Vegas Odds Released

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/LVH-releases-2014-NFL-season-win-totals.html

Last year the Dolphins were at 7.5 wins with -135 on the Over and +115 on the Under. The Dolphins won 8 games.

This year the Dolphins are at 8.0 wins with +110 on the Over and -130 on the Under.

Essentially the Dolphins have gone from like a 7.7 to a 7.8. The glass half-full people will see that as the Dolphins having improved via Free Agency and the Draft. The glass half-empty people will see it as a line that expresses clear skepticism about the team's ability to even repeat last year's 8-8 performance, let alone improve upon it.

Vegas odds are interesting to me. As a market guy (my actual profession) I am bound to have a lot more respect for analyses and conclusions which directly lead to monetary consequences, as opposed to analyses by members of the media who face little to no consequence if they're wrong by a country mile.

The status of betting syndicates is such that one misstep in setting up the lines could result in very large negative financial consequences, even with $3,000 limits.

Can't say the same about some Football Outsiders writer who decides to stake out an unpopular position facing little to no consequence for being wrong.

 

I believe they can win 9 games under a certain set of circumstances. I believe the can do even better than that under a certain set of circumstances. For me a lot depends on wildcard factors:

1. What exactly does Bill Lazor bring from Philadelphia to Miami, especially with respect to the screen, option and ground game?
2. Does the pendulum temporarily swing the opposite direction with respect to Tannehill's super deep passes to Wallace?
3. Do the linebackers settle in and look like a different unit after a re-shuffling of responsibilities?

If the answers to those questions come out positive then we could be looking at 10-6 with a playoff berth. If they don't come out right then we could be looking at 7-9 or 8-8 again.

Of course the same can be said in the opposite direction too. There are wildcard factors that could lead to downside:

1. Does replacing Dimitri Patterson/Nolan Caroll and Chris Clemons with Cortland Finnegan and Louis Delmas do the same thing to the secondary that replacing Karlos Dansby and Kevin Burnett with Dannell Ellerbe and Philip Wheeler did to the linebackers unit? On the positive side, the linebacker swap resulted in 75% turnover by snaps whereas the secondary swap should only account for 42% turnover. On the negative side, the few games that Patterson did play he was a tremendous force accounting for 4 interceptions.

2. What injuries will they face? Depth is an issue everywhere on the OL and they have an injury prone left tackle in Branden Albert. If he goes down, who replaces him? Will it be a 3rd round rookie from the FCS? That has the potential to be a disaster regardless of how good you think Billy Turner will end up. Other backups at the guard position such as Sam Brenner and Dallas Thomas hardly inspire confidence. And who plays at center if there's an injury to Pouncey? The secondary has similar depth issues. Louis Delmas, Cortland Finnegan and Brent Grimes all have well documented injury issues in recent years and both Finnegan and Grimes are on the wrong side of the age marker for their position. Backups at corner (Will Davis and Jamar Taylor) are unproven and seem unstable. Backups at safety are not just unproven, they're guys that have made position switches (Jimmy Wilson, possibly Walt Aikens).

3. Does Miami have the same fire in pass rush as they did a year ago? On the plus side Dion Jordan should improve and get more opportunities. Also one would certainly HOPE that you get a full season out of Cameron Wake as opposed to Miami getting more like 60% of a season out of him. Then again, that 60% of the season we got from Cam Wake was at a ludicrous efficiency level that is not likely to be repeatable, especially not for an entire year. Olivier Vernon also had a sack count which far outstripped the norm for his pressure rate. Sacks are very important in impacting the outcome of a game. However sacks as a percentage of pressures are all but random, and I have immense amounts of data to back that up. Vernon's sacks as a percentage of his pressures was way above norm and if he just comes back down to median levels that could reduce his sack count by 4 sacks. Finally it seemed like Randy Starks and Jared Odrick had a bull year as far as rushing the passer goes. They collectively pressured on 9.9% of snaps. The two previous seasons they'd pressured collectively on 6.9% of snaps. That's a significant difference. If they revert to career averages that could be as many as 27 fewer pressures and as many as 4 fewer sacks. It all adds up. Perhaps the key will be how willing the coaching staff will be to put Olivier Vernon on the bench in favor of Dion Jordan, who is a more efficient pass rusher and could provide the upside that cancels out some of these downside pressures.

 

Stringer replied to this and his post is very relevant. What I will add to Stringer's post is BECAUSE of the presence of sharp money which more than negates "popularity" when you examine the actual methodologies of oddsmakers in developing their lines the question of what they think will be "popular" never even goes into it. They're just constantly developing and updating power ratings (not necessarily rankings, but power RATINGS) and then meshing them with schedule strength, homefield, etc. People like to think they're just trying to predict what will be popular but I have heard from people that actually do this for a living that nothing could be further from the truth.

The idea for them is to be right and be accurate, and then the 50 percent betting on both sides of the line will result from that. And if the betting heavily favors one side, in the long run they'll win so long as they're right and accurate.

 

You're still putting the cart before the horse though. And I am telling you right now the oddsmakers do not have some methodology set up to where they're estimating what the gamblers THINK will happen as opposed to what they think will happen, and then they set the odds according to what they think the gamblers think will happen. That's just bass ackwards. They're setting the odds according to their best models of what they think will happen, and expecting the gamblers to fall 50/50 on either side.

And what you're missing is that if the gamblers do not fall 50/50 on either side, then the question they're answering is whether they were sound in their judgment or not. If they believe they were sound in their judgment then regardless of where the gamblers fell they believe they will make out in the long run. This is because if the 50/50 mark truly were to be accurately set for example at -3.0 for the home team, yet 95% of the money is going to one side of that, then the book has a 50/50 chance of winning money or losing money. When you multiply that over thousands of props over time, the book actually benefits from wild public swings in one direction or another, so long as the book's odds were more accurate than the public's ideas of what will happen.

In short when they set their initial lines, they're not trying to fool the public or the sharps, they're not trying to estimate the public sentiment or the sharp sentiment, they're just trying to model what will happen in the accurate manner possible...and the positive results will flow from that.

They don't begin "equalizing" as you call it until the money begins to flow, and at that point they're just engaging in risk protection practices.

 

I am with you fully on the Giants and Broncos.

I am close on the Bucs. People know I've been strongly in favor of what the Bucs have been doing this off season but the disparity between the line (7.0) and their results in 2013 (4-12) is strong enough to give me pause. The Bucs would have to go from 4-12 to 8-8 for me to win that bet. That's one hell of a turnaround and I'm not sure I can bet on that kind of turnaround. In the end I might just steer toward easier targets.

Not sure about the Cowboys.

And I definitely won't be pounding the over on the Dolphins at 8 wins. In fact the Under is tempting me there. Stagnating head coach situation. Potentially stagnating QB situation. Potentially ripening division.

You know which team tempts me? The Bills Over 6.5. Laugh if you will. That's a tempting bet.

The Jaguars over 4.5 wins would be tempting if not for the -150 vig. Yikes.

I'm very tempted to pound the Under 7.5 on the Houston Texans. I do a double take on that one. What the what?

Carolina Over 8.0 looks tempting. I don't expect 12-4 but 9-7? Similarly because it's the same division, Atlanta Under 8.0 looks tempting. I think they're overplaying the idea that 2013 was just all Julio Jones and Roddy White being hurt. It wasn't, IMO.

Somewhat tempted to take Under 9.5 on the Colts. But that -150 vig is intimidating.

I could see taking a flier on the Under 9.0 for the Bengals. Good division, lost both star coordinators...stagnating QB situation.

 

Oh you said under on the Cowboys at 8 wins. Yeah I could see that. For all the reasons you do. This could be the year it all falls apart. There's one team in the division that could be coming into full flower (Eagles) and another team in the division that may have just taken a little pause to re-load a bit before resuming their normal winning ways (Giants). Vegas clearly buys (as do I) at least a partial rebound by the Redskins too.

 

Let me try and sort this...this is just for now before really thinking about it...

Houston Texans - Under 7.5 (-145)
New York Giants - Over 7.5 (-135)
Denver Broncos - Over 11.0 (-140)
Dallas Cowboys - Under 8.0 (-110)
Jacksonville Jaguars - Over 4.5 (-150)
Atlanta Falcons - Under 8.0 (+110)
Carolina Panthers - Over 8.0 (-130)
Cincinnati Bengals - Under 9.0 (+115)
Baltimore Ravens - Over 8.5 (-130)
Buffalo Bills - Over 6.5 (-130)
Miami Dolphins - Under 8.0 (-130)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Over 7.0 (-120)

 

I know but it's one thing to say "I wouldn't be surprised" by 8-8 or better. It's another to sit here and say...if they don't go 8-8 I don't get any money, and be OK with that.

 

I mean I get the sentiment toward a rebound with the Carolina Panthers but DAMN...I mean 12-4 down to 7-9? Because they have to go 7-9 for you to lose money on that Over bet. It's truly confusing. Cam Newton represents such a large part of that offense that the losses don't really bother me like they would on other teams. Luke Kuechly and the defensive line have that defense humming.

The Texans one is TRULY baffling the more I think about it. They have to go 8-8 for me to lose. Really? They were 2-14!!! Even IF there was a rebound, and I'm sure there will be, they could easily fall short of 8-8. I like Ryan Fitzpatrick more than a lot of people do...but damn.

 

Mike Mitchell was nice...but let's be honest, losing a Mike Mitchell in an off season shouldn't affect betting strategies.

(editing post 17 more times)

 

I don't really know anything about units. I just pick them out and then I win or I lose. Last year I went strictly highest conviction with the Lions Under, the Cardinals Over and the Broncos Over...had no special units assigned. Equal all around. Won all three. Year before I had some higher conviction with more "units" and then a few lower conviction picks with lower "units". Won all the higher conviction ones and came out slightly ahead on the lower conviction ones.

This year there are enough that speak to me that I'm probably gonna steer toward the high conviction/low conviction course...with perhaps a top 3 or top 5 representing high conviction.

But I may change my mind and then just pick the 3 or 4 that speak most to me, go higher units on those and leave off the rest.