The Miami Dolphins covered their fourth straight game behind Ryan Fitzpatrick in Sunday’s Week 9 NFL action. But the difference this time around was that they won straight up.
The Fins’ 26-18 home win against the Jets (-3) was their first win of the season pushing them to 1-7. Later Sunday night, the Patriots would lose their first game of the season at Baltimore, 37-20, dropping them to 8-1. At the same time, two of the Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook’s Yes/No future props were answered and the house scooped up all the chips.
The interesting part about Week 9 was that all 11 home teams won outright, five of them underdogs, including Miami. along with the neutral site game in a London, a 26-3 Texans win against Jacksonville. Favorites went 6-6 ATS and the over was 8-4.
The SuperBook offered props on the two winless and two undefeated teams and whether or not the streaks would continue for the entire regular season. Will the Dolphins go 0-16? The No was favored at -900 with the Yes set at +600, and naturally, the action was all one-sided plus-money considering the Dolphins are the worst-rated squad and recent history shows that the worst-rated teams are capable of running the table for a perfect season such as the 2008 Lions or the 2017 Browns. For good measure, we can throw in the 1976 Buccaneers and the 1982 Colts.
So you say it’s happened before, so yes, here’s $100 on the Yes, and hundreds of smaller wagers like it bet the same way.
There weren’t many willing to lay the big price of -900 on the No with the Dolphins. It was the same story with laying No on the Patriots to go 16-0 in the regular season at -700. All they saw was the multiplier in odds at stretching a $20 bill into a $100 profit at +500. Greed is good except when betting Yes on something to happen that hardly ever happens. We have the 1972 Dolphins and the 2007 Patriots as being the last perfect teams in the regular season.
One of the more popular prop bets from Super Bowl wiseguy shoppers is laying No at -800 that a safety will happen. They work out the math and past trends and jump all-in laying the big price as value, except that a safety has occurred nine times in Super Bowls, including four since 2009. So why not lay -700 with the Patriots “No” and use better math to not go undefeated this season especially since their 8-0 start was against bad teams. Sunday’s loss at Baltimore was their lowest spread of the season.
Anyway, it’s all hindsight. Would’ve, could’ve, should’ve. I was just kind of baffled that play was so one-sided at the SuperBook with most casual bettors having gold-rush fever in their eyes with big prices. The small money all adds up large and keeps the odds down due to risk, daring smart money to lay the favorite price. I suppose some bettors that lay large favorites like betting against safeties and two-point conversions in the Super Bowl more with a broader market offering the same prop.
The SuperBook still has a couple of Yes/No props that survived in Week 9 with the 49ers moving to 8-0 Thursday in a 28-15 win at Arizona while Cincinnati stayed at 0-8 and didn’t lose because of a bye. Will the 49ers go 16-0? The Yes is +1500 while the no is -5000. Will the Bengals go 0-16? The Yes is +500 while the No is -700. Good luck with those.
This is the NFL where each team is loaded with the best football players in the world. They get paid by performance and they get their next job by how they looked on film. There’s no tanking like the NBA and any team can win on any given Sunday. The Bengals will have their day at some point like the Dolphins did and the 49ers will eventually lose as the Patriots did.
The biggest story on Sunday for Nevada sportsbooks wasn’t about the Patriots or Dolphins, but it was more about how the Green Bay Packers lost in front a stadium full of their fans at the Chargers’ home field in Carson, CA. The Cheeseheads were everywhere and the Packers got an unprecedented +1 for home field advantage to the number and the public was all in with them in most wagering strategies.
But the Chargers didn’t need the +4.5 and won outright, 26-11, which paid out +195 on the money-line at MGM books.
“It was a really good day,” said MGM Resorts sportsbook director Jeff Stoneback. “The Packers game turned out to be one of our best games of the season. Half of our win on the day was the result of the Packers losing. We had a six-figure wager on the Packers and also had them involved in a six-figure teaser, in addition to being one of the more popular teams this weekend on parlays.”
It sent the Packers to only their second loss of the season and dropped them to 6-3 against-the-spread. The actual score isn’t as indicative of how bad the Packers were beaten with Aaron Rodgers throwing for only 161 of their 185 total net yards.
With the Chargers win and Broncos (+4) beating the Browns, 24-19, at Mile High, the late game with the popular Patriots didn’t have any dynamite attached to it with parlay or teaser risk from the first 11 games.
“The Chargers and Broncos were the big winners for us,” said Station Casinos sportsbook director Jason McCormick. “The Raiders hurt (-2.5 in 31-24 win vs. Lions) and cashed a lot of tickets. We needed the Ravens, but it’s going to be a very solid Sunday even without them and it’ll be a great Sunday should they cover and win.”
There were a few books that actually needed the Patriots because of early Ravens large wagers while Patriots parlay risk was diminished.
“We had so much or our parlay and teaser risk eliminated by key teams in the afternoon (Packers loss) that we don’t have a lot of carryover risk into the Sunday night game,” CG Technology sportsbook director Tony DiTommaso said. “I don’t remember the last time I was able to put in a projected risk score with Patriots and over on a Sunday night game and show it as a winner for us.”
CG books took a few large wagers on the Ravens early in the week to drop from Patriots -4 down to -3, but they still won at a high margin on the day despite those bets. Packers to Patriots parlays and Packers to Patriots teasers all went down the drain for the majority of casual bettors.