Wonderful News from Dallas

Screaming Heard from Cowboys Locker Room Following Thanksgiving Day Loss

They played a rotten game, but I wonder why Buffalo, clearly the better team, was a seven-point underdog in the first place. The Cowgirls get a lot of hype in 'Murrica, but you mention the Buffalo Bills, and Cowboy Bob will say. "Buffaler? Where's that"?

Kevin Lewis wonders " . . . why Buffalo, clearly the better team, was a seven-pointunderdog in the first place ?"

The line set by the bookies is not a prediction of the outcome of the game.  The bookies goal is to set a line so that the betting is as close to 50%-on-Dallas and 50%-on-Buffalo.  If the bookies opine that Dallas is "overrated" by the betting-public, they will set a higher line to achieve the desired 50-50 split.

The betting line history shows the books got it pretty close; the line never moved more than 1/2 point for the entire week preceding the game.

I'm aware that the line is not a predictor of the outcome of a game; however, the line in this case was so badly skewed that it presented an unusually favorable betting opportunity, which the books usually avoid. The Bills should have been 3-4 point favorites.

It's generally a good idea to bet against popular teams and/or teams that have done well on nationally televised games the previous week.

So, with you being a Vegas resident did you go bet the "farm" on Buffalo? Pointing out a line that is way off is so easy to do after the fact.

Kevin Lewis writes:

"I'm aware that the line is not a predictor of the outcome of a game; however, the line in this case was so badly skewed that it presented an unusually favorable betting opportunity, which the books usually avoid. The Bills should have been 3-4 point favorites."

DonDiego trusts that Kevin Lewis applied his research and won a significant amount of cash by taking advantage of the favorable betting opportunity of the "badly skewed line".

The object of the Las Vegas Books is to make money off the vigorish. They do not care who wins; they do not care how close to the final score the line is.

They only care about one thing - they want approximately half the bets to be on each side.

And in the case of the Buffalo/Dallas tilt they determined that a line of Dallas minus 7 would result in a 50/50 split of the money wagered.

The history of the line movement which DonDiego linked in his post of 08:25 today shows, the original line of Dallas minus 7 resulted in a slight imbalance in the bets favoring the Buffalo, so the book adjuted the line down to Dallas minus 6 1/2.  This minute change led to a sufficient increase in bets on Buffalo so as to result in a near 50/50 split of the bets; if it hadn't done so they'd've adjusted it again.  

Consider if the books had set the line at Buffalo minus 3.  Based upon the observation of the actual line movement documented in the prior paragraph there would likely have been a tremendous overabudance of betting on the Cowboys at plus 3, and little action on Buffalo.

[If the books were to have just let the line stand at Cowboys plus 3, and taken all bets, the bookie would've won a tremendous amount of money.

But the books don't want to bet ! ! ! The books want a sure-thing: they want to keep a small-percentage of each bet placed - a sure thing every time !

And a line of Cowboys minus 7 (changed to minus 6 1/2) accomplished that.]

A personal note:

When poor old DonDiego lived out West he would visit Las Vegas several times a year; the drive was under 5 hours.

He spent lots of time playing blackjack; he won pretty regularly - usually enough to cover all trip expenses with a little extra, sometimes more.

Fr'instance on one of his earlier excursions he took $2000 to Las Vegas, and returned home with $10,000 based upon sports betting and blackjack wins.

He also played blackjack tournaments which were profitable over the years.

F'rinstance he played the Hilton Million-Dollar-Tournament twice.  To play in the finals for a $1-million prize, one had to play in a qualifier-tournament (with a nominal prize of $20,000). The two times he played he won the $20,000.  Unfortunately he failed to win any BigMoney in the finals of the two big tournaments themselves.

(The first "money" tournament he played was at the Riviera.  He won $1200 in his first qualifying-round which was played in the evening. (This wasn't prize money, just what he won during the first round play at the table.)  Feeling mighty good, DonDiego collected his $1200 winnings and stepped outside to get a breath of fresh air and walk the Strip a bit.

And much to his surprise a slightly-oversized lady driving a pink Cadillac, pulled over to the curb, looked at poor DonDiego, and asked him if he wanted to party.  He smiled and declined.  But he knew he had arrived !)  

But, more to the point, DonDiego also bet sports - specifically he only bet NFL games.  He would visit Las Vegas 4 or 5, . . . or 6 times during the NFL-season and wager and enjoy the camaraderie of watching the games in the sportsbooks.

Oh, . . . and he'd wager a few bucks on NFL parlays.  He bet a $50 7-team parley one time when he was vacationing with his wife and his parents.  He cashed out for $1000.  Pretty impressive !

Oh, and by the way he got married atop the Stratosphere ! (Some of the old-timer LVA chatters watched the ceremony on the internets.)

I never bet more than 3% of my bankroll on any one game but yes, I bet my personal maximum on the Bills, money line, no points.

I want to know if Kevin's intent here was to insult cows, or was Kevin's intention to insult girls, or possibly is Kevin attempting to insult both.  Is he Bovinephobic, or sexist or both?

Kevin is an equal opportunity insulter - he insults men, women, all races, animals - you name it, he insults it.

Most of the things you say make some sort of sense. This is an exception.