Home General
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Options

So what does Vegas think of UGA v ND?

ReeldawgReeldawg Posts: 971 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

Before the season began, odds were 2.5/3 in favor of ND. The odds for next weekend just came out.

ND is now favored by 6.5.

«1

Comments

  • Options
    BigGAdawgBigGAdawg Posts: 575 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    Gambler's odds are not the same as player's odds. Vegas type odds makers are only designed to motivate equal amounts being bet on each team.
    They only want to pay off the winners with losers money, not their own.

  • Options
    ReeldawgReeldawg Posts: 971 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited September 2017

    @BigGAdawg said:
    Gambler's odds are not the same as player's odds. Vegas type odds makers are only designed to motivate equal amounts being bet on each team.
    They only want to pay off the winners with losers money, not their own.

    That is true but Vegas (not me) believes that to get equal money on both sides, ND needs to give a td to UGA.

    Early odds; however, are misleading. There isn't a sufficient sample size to quantify an accurate number.

    UCLA was favored by 6 and they were destroyed for 3 quarters.
    Their comeback was a fluke. It took some really poor coaching to allow this sort of thing to happen.

    I watched both ND and UGA. Temple was horrible but they were gaining 5 yards easily in the run game. Just think what UGA would have done.

    Personally, I think oddsmakers are counting on the public to believe that Temple and App St. are equally talented teams. They are not. App St is the better team.

  • Options
    Palm_City_DawgPalm_City_Dawg Posts: 1,769 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I don't gamble (can't afford to with 5 kids) but if I did, I would take UGA and the 6.5 points!

  • Options
    DawgBonesDawgBones Posts: 2,193 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I'd think that will go even higher on some books. It's one of those games where a lot of the country (newbie bettors) will go with the Irish, kicking it up. Meanwhile over under looks to be right at 53 which would be a tough one, at least for me, to pick.

  • Options
    PTDawgPTDawg Posts: 2,169 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited September 2017

    Also not a gambler but I would be all over getting 6.5 pts with our D.

  • Options
    BoulderDawgBoulderDawg Posts: 721 ✭✭✭ Junior

    Well...I rarely, rarely bet on Georgia but this week I think I'll lay down a $100 if I can 6 points....maybe to win outright if I can get 2 to 1 odds....BTW...a word on odd makers.....these guys are the most unbiased people on the face of the earth...they don't care who is favored as long as they can get their 10%(more or less) off the top.

  • Options
    ReeldawgReeldawg Posts: 971 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @PTDawg said:
    Also not a gambler but I would be all over getting 6.5 pts with our D.

    Great point. Wimbush performed well but there wasn't the pressure that a good defense inflicts on an inexperienced qb.

    If I had to bet on composure for inexperienced qbs, I'll take Fromm.

  • Options
    Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 7,407 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @Reeldawg said:

    @PTDawg said:
    Also not a gambler but I would be all over getting 6.5 pts with our D.

    Great point. Wimbush performed well but there wasn't the pressure that a good defense inflicts on an inexperienced qb.

    If I had to bet on composure for inexperienced qbs, I'll take Fromm.

    I think we are #1 against the "pro-style" run but haven't seen us shut down a running QB yet. That scares me.

  • Options
    PTDawgPTDawg Posts: 2,169 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @Denmen185 said:

    @Reeldawg said:

    @PTDawg said:
    Also not a gambler but I would be all over getting 6.5 pts with our D.

    Great point. Wimbush performed well but there wasn't the pressure that a good defense inflicts on an inexperienced qb.

    If I had to bet on composure for inexperienced qbs, I'll take Fromm.

    I think we are #1 against the "pro-style" run but haven't seen us shut down a running QB yet. That scares me.

    @Denmen185 , think Roquan gets assigned to shadow Wimbush specifically or will we do something else scheme-wise to account for it?

  • Options
    bmauldinbmauldin Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @PTDawg said:

    @Denmen185 said:

    @Reeldawg said:

    @PTDawg said:
    Also not a gambler but I would be all over getting 6.5 pts with our D.

    Great point. Wimbush performed well but there wasn't the pressure that a good defense inflicts on an inexperienced qb.

    If I had to bet on composure for inexperienced qbs, I'll take Fromm.

    I think we are #1 against the "pro-style" run but haven't seen us shut down a running QB yet. That scares me.

    @Denmen185 , think Roquan gets assigned to shadow Wimbush specifically or will we do something else scheme-wise to account for it?

    It would be hard for me to take Roquan out of the other plays to shadow wimbush. I think you do shadow him, just not w Roquan.

  • Options
    bmauldinbmauldin Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I think a lot of it is like they say about in baseball when a slugger gets old "pitching to the back of the baseball card".

    They try to get people that have heard the Rockney stories and saw "Rudy" 4 times in the last 10 years to bet on the symbol that is Notre Dame.
    Imho.

  • Options
    ReeldawgReeldawg Posts: 971 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @Denmen185 said: I think we are #1 against the "pro-style" run but haven't seen us shut down a running QB yet. That scares me.

    They had three 100+ yard rushers last Saturday. One was Wimbush. I share your concerns.

  • Options
    Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 7,407 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @PTDawg said:

    @Denmen185 said:

    @Reeldawg said:

    @PTDawg said:
    Also not a gambler but I would be all over getting 6.5 pts with our D.

    Great point. Wimbush performed well but there wasn't the pressure that a good defense inflicts on an inexperienced qb.

    If I had to bet on composure for inexperienced qbs, I'll take Fromm.

    I think we are #1 against the "pro-style" run but haven't seen us shut down a running QB yet. That scares me.

    @Denmen185 , think Roquan gets assigned to shadow Wimbush specifically or will we do something else scheme-wise to account for it?

    The key will be better discipline by the OLB to force him to stay inside and run into our strength

  • Options
    amjadawgsamjadawgs Posts: 1,546 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @DawgBones said:
    I'd think that will go even higher on some books. It's one of those games where a lot of the country (newbie bettors) will go with the Irish, kicking it up. Meanwhile over under looks to be right at 53 which would be a tough one, at least for me, to pick.

    Respect your opinion sir, but I believe it will be down to -4 or -4 1/2 by game time Saturday. The difference between our defense and Temple's is night and day. I know we made a few mental mistakes this week, but I believe ND will have a much more difficult time putting up points on UGA. If Fromm plays within himself, we should still win this game.

  • Options
    amjadawgsamjadawgs Posts: 1,546 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    The "Knee-jerk" reaction to Eason not playing will come back to reality before Saturday

  • Options
    KingoftheSouthKingoftheSouth Posts: 570 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    It's already down to 6 some places. I think the right number is probably closer to -5 for ND, but I wouldn't touch this game.

  • Options
    amjadawgsamjadawgs Posts: 1,546 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @KingoftheSouth said:
    It's already down to 6 some places. I think the right number is probably closer to -5 for ND, but I wouldn't touch this game.

    If I did place a bet on this game, I would take UGA straight Moneyline right now, before it goes lower

  • Options
    ReeldawgReeldawg Posts: 971 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited September 2017

    It's down to 4.5 at most books.

    There are some keeping it at 5 and a few at 4 but most are at 4.5.

    Remember, home teams usually get 2.5-3 points for home field advantage.

    For those who may not know, the "moneyline" is a wager without the spread.

    So instead of taking UGA at -5 with the odds being -110 (betting $110 to win 100)

    you take them to win without any points (aka straight up) with odds being +170 (bet $100 and win $170).

  • Options
    KingoftheSouthKingoftheSouth Posts: 570 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    @Reeldawg said:
    It's down to 4.5 at most books.

    There are some keeping it at 5 and a few at 4 but most are at 4.5.

    Remember, home teams usually get 2.5-3 points for home field advantage.

    This is correct. I actually think the home field advantage is probably closer to 4 here. I think the line is dead accurate.

  • Options
    amjadawgsamjadawgs Posts: 1,546 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Home field/court is always -3 guys.

Sign In or Register to comment.