Perfection

[treefrog]

Packers 16-0 +150.

I love it. The Packers do not have a serious threat talent wise the remainder of the way.

Remaining schedule

@NYG. Giants plagued by injuries and are playing non existent defense.

Oak- The Raiders have impressed but are clearly outmatched with a passing defense 19th in NFL.

@KC. Chiefs are another team that is playing better than expected given their injuries but not a formidable opponent even at home.

Chigago- Can not run effective offense with Haney under center. Worst passing defense in NFL.

Detroit-This game is only one that concerns me. I think the Lions are overrated but they would beat a 2nd string Packer team if they went the pussy route like the Colts.

Bottom line....the only thing stopping the Pack from regular season perfection is choosing to rest starters.

They go undefeated easily into Week 17. Then you can hedge if necessary depending on gameplan.

To me this is closest thing to easy money as there is in NFL...but on any given Sunday anything can happen obviously.

GLTA

 

[Glferboy21]

I am just curious because I haven't spent the time to look at it yet, but wouldnt you get much better odds GB on moneyline every game? Taking what ever you win the first game and putting that on the next game and keep doing that?

 

[Pound4Pound#1]

theyll rest their starters after they go 14-0 everything will be locked up...

 

[treefrog]

Glferboy21

You may have a good point, but I'm a small time better. Family, two kids, and do not even pretend to be a great capper, hence why I rarely post.

The +150 allows me to put a couple of hundred down knowing I have limited risk.

If I had the bankroll you would probably be right.

 

[eeeerock]

On the flip side the Colts could go winless and QB now Orlavsky(SP) was on last winless team Detroit,talk about feeling like a loser.

 

[treefrog]

Pound4Pound-

I agree with you that they will have everything locked up by Week 15.

I am just banking on them wanting to take a shot at history.

I will hedge in a heartbeat if they give any sign in the media that they are going conservative.

I guess the reason I love the bet is that none of these teams match up with them, and their coach isn't one who tends to play games with the media so it will be easy enough to get out of. I think they would still be a pick Week 15 with backups.

The bet is really on whether they try or not.

 

[treefrog]

Eeeerock-

I put 50 on Indy going winless at +175.

I think all the "Suck for Luck" stuff is garbage, but I think they have a shot at pulling off an upset against Tennessee, Houston, or especially Jacksonville.

After looking at the QB Sunday (in a rout) I may put more. Obviously losing to the Patriots will not change the odds.

At worst I could take Jags at a small premium that last week if needed.

 

[Glferboy21]

Ok so assuming each game is GB -300 for the next 5 games, and you were risking 200 total then if my math is correct then you would win a little over 200 if you took them on the moneyline for 200, then 200 + winnings on every game. So if this was the moneyline on every game then you made the right bet (you would win 300 vs my 200 calculation). I think the moneyline has to average -250 for you to be indifferent so we will see how it plays out.

Good Luck!

 

[Zamo]

Ok so assuming each game is GB -300 for the next 5 games, and you were risking 200 total then if my math is correct then you would win a little over 200 if you took them on the moneyline for 200, then 200 + winnings on every game. So if this was the moneyline on every game then you made the right bet (you would win 300 vs my 200 calculation). I think the moneyline has to average -250 for you to be indifferent so we will see how it plays out.

Good Luck!

Thats a really good point.... :0074 :0074

 

[treefrog]

Yes it is. Glferboy is wicked analytical. And I am the accountant lol.

 

[yyz]

Ok so assuming each game is GB -300 for the next 5 games, and you were risking 200 total then if my math is correct then you would win a little over 200 if you took them on the moneyline for 200, then 200 + winnings on every game. So if this was the moneyline on every game then you made the right bet (you would win 300 vs my 200 calculation). I think the moneyline has to average -250 for you to be indifferent so we will see how it plays out.

Good Luck!

Your math is wrong.


At $100 a game, and rolling, at -300 every game:


1) 100 wins 33
2) 133 wins 44
3) 177 wins 59
4) 236 wins 78
5) 314 wins 104

You end up with $428, which is far better than $250 you would get making the +150 wager.

I certainly understand not being able to do it this way, and if it's just a fun bet, that's fine.

But, from a money standpoint, rolling the straight wager would be a no-brainer.

 

[Woodson]

Ok so assuming each game is GB -300 for the next 5 games, and you were risking 200 total then if my math is correct then you would win a little over 200 if you took them on the moneyline for 200, then 200 + winnings on every game. So if this was the moneyline on every game then you made the right bet (you would win 300 vs my 200 calculation). I think the moneyline has to average -250 for you to be indifferent so we will see how it plays out.

Good Luck!

i was going to write thid.

enjoy the entertainment treefrog.


that is a fun bet that you will enjoy:toast:

 

[treefrog]

Thanks guys. I just wonder if the money lines would be -300 or less.

@ NYG is -280 (6.5 fave)

My guess on future lines....

Oak -10
@KC -14
Chicago -10 (depending on how they are playing)
Detroit -9- (if it were played today)

I guess my counter point would be that the average ML (if I could even get one for KC game through my book) would be around -400.

So 100 would win 25
125 wins 31
156 wins 39
195 wins 49
245 wins 61

for a total of $306 versus $250.

Still a better deal but contingent on how high the Chigago and KC spreads get with the injuries. If the Bears and Chiefs continue to look horrible this week and next than it could be even higher.

Thanks for the input! It definitely did put things in a different perspective.

If I had asked before placing the bet I would probably have placed the $200 on this weeks and next weeks ML and stopped.

$200 would win 66
$266 would win 89

For a total of $355 assuming -300. I would be making $155 in two games instead of $300 over five games and not having to worry about whether GB plays for an undefeated season.

Oh well..it had looked good after a couple beers...lol. :142smilie

 

[Zamo]

Your math is wrong.


At $100 a game, and rolling, at -300 every game:


1) 100 wins 33
2) 133 wins 44
3) 177 wins 59
4) 236 wins 78
5) 314 wins 104

You end up with $428, which is far better than $250 you would get making the +150 wager.

I certainly understand not being able to do it this way, and if it's just a fun bet, that's fine.

But, from a money standpoint, rolling the straight wager would be a no-brainer.

Thanks for clarifying YYZ....solid as usual! :0074