball better than any of the Bears’ opponents thus far; the Giants are at home; and, the Bears gotta lose SOMETIME. Our opinion? The last is true and the first three MAY be true, but are irrelevant. The Packers were no creampuff opponent, the Bears have put on a STRANGLING rush defense (39.7(!) yards per game), AND the Bears showed no ill effects of travel in their win at Dallas. Also, New York’s offensive line, to use a scientific term, SUCKS. Julius Peppers and company will be (in the immortal words of the wise Rev. Jeremiah Wright) “RIDINNN DURRTY” all day on Eli.
-
Or maybe we’re just picking our favorite team--whatever.
-
The pick: Bears +3.5 (4 units) (Total is 44)
-
5. Patriots at Dolphins: Too much “typey-typey” this week, so let’s make this short. After last week, we have a hard time trusting the Dolphins. Plus, Tom Brady’s new hairstyle is SO. FREAKING. HOT.
-
The pick: Patriots -1 (4 units) (Total is 46.5)
-
As always, we'll track our record by picks AND units. Powodzenia!
7 comments:
As a degenerate gambler, I like to take the rule of GIMMEEs one step further. When you see a no brainer bet, and especially when the general public pushes the line to give you more points, ALWAYS GO THE OTHER WAY.
And while I have picked the Redskins to win in 464 consecutive games, I am not confident about this game at all (for obvious reasons clearly stated in your blog).
So my prediction is Redskins 16 Eagles 14. Hail to the Redskins!
first let me say how much i appreciate your warm welcome to all transgenders. now on to the picks and yes, your colts pick is an absolute mistake but you already knew that. This week shall be known as "underdog week"
Lions +14 (3 units)
Redskins +5.5 (3 units)
Jags (of course) +7 (5 units)
Bears +3.5 (3 units)
Fish +1 (3 units)
Rules are nice to have, but too hard to follow. Atleast in my case. First why then my picks. 1. Green Bay at home after a tough loss playing Detroit. Nuff said. 2. Redskins D may suck, but I am not overly impressed with the eagles. Donnovan should be pumped and I think 5.5 is to much. Field goal is going to decide either way. 3. Jags suck, next. 4. I have too much I could say on this one. Screw the Rule! Bear Down! 5. I think Doplhins bounce back after the Jets home loss. Buffalo scored 30 in New England. Tom Brady at that hot.
GB -14 (2 unit)
Was +5.5 (3 units)
Indy -7 (4 units)
Bears +3.5 (4 units)
Fish +1 (2 units)
As a Cubs fan, I'm used to waiting for the other shoe to drop and cannot see the Bears continuing their success. Also, I had no idea Washington still had a team after last week. That being said, all that talk about about turdburgers and turdwiches made me hungry. I am going to go make breakfast.
I'll admit I have broken my cardinal rule of not betting the Bears once or twice in the past. I only know of one person who has stuck to that rule with the conviction of a monk.
I also understand that the Bears will lose sometime. However, I don't think that this is the week. The Giants are a team in turmoil. I realize they are at home, but I as much as I hate to admit it, I think I might be sipping the Bears Koolaid. It just seems to me that every week the Bears are finding a way to win despite glaring problems with the O-Line, secondary and their anemic run game. Maybe I am just sipping the Martz-Cutler Koolaid. Anyway, as for my picks:
GB -14 (3 Units)
PHI -5.5 (4 Units)
IND -7 (3 Units)
Bears +3.5 (4 Units)
NE -1 (3 Units)
Final score: Redskins 17 Iggles 12. Whoomp. There it is.
Also, whats it like to have to root for Cutler?
Post a Comment