Latest Line Move on GT/Clem

[RonJohn]

Then why are there games with 70%+ of the money on one side and the line moves opposite. The vast majority of the time you are correct, but you see the scenario I described 7 to 9 times, at least, a week. By the way over the course of the season the house record in those games is about 65%. So anyone looking for a good gambling strategy. . ,

Sometimes they follow a smaller group of betters that they know. If everyone in that group is betting against the majority, then they might move with them. It is a very small number of cases, and the house record is closer to 54-59% than 65%. Everything done in a casino is tied to statistics and probabilities that ensure a casino makes money. Local bookies are gambling big time because when they use the spreads from casinos, they likely don't have the same betting distribution as the casinos and therefore have real money at risk.

I don't understand why people continue to believe that there are some top secret groups or algorithms at casinos that accurately predict what is going to happen in sports events.

 

[herb]

Sometimes they follow a smaller group of betters that they know. If everyone in that group is betting against the majority, then they might move with them. It is a very small number of cases, and the house record is closer to 54-59% than 65%. Everything done in a casino is tied to statistics and probabilities that ensure a casino makes money. Local bookies are gambling big time because when they use the spreads from casinos, they likely don't have the same betting distribution as the casinos and therefore have real money at risk.

I don't understand why people continue to believe that there are some top secret groups or algorithms at casinos that accurately predict what is going to happen in sports events.

You are right about the percentages, my bad. And the reason you cited is often the reason for it.

 

[Jmonty71]

with one day to go the line has just moved from -35 to -37.

We have a 1.8% chance to win according to the ESPN power index.

Let’s do this.

1.8% chance... and here I thought we had no chance. Proves me wrong....

 

[takethepoints]

When I see a prediction of Tech losing by 35 - 37 points my reaction is that this isn't a reflection of the actual talent differences between the teams. What it is a reflection of is the total ignorance of what Tech actually has and how well we'll play.

Of course, Clemson is more talented. They should be favored. The problem anyone setting a line has here is that there is no way to gage how Tech will play. The easiest and safest thing to do in such a situation is to set the odds for the worst case scenario. Next week, the lines will make more sense.

Don't get me wrong here; we could lose by 35 - 37. We could also play well and lose by 3. We'll see directly.

 

[lv20gt]

You can make up whatever justification you want for one of the most ridiculous lines ever, but please take it to the Clemson board if you want to post a bunch of unwarranted negative speculation against us.

How about the justification of a 38 point loss? Maybe you don't know nearly as much as you thought.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

How about the justification of a 38 point loss? Maybe you don't know nearly as much as you thought.

Please delete your account. It’s almost exactly what I and most people predicted. Why are you such an ******* to our own team?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Here was my score prediction.

On average over the last 4 years, its been a 20 point margin at halftime, and at the end of the game its still around there. Because Clemson starts pulling players.

This is week 1, after which Clemson plays 2 consecutive ranked teams, including @Syracuse and their awful turf. So Dabo has no motivation or reason to run the score up.

I think this game is going to go similar to previous ones, getting out to 25-30 to 3-10 by half time, and then Dabo starts pulling players. Ultimately the game ends around 45-20.

The difference was a few key areas:
1) ******* Dabo went for it on 4th Down twice when up big and still was playing starters when up 30+ points.
2) We gifted them 14 on Christmas turnovers and the Refs stole one of ours when they said they weren’t ready.

Trevor Lawrence had 13 completions, 168 yards, 1 TD and 2 INT. Nobody else will shut him down like that the rest of year.

 

[Frenchise]

I hope you all leave it where it is. I don’t think any more posts here are gonna be helpful to anyone or the board.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The worst thing that happened last year when we started bad was some fans ****ting all over our team and program. I was really hoping they had learned from last year how unnecessary that is.

 

[Frenchise]

The worst thing that happened last year when we started bad was some fans ****ting all over our team and program. I was really hoping they had learned from last year how unnecessary that is.

Yep it was bad. I personally was probably guilty of that.

That said - someone who is offering a sincere, coherent opinion, like someone did before the game, shouldn’t be attacked.

 

[lv20gt]

Please delete your account. It’s almost exactly what I and most people predicted.

Really, you picked Clemson to cover? Could have sworn you gave them less than a 5% chance to cover.

4) 1% chance their 3rd and 4th stringers and walk-ons beat the crap out us.

The only way they cover is if their 3rd and 4th string players and walk-ons beat the crap out of us. Which could happen, but I just see that as a tiny chance.

Wait, no you gave them a 1% chance to cover.

No it isn't almost exactly what you predicted. And how could anyone have forseen untimely turnovers for a first time QB in a new offense in a hostile environment. So hard to see that being a factor...

Why are you such an ******* to our own team?

It's not being an ******* to our team just because I didn't bury my head in the sand about the realities of the situation we are in. It wasn't unwarranted negative speculation.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Really, you picked Clemson to cover? Could have sworn you gave them less than a 5% chance to cover.



Wait, no you gave them a 1% chance to cover.

No it isn't almost exactly what you predicted. And how could anyone have forseen untimely turnovers for a first time QB in a new offense in a hostile environment. So hard to see that being a factor...



It's not being an ******* to our team just because I didn't bury my head in the sand about the realities of the situation we are in. It wasn't unwarranted negative speculation.

Liar.

That’s not what I said. Slow down and read it again. I said things like high chance Dabo pulls his players. Nowhere did I say they weren’t a lot better than us and couldn’t beat us straight up. I even posted my score prediction for you.

You should go read the scores prediction again - it’s right up above - I predicted a 25 point lead at the half, Dabo would pull his players and we’d close the gap to 45-20. When you consider the Refs called back our TD and we gifted them 2, that prediction was almost spot on.

Face it, you’re just a negative *******.

 

[lv20gt]

Liar.

That’s not what I said. Slow down and read it again.

lmao? I literally quoted you. It is what you said verbatim. Here. I'll do it again. "The only way they cover is if their 3rd and 4th string players and walk-ons beat the crap out of us" immediately after you posted this " 1% chance their 3rd and 4th stringers and walk-ons beat the crap out us." You literally said the only condition for them covering was had a 1% chance of happening.

I'd say there's a < 5% chance they cover.

There. I quoted you again.

You should go read the scores prediction again - it’s right up above - I predicted a 25 point lead at the half, Dabo would pull his players and we’d close the gap to 45-20. When you consider the Refs called back our TD and we gifted them 2, that prediction was almost spot on.

So you predicted something, and it didn't happen. No, that isn't almost spot on. Dabo did pull players, and we didn't close the gap. I have no idea why you are acting like our miscues that gave them points is some completely unforeseeable thing. It was likely things like that would happen in the situation we were in.

Also, I like how you tried to use them going for it on 4th as reason for the score being more lopsided than you thought when neither of the 4th downs resulted in points.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

lmao? I literally quoted you. It is what you said verbatim. Here. I'll do it again. "The only way they cover is if their 3rd and 4th string players and walk-ons beat the crap out of us" immediately after you posted this " 1% chance their 3rd and 4th stringers and walk-ons beat the crap out us." You literally said the only condition for them covering was had a 1% chance of happening.



There. I quoted you again.



So you predicted something, and it didn't happen. No, that isn't almost spot on. Dabo did pull players, and we didn't close the gap. I have no idea why you are acting like our miscues that gave them points is some completely unforeseeable thing. It was likely things like that would happen in the situation we were in.

Also, I like how you tried to use them going for it on 4th as reason for the score being more lopsided than you thought when neither of the 4th downs resulted in points.

Liar.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

Thanks bwelbo! You lost me 80 bucks!

I agree with you. A lot of the **** that happened including the 52 yard Fg was a little ridiculous. Their backups did a little better than predicted but, I think my betting for the year may be done anyway. No need to waste my money. It was good for the first game though.

They could’ve beat us by 80 if they wanted, but I will say that I was more interested in finding out if they would cover or not, so I watched more of the game than I normally would have.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Thanks bwelbo! You lost me 80 bucks!

I agree with you. A lot of the **** that happened including the 52 yard Fg was a little ridiculous. Their backups did a little better than predicted but, I think my betting for the year may be done anyway. No need to waste my money. It was good for the first game though.

They could’ve beat us by 80 if they wanted, but I will say that I was more interested in finding out if they would cover or not, so I watched more of the game than I normally would have.

Well what lvgt is missing is my full statement. I never said we would match up with Clemson. I said they would race out to a big lead and score 25-30 points in the first half (they scored 28). Then I said 80% chance they don’t cover because Dabo pulls all his starters - he didn’t until halfway to the 4th quarter. He even went for it on 4th Down twice while up more than 30 points. We had a TD called back, gifted them 2, Dabo waited a long time to sit people, and they covered by half a point when I had predicted 45-20. It almost went exactly as I had predicted except for like a 1 TD swing. Not sure why he’s so angry and upset and ranting about it.

What is shocking to me is Lawrence had 168 yards passing - 60 on 1 play where Higgins pushed off. And that was his only TD against 2 INTs. I think if we play the right QB and simplify the playbook we can win 8 games.

 

[bobongo]

If they agreed, the line would be lower. Actually, half the gambling public thinks it's too high, and half the gambling public thinks it's too low.

The average bear thinks they beat us by 37. Now, are folks betting on the underdog smarter than the average bear, or dumber than the average bear? We'll see.

So, dumber...