SB Plays

When he doesn't post a price, it's assumed -110 For example, 49ers 1H total under 13' is -125 at my out. So I'll pass.

[QUOTE=joelshitshow;56610]When he doesn't post a price, it's assumed -110 For example, 49ers 1H total under 13' is -125 at my out. So I'll pass.[/QUOTE] Thanks, I didnt realize there was a default price implied in all picks. Fezzik, I respect you, but the quant side of that indicates that -110 is a terrible price to pay on that number.

This play isn't about the numbers, it's about the perception that Pierce is running way better than Rice the last two months and it's logical to think that he will take away carries from Rice in the SB. Also, it's my understanding that SF may be more vulnerable to Pierce's style of running than Rice's. Let me take back what I said about the "numbers", it's always about the "numbers", and I believe Fezzik's Pierce play is stating that Pierce's prop projections are too low given how the game will likely play out. THis is a play Fezzik is not getting from a model or program, but is simply using his noggin. I took it a step further and played Rice "unders" across the board. Aside from Pierce taking away some of his carries, it's more likley Baltimore will be behind in this game than the typical regular season game, and a better chance the carries will not be there late for him.

[QUOTE=johnboy;56615]This play isn't about the numbers, it's about the perception that Pierce is running way better than Rice the last two months and it's logical to think that he will take away carries from Rice in the SB. Also, it's my understanding that SF may be more vulnerable to Pierce's style of running than Rice's. Let me take back what I said about the "numbers", it's always about the "numbers", and I believe Fezzik's Pierce play is stating that Pierce's prop projections are too low given how the game will likely play out. THis is a play Fezzik is not getting from a model or program, but is simply using his noggin. I took it a step further and played Rice "unders" across the board. Aside from Pierce taking away some of his carries, it's more likley Baltimore will be behind in this game than the typical regular season game, and a better chance the carries will not be there late for him.[/QUOTE] I would posit to you that everything you just stated is [B]already [/B]built into the number that the casino has posted. Obviously they didn't post 7 carries out of thin air, right? That's usually why I approach these props (ESPECIALLY ones like this) with analytics. If you do that, then it DOES become about the price. [B]ANY [/B]wager (especially props) can be a good or bad wager, it's all about the price and finding the right overlays. A wager that has a probability of happening 30% of the time is an [B]excellent[/B] wager at 10-1 but a wager that a probability of 80% is a [B]terrible [/B]wager at -550 - it's all in the overlays.

I don't believe the recent trend toward Pierce is reflected into his numbers. Before Cladwell...5.6 carries a game. After Caldwell...10.2 carries a game (I'm not counting meaningless reg season final or Denver game where he got hurt). The 6 1/2 or 7 posted refeclts reg season averages, and not recent trends. I'm sure this is why Fezzik played this one "over". Similar situation with R Moss over/under 2 1/2 receptions. If you look at regular season numbers you would conclude that "Under" would be a huge play, as he only caught 3 or more balls 5 times all year, while going under 13 times. But what will not be reflected into the numbers is he is now playing a greater role in the offense now with the loss of Manningham. This one I think the linesmakers got right and I passed. I think everybody understands that when price not listed it is -110. As much as I like the Pierce play, I would get cold feet once you get in the neighborhood of -150 or so.

[QUOTE=johnboy;56626] I think everybody understands that when price not listed it is -110. As much as I like the Pierce play, I would get cold feet once you get in the neighborhood of -150 or so.[/QUOTE] I'll be happy to take your action on that at anything north of -120, kind Sir. I stand by my previous post - you need +105 to make this fly.

Curious about the SF 1H play ... Avail at UN14' +100 ... would appear someone thinks SF will score more than two TD's in the first half. 1H total for both UN 24 -115 or UN 23' -110 Certainly plenty of SB overs and BAL has increased their point product with Caldwell calling plays and SF with Kaepernick at the helm and his threat to run at any time. Hard to think under on a fast indoor track with speedy and capable WR's on both sides, but the senses are saying lower scoring and close finish ... 3 points? Anyone think the first OT could happen?

Thanks, CB. One thing for sure we know is that Fez didn't do any analysis on this prop. Amazing how he sticks around never does any analysis. It is pretty clear from John's writeup that he doesn't do any analysis. Some garbage about carries before and after Caldwell as OC...and like you say the books are already reflecting all information on the prop anyway not sure there would be anything left to analyze. Fortunately you make it clear that when the book is reflecting all of the information anyway ----that is when we step in and do an analysis ESPECIALLY on the props on this one. Hate to sound like those a hole lawyers in Law and Order but CB you seem like a nice enough guy but quite honestly you're adding too few comments that are useful on this board and mostly alot of nonsense and platitudes. The call out here is that this board needs more people like John willing to provide a tangible thought on this board regarding an issue minutely related to sports betting and if Fez or Anthony want to keep this board relevant Fez you better start releasing your inner JK Rowling or get some more here like an Alf or Dude or Calsport or 8 of Clubs because the taxpayers deserve more than some of this drivel and I confess I'm on here for free.

A fair point, but one poster comes to mind that is far worse.

Good one Joel! I certainly don't expect any paid services to tell plays here obviously and actually I don't expect anyone who is a professional to post here in here either. However, it seemed to be a goal of the board's creators at one point to generate more intelligent discussions and people who are pro bettors to be involved, etc. I don't think I'm saying anything here that several people haven't commented on. However, I've certainly made an effort to contribute because I do value Fezzik's plays. But if he's not posting enough or providing enough info I'll call him out for that. It is Super Bowl week the board is light. Although I have several posts that may be useless, I think I contribute enough that my posts aren't nonsense and pointless feedback into other players' bets. I put up Vernon Davis for your 49ers a few weeks ago as a play; I said Ray Lewis would be good over tackles IMO (it especially helps his tackles numbers when they count the tackles he makes on guys already tackled). Commented that I thought pros would be on Atlanta +4.5 if you could do it. I didn't think any of these were a waste of time. I threw out Milon Raonic at +800 and more and he closed at +600 and change. I put up Minnesota here NHL on a fatigue angle at -175 closed -200. That is over the last few weeks. I'm sure if you go back another 500 posts I found some value in there in some of those posts and my posts aren't about the weather. If that is wasting your time, I don't think we expect the same things from sports betting and sports betting boards. If I seem harsh on posters and their methods I will call them out. I've also praised a number of analytics I've seen out here whether it be by pros or recreational bettors.