Steelers Fans, Let's Pick 'Em

by Blitzburgh on Jun 2, 2008 2:30 PM EDT

Well, that lengthy post on Darnell Stapleton seemed to put y'all to sleep, so let's try something else. How about some good old fashioned American gambling. Let's pick the over/under on NFL team' win totals this year.

* Disclaimer - BTSC does not condone gambling and will not be held responsible for monetary losses incurred from advice contained within. If you win and want to send me money, well that's ok I suppose :)

The numbers in colums 2 and 3 represent the payouts for each selections. So in the case of the Steelers, you would have to bet $1.40 to win $1 if you selected the over, or $140 to win $100. In other words, it's not even money, and Vegas believes more bettors will select the over. If you take the under (+110), you win $1.10 for every $1 bet, or $110 for every $100. Finally, for teams with a whole integer for their win total (no decimal point), your money is returned in the event of a tie. So if Pittsbugh won 9 games, you'd get your money back regardless of whether you took the over or the under.

If I were a gambling man, here are some of the selections I would make:

1) I'd probably take Green Bay with the over (8.5). The money's right (+120) and that's a young, nasty defense in a fairly weak division. Sure Aaron Rodgers is untested, but he'll only have to be solid, not spectacular, provided the running game's humming.

2) For my safe bet, I'd probably take Seattle. The bet doesn't pay well (-155), but with two games against SF, STL, and AZ, plus games against Miami and the Jets, I like their chances to win their typical 9 to 10 games.

3) I'll go with the over for Pittsburgh, but I will say that I'd not be the least bit surprised if we win 9 games this year, which would result in a push.

4) Indianpolis seems like the best bet on this board to me at 11 wins (+135). Sure it's a tough schedule with that loaded AFC South plus games vs Pittsburgh, SD, NE, GB, @ MIN, @ CLE, but when's the last time a Peyton Manning quarterbacked team didn't win at least 12 games? That's right, 5 years ago in 2002.

5) San Diego's also a safe bet imo.

6) I'll finish with one more AFC team - Oakland. The money's right for me to take the under (+140). Lane Kiffen's doing some nice things in Oakland, but JaMarcus Russel will still essentially be a rookie in 2008 and I just can't see them winning 7 games, even in the fairly soft AFC West. I could see them winning 6 games, but that'd be a push. 7 seems like a stretch for a team still just one year removed from a historically bad offense. And in 2008, they won't have a Daunte Culpepper to help win a few close games.

Your turn.

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Here's my 5 Team Parlay

Take this pick to the bank:
Indy 11 - OVER for the same reason that Blitz said
Cincy 7 - UNDER this team doesn’t have the mental makeup to overcome all the controversy
NY Giants 8.5 - OVER the SB champs at 8.5 & supposedly Eli turned some magical corner
San Fran 6 - UNDER 5 win team picked up two of their wins vs. ARI and didn’t have an early pick to improve
Minnesota 8.5—UNDER call me crazy but I must be the only guy who thinks this team will still be stuck in mediocrity with Tavaris Jackson at QB

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on Jun 2, 2008 2:51 PM EDT 0 recs

Yes you are lol

I believe Minesota will be unstoppable running the ball if Jackson just manges the game well, this team will be very good. Remember Ball control is what football is all about, we are all aware with ball control in the past with the steelers. Just look at how Ben did when we had him start as a rookie, he made a play here and there and just manged the game, and we won 15 games doing that. Believe me I do not think Jackson is the next Big Ben, but believe me when I say this Minn. will be unstoppable in the run game (if healthy all year). PS. Their Defense isnt to bad as well.

* till next time wave those towels proud

by LiveinDCbutsteelerfanbyheart on Jun 2, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

Jackson

I do agree if he can manage the game they’ll be really good but he’s shown nothing to date he’s capable of doing that. He was responsible for 15 turnovers (12 INTS & 3 fumbles lost) in 12 games last year and it’s not like he got better as the season went on considering that he turned the ball over 7 times (5 INTS & 2 fumbles) in the final three games. I know they’re running game and run defense are arguably the best in the league but they also might have the worst passing game and they did have the worst pass defense. They might be all they’re cracked up to be but I just don’t see it yet.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on Jun 2, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

But if you remeber two of the Minn. games

Were an indication of bad officialism in the Lions game, when they called the catch in the endzone by their TE J. Kleinsasser I believe and the one miss wide open in the endzone against Dallas. If those two were caught they are a 10-6 team on their way into the playoffs. Did happen, Do not forget last year was Jacksons first real season as a full time starter not every QB can come into the league and shine right off the bat

* till next time wave those towels proud

by LiveinDCbutsteelerfanbyheart on Jun 2, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

If we're picking 5-team parlays...

Dallas Over, NY Giants over, Cincy Under, Jacksonville under, and Carolina over.

Carolina’s got an easy schedule. I think they can pull 8 wins. . I seriously doubt Jacksonville can pull 11 wins and I’ll risk the push at 10 given it’s much more likely they max out at 9 (Houston and Tennessee aren’t exactly easy wins).

I really want to take Arizona on the over. Arizona’s got a really easy schedule as well and if their entire team doesn’t get hurt in the first four weeks, I’m sure they can pull 8 out also (they would have done it last year).

by HinesField on Jun 2, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up 0 recs

bets

I think they’re giving too much credit to the AFC South. Houston could take a step forward with all the players they have on defense, but they need Schaub to stay healthy. Tennesse will take a step back this year, imo. I’d gladly take the under there. Jacksonville is overrated right now as well. Their front 7 isn’t what it was, and Harvey/Groves won’t make huge contributions right away. Don’t get me started on Garrard. Indy should dominate the division yet again – they didn’t have much turnover this year – and will probably make it to 12 wins. There’s just no way they win less than 11 unless Jim Sorgi sees some action, which makes it a pretty safe bet.

I like Minnesota, considering you just can’t run on them and Jared Allen should have an impact on the pass defense. They’re OL is great and they have 1.5 great RB’s. Quarterback, schmorterback.

I’ll also take even money for Baltimore to go 7-9, and better than even money for GB to win 9. There really is a lot riding on Rodgers, but he’s had a very graceful transition into the league and an awful lot of talent around him.

by BadMaafala on Jun 2, 2008 3:40 PM EDT 0 recs

the best bet are the Cowboys if PacRat is reinstated

and behaves himself as 14 or 15 wins is easily doable. Just way too much talent.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jun 2, 2008 4:19 PM EDT 0 recs

oh the talent is there no doubt

even with out Pacman, i think the Cowboys are one of the most talented teams in the league. I just like to see how they respond from the disappointing loss in the playoffs, and to see if Romo is the real deal as far as a Championship QB. If anyone could do it next it be Romo, then Cutler as far as the newer QBs go

* till next time wave those towels proud

by LiveinDCbutsteelerfanbyheart on Jun 2, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

dallas is a fine choice

Money’s terrible probably because they’re ‘America’s Team’ and hoards of people betting on them. For that reason I wouldnt take them in that division for that price, but 11 wins certainly would not be a surprise.

by Blitzburgh on Jun 2, 2008 4:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

Welcome back Terry

I was getting worried that you were taking the Romo-Simpson ‘on-again off-again’ relationship too hard. Keep your head up pal, he’ll find another hottie if he gets tired of that tail.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on Jun 2, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up 1 recs

lol

by Blitzburgh on Jun 2, 2008 4:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

to be honest cgolden

I’d rather Romo date a non celebrity although it probably won’t happen since he has rock star status already.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jun 2, 2008 9:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

Romo

Yea I figured most Cowboys fans would want them finally call it quits sometime before the season, but there’s still plenty of time. If her dad keeps trying to run Romo’s career, it could be sooner rather than later.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on Jun 3, 2008 12:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

NFC East

I would never bet on an NFC East team because the division is too evenly matched and erratic. Teams that “are too talented” regularly lose divisional games (who thought the Giants would pull off the upset or the Eagles would win a 10-6 game against them this year?), and someone is always ready to knock off last year’s leader. Their schedule does look pretty easy outside of the division, but I don’t think they’re winning 14 games this year or going better than 4-2 against that division.

by BadMaafala on Jun 2, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up 0 recs

yea

Agreed. I’d be reluctant to make any sort of predictions about that division. Giants could win between 6-11 games. Same with Eagles and Skins. Cowboys probably have smaller margin, but I’d still be reluctant to confidently peg them for more than 10-11 victories.

by Blitzburgh on Jun 2, 2008 5:25 PM EDT up 0 recs

"I’d be reluctant to make any sort of predictions about [NFC East]. Giants could win between 6-11 games. "

I already bet my boss from NYC $20 that the G-men would not make the playoffs. I thought that was a pretty good bet. I was not, however, willing to bet $20 that the Steelers would make the playoffs. Their schedule has tempered my expectations about the upcoming season.

"It was an attrition football game and you know we like that."

by showtime on Jun 2, 2008 7:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

id rather wager

Against Giants making the playoffs than vice versa.

by Blitzburgh on Jun 2, 2008 7:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

whoops

I mean wager on them NOT making playoffs

by Blitzburgh on Jun 2, 2008 7:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

Five Teams

Dallas Over
Cleveland Under
San Diego Over
Indiana Over
Chicago Under

BTW, this is the weirdest betting form I have ever seen. I’ve seen baseball where you win or lose different amounts based on team differences. Football and basketball simply even up team differences with point spreads, and then the bet is 110/100 to cover juice. This is the first time I have seen a mixture. You would think they would adjust all the win numbers to the point where every bet is 110/100. This is a first for me. Maybe I am too far removed from my youthful betting days to understand the new way of overcomplicating things.

by maryrose on Jun 2, 2008 4:39 PM EDT 0 recs

Chicago

That’s a good pick.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on Jun 2, 2008 4:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

Stuff like this...

...is more common on these weird bets that don’t attract a large pool of betters. There’s probably no good way of handicapping this so they make the spreads absurdly large to ensure they make money. I just checked another website and the lines/spreads were somewhat different, so there’s clearly no agreement here.

by HinesField on Jun 2, 2008 4:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

weird

A couple of comments seem to hav edisappeared. One from Rose, and one from me in response. Maybe it’s my browser though, not sure.

Is anybody else seeing a comment about how I thought these lines might be a reflection of all the real-time info available to the line makers compared to the old days?

by Blitzburgh on Jun 2, 2008 5:41 PM EDT 0 recs

Yes I saw that.

Alas, I had some other comments that were washed away in response

by maryrose on Jun 2, 2008 5:52 PM EDT 0 recs

yea, not sure what happened

Oh well.

by Blitzburgh on Jun 2, 2008 6:01 PM EDT 0 recs

My point that got washed

I understand the house always wants the same amount bet on both sides. This way they automaticaqlly get 10% with no risk. In the old days, you would always see odds or points but never both. In this case, San Diego is 10.5 (representing points) plus they are skewed toward taxing the over and rewarding the under (odds).

Years ago they would simply raise the number from 10.5 to 11 and then charge 110/100 or 120/100 since its is a special bet. By raising the number they would in fact balance the fulcrum so that equal bettors would line up on both sides, creating the automatic juice.

My point was that if you can arbitrarily adjust points (or win totals in this case), then you simply make that number the mid line where you think you will get money on both sides, so no need to tack on odds. I’ve never seen that before, but things do change.

by maryrose on Jun 2, 2008 7:37 PM EDT 0 recs