Stanford -2.5 over WSU for openers.
Vegas has more faith in your team than you do
Stanford -2.5 over WSU for openers.
10-21-2018, 02:36 PM
Color me surprised; I thought for sure that WSU would be favored, even factoring home field advantage, and thought a TD margin was a reasonable expectation.
BC
BC
Color me surprised; I thought for sure that WSU would be favored, even factoring home field advantage, and thought a TD margin was a reasonable expectation.
BC
BC
10-21-2018, 02:40 PM
I'm fairly certain Vegas is factoring in an expected Cougar letdown after such an insanely emotional win at home vs. Oregon.
I'm fairly certain Vegas is factoring in an expected Cougar letdown after such an insanely emotional win at home vs. Oregon.
10-21-2018, 02:44 PM
Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.
I think that line will move pretty quickly. Plenty of Wazzu money will take those points.
Let's see what Shaw says about injuries on Tues. Bryce's availability is a big deal (as it always is).
I think that line will move pretty quickly. Plenty of Wazzu money will take those points.
Let's see what Shaw says about injuries on Tues. Bryce's availability is a big deal (as it always is).
Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.
I think that line will move pretty quickly. Plenty of Wazzu money will take those points.
Let's see what Shaw says about injuries on Tues. Bryce's availability is a big deal (as it always is).
I think that line will move pretty quickly. Plenty of Wazzu money will take those points.
Let's see what Shaw says about injuries on Tues. Bryce's availability is a big deal (as it always is).
10-21-2018, 03:23 PM
(10-21-2018, 02:44 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.
People always say this, but this is the wrong sophisticated take, IMO. Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)
(10-21-2018, 02:44 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.
People always say this, but this is the wrong sophisticated take, IMO. Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)
10-21-2018, 03:51 PM
FWIW, ESPN Football Power Index gives us a 64% chance of winning. To the degree Vegas relies on the same kinds of metrics ESPN does, the stats suggest we should win. Stats, meet Shaw Stubbornness. May the most unyielding force win...
FWIW, ESPN Football Power Index gives us a 64% chance of winning. To the degree Vegas relies on the same kinds of metrics ESPN does, the stats suggest we should win. Stats, meet Shaw Stubbornness. May the most unyielding force win...
10-21-2018, 05:18 PM
(10-21-2018, 02:44 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Let's see what Shaw says about injuries on Tues. Bryce's availability is a big deal (as it always is).
A defense always has to take into account Bryce's explosiveness when he is on the field, but we have not demonstrated the ability to open holes at the line. JJAW, the tight ends, and Costello will be more of a factor.
(10-21-2018, 02:44 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Let's see what Shaw says about injuries on Tues. Bryce's availability is a big deal (as it always is).
A defense always has to take into account Bryce's explosiveness when he is on the field, but we have not demonstrated the ability to open holes at the line. JJAW, the tight ends, and Costello will be more of a factor.
10-21-2018, 05:24 PM
I don't follow gambling lines closely, but apparently WSU has beaten the spread in every game its played this year.
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-foot...gton-state
That seems quite remarkable to me, although I'm not quite sure how that fact affects the line set by Vegas.
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-foot...gton-state
That seems quite remarkable to me, although I'm not quite sure how that fact affects the line set by Vegas.
I don't follow gambling lines closely, but apparently WSU has beaten the spread in every game its played this year.
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-foot...gton-state
That seems quite remarkable to me, although I'm not quite sure how that fact affects the line set by Vegas.
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-foot...gton-state
That seems quite remarkable to me, although I'm not quite sure how that fact affects the line set by Vegas.
BIt’s hard to predict this game. WSU has played 5 home games. Only tough road game was SC. They lost. Stanford plays a different style obviously, so it’s a game of tempo and who controls the game.
Key to defending WSU is to tackle well, avoid big plays, make them sustain long drives. The QB is darn good. They are going to move the ball.
I have no feel for how good their defense is. And frankly I got nothing watching the little bit of the Oregon game that I did. Simply put, Oregon was not ready to play that game early on. I think the fact that of the first five snaps they had false starts on four of them was pretty much a dead giveaway.
One thing I will say – Stanford better start the game better than they have or they’re going to find themselves behind 21 to nothing before they know what the hell happened. You cannot let a team like WSU get into a rhythm offensely and get back on the field after three and outs.
Key to defending WSU is to tackle well, avoid big plays, make them sustain long drives. The QB is darn good. They are going to move the ball.
I have no feel for how good their defense is. And frankly I got nothing watching the little bit of the Oregon game that I did. Simply put, Oregon was not ready to play that game early on. I think the fact that of the first five snaps they had false starts on four of them was pretty much a dead giveaway.
One thing I will say – Stanford better start the game better than they have or they’re going to find themselves behind 21 to nothing before they know what the hell happened. You cannot let a team like WSU get into a rhythm offensely and get back on the field after three and outs.
BIt’s hard to predict this game. WSU has played 5 home games. Only tough road game was SC. They lost. Stanford plays a different style obviously, so it’s a game of tempo and who controls the game.
Key to defending WSU is to tackle well, avoid big plays, make them sustain long drives. The QB is darn good. They are going to move the ball.
I have no feel for how good their defense is. And frankly I got nothing watching the little bit of the Oregon game that I did. Simply put, Oregon was not ready to play that game early on. I think the fact that of the first five snaps they had false starts on four of them was pretty much a dead giveaway.
One thing I will say – Stanford better start the game better than they have or they’re going to find themselves behind 21 to nothing before they know what the hell happened. You cannot let a team like WSU get into a rhythm offensely and get back on the field after three and outs.
Key to defending WSU is to tackle well, avoid big plays, make them sustain long drives. The QB is darn good. They are going to move the ball.
I have no feel for how good their defense is. And frankly I got nothing watching the little bit of the Oregon game that I did. Simply put, Oregon was not ready to play that game early on. I think the fact that of the first five snaps they had false starts on four of them was pretty much a dead giveaway.
One thing I will say – Stanford better start the game better than they have or they’re going to find themselves behind 21 to nothing before they know what the hell happened. You cannot let a team like WSU get into a rhythm offensely and get back on the field after three and outs.
10-21-2018, 06:18 PM
Here's a nice webpage that ranks the accuracy (to date this year) of the various computer and other handicapping systems.
http://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php
If the page is to be believed, ESPN's FPI is having a great year in second place overall, in terms of picking winners, better than Vegas and better than Sagarin.
You can usually predict the spread within a point or two by looking at the Sagarin ratings (and his rating are published early Sunday). This week's Vegas spread is right in line with Sagarin, for example.
The Vegas midweek line falls almost in the middle this year between Sagirin's Golden Mean and Sagarin's Points rating, in terms of picking the winner. That said, all of the aforementioned systems favor Stanford to win over the amorous older ladies this Saturday.
After the umpteeth run up middle for no gain, it's easy for us humans to forget how much talent is on this team. Long live regression analysis!
http://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php
If the page is to be believed, ESPN's FPI is having a great year in second place overall, in terms of picking winners, better than Vegas and better than Sagarin.
You can usually predict the spread within a point or two by looking at the Sagarin ratings (and his rating are published early Sunday). This week's Vegas spread is right in line with Sagarin, for example.
The Vegas midweek line falls almost in the middle this year between Sagirin's Golden Mean and Sagarin's Points rating, in terms of picking the winner. That said, all of the aforementioned systems favor Stanford to win over the amorous older ladies this Saturday.
After the umpteeth run up middle for no gain, it's easy for us humans to forget how much talent is on this team. Long live regression analysis!
Here's a nice webpage that ranks the accuracy (to date this year) of the various computer and other handicapping systems.
http://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php
If the page is to be believed, ESPN's FPI is having a great year in second place overall, in terms of picking winners, better than Vegas and better than Sagarin.
You can usually predict the spread within a point or two by looking at the Sagarin ratings (and his rating are published early Sunday). This week's Vegas spread is right in line with Sagarin, for example.
The Vegas midweek line falls almost in the middle this year between Sagirin's Golden Mean and Sagarin's Points rating, in terms of picking the winner. That said, all of the aforementioned systems favor Stanford to win over the amorous older ladies this Saturday.
After the umpteeth run up middle for no gain, it's easy for us humans to forget how much talent is on this team. Long live regression analysis!
http://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php
If the page is to be believed, ESPN's FPI is having a great year in second place overall, in terms of picking winners, better than Vegas and better than Sagarin.
You can usually predict the spread within a point or two by looking at the Sagarin ratings (and his rating are published early Sunday). This week's Vegas spread is right in line with Sagarin, for example.
The Vegas midweek line falls almost in the middle this year between Sagirin's Golden Mean and Sagarin's Points rating, in terms of picking the winner. That said, all of the aforementioned systems favor Stanford to win over the amorous older ladies this Saturday.
After the umpteeth run up middle for no gain, it's easy for us humans to forget how much talent is on this team. Long live regression analysis!
10-21-2018, 06:36 PM
Sagarin actually shows us as 2.93 points favorites, thanks to the 2.47 home bump.
I'm very worried about this game but hoping for a WSU let down. And we did get some rushing yardage against ASU. Still, I've really LOVE to see Shaw start the game with our two minute drill. It has been really solid all season and it certainly would surprise everyone. Hell, why not? (Yeah, I know....)
I'm very worried about this game but hoping for a WSU let down. And we did get some rushing yardage against ASU. Still, I've really LOVE to see Shaw start the game with our two minute drill. It has been really solid all season and it certainly would surprise everyone. Hell, why not? (Yeah, I know....)
Sagarin actually shows us as 2.93 points favorites, thanks to the 2.47 home bump.
I'm very worried about this game but hoping for a WSU let down. And we did get some rushing yardage against ASU. Still, I've really LOVE to see Shaw start the game with our two minute drill. It has been really solid all season and it certainly would surprise everyone. Hell, why not? (Yeah, I know....)
I'm very worried about this game but hoping for a WSU let down. And we did get some rushing yardage against ASU. Still, I've really LOVE to see Shaw start the game with our two minute drill. It has been really solid all season and it certainly would surprise everyone. Hell, why not? (Yeah, I know....)
10-21-2018, 07:52 PM
Vegas certainly does have faith in us.
i think it's going to come down to turnovers. if we get 2 or 3 of those, we just might pull it off......
i think it's going to come down to turnovers. if we get 2 or 3 of those, we just might pull it off......
Cal delenda est
10-21-2018, 08:15 PM
first post on this thread says 2.5, which is close but 3.0 is closer. Still, either one shows faith in Sagarin (or convergent evolution).
(10-21-2018, 03:23 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: [Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)
Well, a successful sports gambler knows when to ignore public opinion --- but let's take this out of the realm of spreads, moneylines, underlays, overlays, parlays and teasers for a minute. We know from both sides of the coin (i.e. Oregon and Utah) that turnovers and mistakes can make all the difference in a close game. When Costello threw that pick six, it was a 14-point swing. A missed field goal is a 3-point swing. Lots of other single plays are in-between in terms of impact. A 2.5-point spread is really insignificant when you consider that any given "break" can push the outcome to one side or another. But of course, that's why it's gambling.
The spread doesn’t reflect who “Vegas” thinks will win. It reflects how “Vegas” thinks the public would bet. With all due respect, anyone who doesn’t believe that the spread reflects a need to balance bets from the public, doesn’t know how bookies and sports books make money, which is basically set up to be at around 9% of every two bets they take, with $20 paid out for every $22 wagered.
If we want to get back to statistics, there have been a lot of studies and analyses run that show a 2.5 to 3-pt spread is basically a coin flip when it comes to who wins the bet, but that the favorite wins the game (regardless of the spread) about 56% of the time. In our case, that number isn't high enough to give me a real warm and fuzzy feeling about us beating the Cougs. And it doesn't include the questions of if our OL will get it together, or if Bryce is indeed healthy -- both of which will greatly influence the outcome.
(10-21-2018, 03:23 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: [Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)
Well, a successful sports gambler knows when to ignore public opinion --- but let's take this out of the realm of spreads, moneylines, underlays, overlays, parlays and teasers for a minute. We know from both sides of the coin (i.e. Oregon and Utah) that turnovers and mistakes can make all the difference in a close game. When Costello threw that pick six, it was a 14-point swing. A missed field goal is a 3-point swing. Lots of other single plays are in-between in terms of impact. A 2.5-point spread is really insignificant when you consider that any given "break" can push the outcome to one side or another. But of course, that's why it's gambling.
The spread doesn’t reflect who “Vegas” thinks will win. It reflects how “Vegas” thinks the public would bet. With all due respect, anyone who doesn’t believe that the spread reflects a need to balance bets from the public, doesn’t know how bookies and sports books make money, which is basically set up to be at around 9% of every two bets they take, with $20 paid out for every $22 wagered.
If we want to get back to statistics, there have been a lot of studies and analyses run that show a 2.5 to 3-pt spread is basically a coin flip when it comes to who wins the bet, but that the favorite wins the game (regardless of the spread) about 56% of the time. In our case, that number isn't high enough to give me a real warm and fuzzy feeling about us beating the Cougs. And it doesn't include the questions of if our OL will get it together, or if Bryce is indeed healthy -- both of which will greatly influence the outcome.
10-22-2018, 11:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-22-2018, 11:36 AM by StanfordMatt.)
(10-21-2018, 03:23 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote:(10-21-2018, 02:44 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.
People always say this, but this is the wrong sophisticated take, IMO. Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)
100% accurate. People get too caught up in the distinction between Vegas lines being a prediction of outcomes as opposed to an attempt at drawing an equal amount of bets on each side. In most cases, the two are one in the same. In cases where there is a discrepancy and public money gravitates towards one side, a book will often hold its line steady regardless because it has confidence in its number.
(This post was last modified: 10-22-2018, 11:36 AM by StanfordMatt.)
(10-21-2018, 03:23 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote:(10-21-2018, 02:44 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.
People always say this, but this is the wrong sophisticated take, IMO. Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)
100% accurate. People get too caught up in the distinction between Vegas lines being a prediction of outcomes as opposed to an attempt at drawing an equal amount of bets on each side. In most cases, the two are one in the same. In cases where there is a discrepancy and public money gravitates towards one side, a book will often hold its line steady regardless because it has confidence in its number.
10-22-2018, 11:37 AM
Keep in mind:
1. We have had 2 more days of rest than the Cougs
2. Homecoming; the crowd SHOULD be large and excited
3. Cougs' second road game of the entire year
Those all said, I think Stanford -2.5 sounds about right.
1. We have had 2 more days of rest than the Cougs
2. Homecoming; the crowd SHOULD be large and excited
3. Cougs' second road game of the entire year
Those all said, I think Stanford -2.5 sounds about right.
10-22-2018, 11:44 AM
(10-21-2018, 10:51 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:I am not sure that Bryce's health is that important to us winning. I could actually argue that this year we are better off without Bryce as the presence of Bryce causes our play calling to run him into a stacked box with little success. Without Bryce, our coach calls more plays that are more likely to result in more yardage than Bryce is getting with our current OL.(10-21-2018, 03:23 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: [Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)
Well, a successful sports gambler knows when to ignore public opinion --- but let's take this out of the realm of spreads, moneylines, underlays, overlays, parlays and teasers for a minute. We know from both sides of the coin (i.e. Oregon and Utah) that turnovers and mistakes can make all the difference in a close game. When Costello threw that pick six, it was a 14-point swing. A missed field goal is a 3-point swing. Lots of other single plays are in-between in terms of impact. A 2.5-point spread is really insignificant when you consider that any given "break" can push the outcome to one side or another. But of course, that's why it's gambling.
The spread doesn’t reflect who “Vegas” thinks will win. It reflects how “Vegas” thinks the public would bet. With all due respect, anyone who doesn’t believe that the spread reflects a need to balance bets from the public, doesn’t know how bookies and sports books make money, which is basically set up to be at around 9% of every two bets they take, with $20 paid out for every $22 wagered.
If we want to get back to statistics, there have been a lot of studies and analyses run that show a 2.5 to 3-pt spread is basically a coin flip when it comes to who wins the bet, but that the favorite wins the game (regardless of the spread) about 56% of the time. In our case, that number isn't high enough to give me a real warm and fuzzy feeling about us beating the Cougs. And it doesn't include the questions of if our OL will get it together, or if Bryce is indeed healthy -- both of which will greatly influence the outcome.
(10-21-2018, 10:51 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:I am not sure that Bryce's health is that important to us winning. I could actually argue that this year we are better off without Bryce as the presence of Bryce causes our play calling to run him into a stacked box with little success. Without Bryce, our coach calls more plays that are more likely to result in more yardage than Bryce is getting with our current OL.(10-21-2018, 03:23 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: [Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)
Well, a successful sports gambler knows when to ignore public opinion --- but let's take this out of the realm of spreads, moneylines, underlays, overlays, parlays and teasers for a minute. We know from both sides of the coin (i.e. Oregon and Utah) that turnovers and mistakes can make all the difference in a close game. When Costello threw that pick six, it was a 14-point swing. A missed field goal is a 3-point swing. Lots of other single plays are in-between in terms of impact. A 2.5-point spread is really insignificant when you consider that any given "break" can push the outcome to one side or another. But of course, that's why it's gambling.
The spread doesn’t reflect who “Vegas” thinks will win. It reflects how “Vegas” thinks the public would bet. With all due respect, anyone who doesn’t believe that the spread reflects a need to balance bets from the public, doesn’t know how bookies and sports books make money, which is basically set up to be at around 9% of every two bets they take, with $20 paid out for every $22 wagered.
If we want to get back to statistics, there have been a lot of studies and analyses run that show a 2.5 to 3-pt spread is basically a coin flip when it comes to who wins the bet, but that the favorite wins the game (regardless of the spread) about 56% of the time. In our case, that number isn't high enough to give me a real warm and fuzzy feeling about us beating the Cougs. And it doesn't include the questions of if our OL will get it together, or if Bryce is indeed healthy -- both of which will greatly influence the outcome.
10-22-2018, 11:46 AM
Their defense is unusual.
For starters, it's very small. Addicted to Quack put it well: "Their defense often looks like a bunch of safeties running around."
They play a game-long nickel. Think two DEs, three OLBs, one ILB, and five defensive backs.
Like everyone else on their defense, their DBs are small. And their corners are what you'd expect from a team that takes the corner backs that the other Pac 12 teams pass on recruiting.
They get a terrific pass rush and lots of tackles for loss. They can put you behind the chains fast, for the added reason that their stemming before the snaps often produces false starts.
Because they're small, you can run at them. We certainly will try.
For starters, it's very small. Addicted to Quack put it well: "Their defense often looks like a bunch of safeties running around."
They play a game-long nickel. Think two DEs, three OLBs, one ILB, and five defensive backs.
Like everyone else on their defense, their DBs are small. And their corners are what you'd expect from a team that takes the corner backs that the other Pac 12 teams pass on recruiting.
They get a terrific pass rush and lots of tackles for loss. They can put you behind the chains fast, for the added reason that their stemming before the snaps often produces false starts.
Because they're small, you can run at them. We certainly will try.
Their defense is unusual.
For starters, it's very small. Addicted to Quack put it well: "Their defense often looks like a bunch of safeties running around."
They play a game-long nickel. Think two DEs, three OLBs, one ILB, and five defensive backs.
Like everyone else on their defense, their DBs are small. And their corners are what you'd expect from a team that takes the corner backs that the other Pac 12 teams pass on recruiting.
They get a terrific pass rush and lots of tackles for loss. They can put you behind the chains fast, for the added reason that their stemming before the snaps often produces false starts.
Because they're small, you can run at them. We certainly will try.
For starters, it's very small. Addicted to Quack put it well: "Their defense often looks like a bunch of safeties running around."
They play a game-long nickel. Think two DEs, three OLBs, one ILB, and five defensive backs.
Like everyone else on their defense, their DBs are small. And their corners are what you'd expect from a team that takes the corner backs that the other Pac 12 teams pass on recruiting.
They get a terrific pass rush and lots of tackles for loss. They can put you behind the chains fast, for the added reason that their stemming before the snaps often produces false starts.
Because they're small, you can run at them. We certainly will try.
10-22-2018, 12:24 PM
(10-22-2018, 11:44 AM)donkey687 Wrote: I am not sure that Bryce's health is that important to us winning. I could actually argue that this year we are better off without Bryce as the presence of Bryce causes our play calling to run him into a stacked box with little success. Without Bryce, our coach calls more plays that are more likely to result in more yardage than Bryce is getting with our current OL.Yes, this reminds me of 2014, when our entire offense was about getting Ty Montgomery the ball. Ty got injured before our final regular season game against top-ten UCLA, and everyone was predicting a disaster. The opposite happened. Hogan was forced to use multiple weapons that nobody had game-planned for; and we ambushed the Bruins in the Rose Bowl, knocking them out of the South Division race.
That said, Shaw has already shown that, when Love is unavailable, he just rams the next back up into the same D-line buzz-saw. Not sure Love's absence will dramatically alter our offensive schemes.
(10-22-2018, 11:44 AM)donkey687 Wrote: I am not sure that Bryce's health is that important to us winning. I could actually argue that this year we are better off without Bryce as the presence of Bryce causes our play calling to run him into a stacked box with little success. Without Bryce, our coach calls more plays that are more likely to result in more yardage than Bryce is getting with our current OL.Yes, this reminds me of 2014, when our entire offense was about getting Ty Montgomery the ball. Ty got injured before our final regular season game against top-ten UCLA, and everyone was predicting a disaster. The opposite happened. Hogan was forced to use multiple weapons that nobody had game-planned for; and we ambushed the Bruins in the Rose Bowl, knocking them out of the South Division race.
That said, Shaw has already shown that, when Love is unavailable, he just rams the next back up into the same D-line buzz-saw. Not sure Love's absence will dramatically alter our offensive schemes.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »