Jump to content

Browns game must win?


kevinc855

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply
20 hours ago, kevinc855 said:

With Jaguars and Broncos in following weeks it seems me we need this. Even if not for wins and losses for the confidence of Sam as well. Jets need to show up Thursday 

They are all must wins.  They all count the same.

With that said, the general view here at JN seems to be "all bout Darnold" for 2018, so W/L don't matter.

If we want the 2018 season to have meaning in terms of post season, yes, Thursday is probably a "must win" from that perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Several points here. The initial line that I have seen is Browns -3. After considering a 3 point advantage for the home team, we can conclude that Vegas perceives the public view that these teams are equal.

And to that point, lines are not a prediction of team strength, but the betting public.s perception of the strength of the teams at that time. 

 

The line I saw had the Browns at -3.5

The initial line has more factored in than just a guess as to public perception. It has to say at least SOMETHING about the way the teams are presently constructed and performing on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gastineau Lives said:

The line I saw had the Browns at -3.5

The initial line has more factored in than just a guess as to public perception. It has to say at least SOMETHING about the way the teams are presently constructed and performing on the field.

I think it has more to do with the Browns are facing a rookie QB at home, than anything else. 

I think it's very possible even if the Jets squeaked out the win against Miami, Browns would be favored

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gastineau Lives said:

The line I saw had the Browns at -3.5

The initial line has more factored in than just a guess as to public perception. It has to say at least SOMETHING about the way the teams are presently constructed and performing on the field.

Common knowledge is that Vegas creates lines as a predictor of public perception of the teams, so that they try to get a 50/50 split on their bets, so they collect the vig.

And, the public at large has proven to be generally horrible at predicting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

GFY

WTH is your problem little Teddy? No one was addressing you and I was complimenting 2 other posters and don't see how you parlayed yourself and @$$hole comment to my post. 

Bad day at the office? Who twisted your tit, son? Show me on the doll. lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Common knowledge is that Vegas creates lines as a predictor of public perception of the teams, so that they true to get a 50/50 split on their bets, so they collect the vig.

And, the public at large has proven to be generally horrible at predicting.

Yeah, yeah I'm all over the vig. First bookie joint visit was at 15 years old.

But there is more than just public perception of teams at play.

" So besides thinking like the public, what do oddsmakers use to their advantage to beat bettors with their numbers? Well, they use computer algorithms and fancy math formulas to help generate a rough guess at what they should use for the opening line. They then use power rankings to crunch numbers and rank how the teams fare against each other in key stat categories. The key is releasing a number they hope will be right in the sweet spot where half the bettors will pick one team and half will pick the other. "

Like in the Giants - Pats superbowl. Their initial algorithm had the Pats as 9.5 pt favorites. They knew that the Pats were undefeated and they could inflate the number to -13, because of public perception.

I doubt anyone is perceiving the Browns as better than the Jets to a degree that it would change the betting line by much, if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

As I said. Public perception. We concur

No we do not. You intimated that it was SOLELY public perception as if on Monday morning they were conducting phone polls of all males aged 18-65 across the United States of America.

It is mind-boggling that you think you can get away with taking one sentence from an entire paragraph and try making your point with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gas2No99 said:

WTH is your problem little Teddy? No one was addressing you and I was complimenting 2 other posters and don't see how you parlayed yourself and @$$hole comment to my post. 

Bad day at the office? Who twisted your tit, son? Show me on the doll. lol.

It was a joke.

Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gastineau Lives said:

No we do not. You intimated that it was SOLELY public perception as if on Monday morning they were conducting phone polls of all males aged 18-65 across the United States of America.

You are being quite silly and contradicting your own post.

Simple questions here. Try to answer truthfully:

-Is Vegas's goal to achieve a 50/50 split on bets?

-Do you believe that the vast majority of bettors crunch numbers to make their bets, or bet on a hunch or feeling, based on the provided line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scott Dierking said:

You are being quite silly and contradicting your own post.

Simple questions here. Try to answer truthfully:

-Is Vegas's goal to achieve a 50/50 split on bets?

-Do you believe that the vast majority of bettors crunch numbers to make their bets, or bet on a hunch or feeling, based on the provided line?

You are as relentless as Scott Dierking was mediocre.

Where do you think they get the original line from? Are you saying that there is no math in it whatsoever? I'm saying there is both.

The original line for sure has some math in it. The adjustments after are based on public action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gastineau Lives said:

You are as relentless as Scott Dierking was mediocre.

Where do you think they get the original line from? Are you saying that there is no math in it whatsoever? I'm saying there is both.

The original line for sure has some math in it. The adjustments after are based on public action.

Wow, you really hurt me with that little statement. 

Debating someone that thinks that NFL lines are some representation of power rankings, despite all other evidence is a fruitless exercise.

Is this where I say something like 'Mark Gastineau was quite dumb as a player, and your posting represents that"? Tit for tat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Is this where I say something like 'Mark Gastineau was quite dumb as a player, and your posting represents that"? Tit for tat.

I feel left out.

"I wish you posted here only as long as Teddy Bridgewater was a Jet"

I'm going to need a new username.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Wow, you really hurt me with that little statement. 

Debating someone that thinks that NFL lines are some representation of power rankings, despite all other evidence is a fruitless exercise.

Is this where I say something like 'Mark Gastineau was quite dumb as a player, and your posting represents that"? Tit for tat.

YEAH!!!! Gastineau sucked!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Wow, you really hurt me with that little statement. 

Debating someone that thinks that NFL lines are some representation of power rankings, despite all other evidence is a fruitless exercise.

Is this where I say something like 'Mark Gastineau was quite dumb as a player, and your posting represents that"? Tit for tat.

LOL wasn't trying to hurt your feelings. I'm a writer. It sounded good.

Where, at 9am on a Monday morning does Vegas' perception of public perception come from? And again, you picked the one part of an entire paragraph, making that the ENTIRE post to suit your narrative. You play dirty. Let's take our balls and go home. You're giving me agita.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw that Bowles is 3-0 vs Cleveland & 20-30 against the rest of the NFL. And around here we call that progress. 

Im gonna step off the ledge & watch how Sam progresses. By the way I said Bowles compares to another coordinator turned loser coach we had in the past with a "I'm just smarter than you attitude" Bruce Coslet.

Todd Bowles (23-30, 0-0), Bruce Coslet (19-31, 0-1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Gastineau Lives said:

LOL wasn't trying to hurt your feelings. I'm a writer. It sounded good.

Where, at 9am on a Monday morning does Vegas' perception of public perception come from? And again, you picked the one part of an entire paragraph, making that the ENTIRE post to suit your narrative. You play dirty. Let's take our balls and go home. You're giving me agita.

I apologize for my comment, that was not meant to be that harsh. I am also a writer, but that did not come off appropriate.

Vegas gets their spreads from sharps, who understand trends and public betting trends, along with, yes, some idea of team strengths.

But, to suggest that Vegas "views the Browns as a better team than the Jets", based on a 3 point line at home, and that the line iss concrete evidence of that, is a fallacy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Gastineau Lives said:

They already won twice this year. With any average kicker, they win those games. So those that would laugh would show their ignorance. At them I laugh. I laugh loudly. HA!

so after two wins they are pretty much due for a loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

I apologize for my comment, that was not meant to be that harsh. I am also a writer, but that did not come off appropriate.

Vegas gets their spreads from sharps, who understand trends and public betting trends, along with, yes, some idea of team strengths.

But, to suggest that Vegas "views the Browns as a better team than the Jets", based on a 3 point line at home, and that the line iss concrete evidence of that, is a fallacy. 

 

So, you're either saying Vegas views the Jets as a better team than the Browns despite making the Jets a half point underdog (without the homefield advantage, which is what the post I responded to was basically saying - that the Jets were the better team)

or

Vegas does not view either team as better (which just reiterates what I mention above)

or

Vegas does not concern itself with which team is better, only what the sharps think the public thinks

What I really think happened here, where we went awry was: You never mention "some idea of team strengths" in your earlier responses, so either you are backtracking now by casually sliding it in or, despite the fact that you now mention it, you don't really believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jetster said:

I just saw that Bowles is 3-0 vs Cleveland & 20-30 against the rest of the NFL. And around here we call that progress. 

Im gonna step off the ledge & watch how Sam progresses. By the way I said Bowles compares to another coordinator turned loser coach we had in the past with a "I'm just smarter than you attitude" Bruce Coslet.

Todd Bowles (23-30, 0-0), Bruce Coslet (19-31, 0-1)

Much worse DC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...