Colts are Super Bowl favorites at 5-1.

[SteelCityColt]

For all those discussing the merits of rosters etc.... betting odds aren't directly linked to how good your team is, they just reflect were the money is going. By that definition "favourites" means the team that has had the most bet on it up to that point. 

 

It's like how insiders in horse racing will release "tips" to manipulate the market by encouraging people to bet on a horse to shorten it's odds (and lengthen the odds of others). 

[Caleb3502]

NE's D has gotten worse (so far, both teams are a long way from being done). Losing Revis is huge. Browner too. Wilfork?

Patriots so far have lost Vereen, Ridley is a FA, Wilfork might come back, and Revis and Browner both left.  Their starting CBs right now are Arrington and and Ryan.  They also signed WR Brandon Gibson to a 1 year 850K contract.  I think they'll be fine once they bring in a good CB.  

[superrep1967]

I just give them the edge cause they've smacked us every year since Andrew got here

And the first few times they didn't have that much of a good roster

Hilton was getting shutdown by guys like Arrington and Ryans before Revis & Browner came to town

Media can talk all they want about what the Pats loss, but bottom line long as #12 & Bill are there..... they have a chance to win it all

Yes I'll always give them the edge until we prove we can beat them. 

[pgt_rob]

Colts are Superbowl or bust.

[Smonroe]

Patriots so far have lost Vereen, Ridley is a FA, Wilfork might come back, and Revis and Browner both left.  Their starting CBs right now are Arrington and and Ryan.  They also signed WR Brandon Gibson to a 1 year 850K contract.  I think they'll be fine once they bring in a good CB.  

 

Yeah, I'm not saying they won't be good.  We all know they always find a way.  I was just saying that may be why we're ranked higher by Vegas - RIGHT NOW.  Also, everyone in their division seems to be improving a greater strides than them.

 

We know it's going to change when Free Agency quiets down, then the draft, and then the camps and preseason.   

 

It will be interesting to see the odds at the start of the season.

[ColtStronger]

For everyone still worried about our defense, Im pretty sure we can address every position needed in the draft for cheap!

[lollygagger8]

Seabirds > NE Cheaters 

[Valpo2004]

It's all decided on the field boys.  No matter what we look like on paper, if we wanna be the champs we gotta beat the champs.

 

I have a feeling that IF we are going to win the AFC title, we're gonna have to beat the Patriots in the playoffs.  

 

Until we beat the Pats, we are not the champs.  No matter what the odds say.

[IndyD4U]

I could really care less about what Vegas says. I kind of wish this was never reported...

 

I like being the sleeper, unrecognized, small market team

[Steamboat_Shaun]

Huh, go figure...I guess New England has gotten worse and we've gotten better. If I was a betting man I'd still give NE the edge though, since we haven't really addressed our lack of a run defense.

 

They don't have a secondary. Literally. They also have zero runningbacks since Blount and Vereen bailed. Their roster has gotten poached like no SB winner that I can remember in recent history.

[achcolts]

well there goes the 2015 season  

 

 

COLTS 2016 SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!!

[Gramz]

I personally prefer to be the underdogs.

[achcolts]

all jokes aside i cant wait for this season.

[lennymoore24]

I love the moves the Colts have made.  However, not to be a Debbie Downer, but I don't see how these moves change the Patriots running A and B gaps against us all day?  Hopefully with the draft we can add bit, physical, fast inside backer and another DLineman.  If we can get better in the middle, then I think we have it.

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

Cbssports also has a story on this subject I'm sure there are a few different views . IMO   The Patriots or Broncos are the teams to beat in the AFC & the Colts have to prove themselves . like Don Knotts says missed it by this much , were close the D-line has to be fixed before we can take a article like this serious .

 

Just because the Colts are the favorites at the MGM doesn't mean they're the favorite everywhere though.

The Seahawks and Patriots are 6-1 co-favorites to win Super Bowl 50 at the Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook, while the Seahawks and Packers are 6-1 co-favorites at William Hill.

At Bovada, the Seahawks are the sole favorite to win Super Bowl 50 with 5-1 odds. The Colts have 9-1 odds at Bovada, an improvement from the 14-1 odds they faced before free agency started.

If you're now wondering who the longest longshot is, the answer to that questions is Jacksonville and Tennessee. Both teams are facing 200-1 odds to win Super Bowl 50.

One of the most notable drop in odds hit the 49ers, who were listed at 16-1 in February, but have since dropped to 33-1.

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

Cbssports also has a story on this subject I'm sure there are a few different views . IMO   The Patriots or Broncos are the teams to beat in the AFC & the Colts have to prove themselves . like Don Knotts says missed it by this much , were close the D-line has to be fixed before we can take a article like this serious .

UH that was Don Adams

[Steamboat_Shaun]

For all those discussing the merits of rosters etc.... betting odds aren't directly linked to how good your team is, they just reflect were the money is going. By that definition "favourites" means the team that has had the most bet on it up to that point. 

 

It's like how insiders in horse racing will release "tips" to manipulate the market by encouraging people to bet on a horse to shorten it's odds (and lengthen the odds of others). 

 

Just to piggy-back on that, those 5-1 odds are ONLY at MGM, as an aggressive push to get recreational gamblers to bet on future long shots. All the other sport books in Vegas have Seattle as the favorite, Colts are at 5th or 6th at 9/1.

 

Here's a link explaining it: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/03/indianapolis-colts-super-bowl-favorites-not-seattle-seahawks-super-bowl-50

[BOTT]

No, we're not deserved. 

 

Patriots and Broncos (depends on Peyton's health) are still better.

Broncos aren't. people need to stop blaming that loss on his injury. Looked like the same pea shooter he has been working with since his neck surgery.

[weslo1812]

We're still behind the Pats and Seahawks in my opinion. We've not even come close to proving we can beat NE...yet.

[coltkingABC]

If the Colts get the No. 1 seed in the AFC, they can't beat the Pats at the AFC divisional/AFC championship game. If the Colts are the AFC's second or third seed, Patriots will likely defeat the Colts unless Luck and the defense play a real fight. 

[chad72]

We need the #1 seed so that the Pats and Broncos can duke it out in the #2/#3 spot and we play just one of them at home in the AFCCG.

 

Given the stakes, if we host the AFCCG, I am certain we will make it to the SB.

[Flash7]

The Colts will have a better passing game than NE and possibly Denver, however, both Denver and NE will have a better run game. I don't think that it has been mentioned enough how important it is to have an effective run game. NE bet us twice because of their run game and made it to the Super Bowl. The Sea Hawks made it to the Super Bowl because of their run game. 

 

This is an area that we must improve upon and Gore will be a step towards improvement.

[NewEra]

I don't think they are. I think we have a punchers chance. Hopefully they don't believe the hype. Which I don't think they will.

[dw49]

For all those discussing the merits of rosters etc.... betting odds aren't directly linked to how good your team is, they just reflect were the money is going. By that definition "favourites" means the team that has had the most bet on it up to that point. 

 

It's like how insiders in horse racing will release "tips" to manipulate the market by encouraging people to bet on a horse to shorten it's odds (and lengthen the odds of others). 

 

 

That's really not even close . The line is formulated by the books and then can be moved by too much money going on one side or the other. For this kind of a proposition bet , the books will go analyze the rosters and couple that the strength of the competition in their conference and come out with the odds you are now looking at. How they protect themselves against too much money going on what might be a bad line they put out is by moving it and also by collecting a lot of vig in theses kinds of bets. If you add up all the fractions ( like say NE is 5-1 and the Packers are also 5-1 .. add that and you have .4)and everything over 1 is vig. So if you added the fractions of all 32 teams , it would probably be something like 1.4 . That would mean they are collecting 40% vig on the total proposition.

 

I mean think about what your saying. How would the line even start if it was determined just by the money bet ? 

[BOTT]

That's really not even close . The line is formulated by the books and then can be moved by too much money going on one side or the other. For this kind of a proposition bet , the books will go analyze the rosters and couple that the strength of the competition in their conference and come out with the odds you are now looking at. How they protect themselves against too much money going on what might be a bad line they put out is by moving it and also by collecting a lot of vig in theses kinds of bets. If you add up all the fractions ( like say NE is 5-1 and the Packers are also 5-1 .. add that and you have .4)and everything over 1 is vig. So if you added the fractions of all 32 teams , it would probably be something like 1.4 . That would mean they are collecting 40% vig on the total proposition.

 

I mean think about what your saying. How would the line even start if it was determined just by the money bet ?

I think he is referring as to why the line has moved on the Colts. Not sure how much is moving this early, but seems they would move it if money was coming in on the colts.

[amfootball]

Broncos aren't. people need to stop blaming that loss on his injury. Looked like the same pea shooter he has been working with since his neck surgery.

Colts dominated him. They played him the way that has always frustrated him. They covered the slants and underneath, were on the receivers once they did catch it and forced him to throw outside the numbers. It was a beautiful defensive game plan and executed very well on top.

[dw49]

I think he is referring as to why the line has moved on the Colts. Not sure how much is moving this early, but seems they would move it if money was coming in on the colts.

 

 

I would think the line moved mostly due to the signings. Just like NE probably went down after they let browner go and revise moved on. They are going to adjust those odds to the relative perceived strength of their rosters . Just like if Brady broke his wrist , the line would go up on the pats. It doesn't need money to move it. He also said that the odds have nothing to do with how good a team is , it's entirely determined by how the money is bet. That really isn't how sports betting works. Yes money moves lines but not the way he described it

 

also it's not like horse racing either. There you have a pool of money and yes the favorite is the horse with the most money on it. The state and race track take their cut of the pool.. about 16% , and the rest is divided among the winning tickets. There is no law that says in sports betting that a book might be caring more money say on the Ravens at 25-1  to  win than maybe the Steelers at 20 -1. Is not that unusual for sports books to take a bath a long shots that have a lot of public backing. Has happened more than once.

[dgambill]

We probably were favorites in 2005...probably our most talented and complete teams we've ever had take the field in Indy. Yet we lost to pittsburg a team we were superior to. That said there is something about learning how to win.....toughen up etc....we could very well be good enough this year to win it all but who knows...maybe we have to learn a lesson and bring it back a grown stronger team like in 2006...or maybe this is our year....but one thing for sure....it won't be because Vegas put us there or because of what happened this last week....but will be because what we do in August preparing and growing as a team I imagine. A lot happens during a season...I expect a fun and exciting one....hoping for a healthy 2015!

[SteelCityColt]

I would think the line moved mostly due to the signings. Just like NE probably went down after they let browner go and revise moved on. They are going to adjust those odds to the relative perceived strength of their rosters . Just like if Brady broke his wrist , the line would go up on the pats. It doesn't need money to move it. He also said that the odds have nothing to do with how good a team is , it's entirely determined by how the money is bet. That really isn't how sports betting works. Yes money moves lines but not the way he described it

 

also it's not like horse racing either. There you have a pool of money and yes the favorite is the horse with the most money on it. The state and race track take their cut of the pool.. about 16% , and the rest is divided among the winning tickets. There is no law that says in sports betting that a book might be caring more money say on the Ravens at 25-1  to  win than maybe the Steelers at 20 -1. Is not that unusual for sports books to take a bath a long shots that have a lot of public backing. Has happened more than once.

 

I think betting must work a lot differently in the US... to your post yes agree the initial odds must be set somewhere by the bookies and they might go over under what a realistic gambling odds (not "true" odds) to encourage or discourage money on that bet. Past that though it's the money that moves the odds mostly, now I'd agree that roster moves etc. are probably what drives where the money goes. 

 

As for your horse racing analogy if a lot of public money goes on a 100-1 shot then it's odds will fall, simple as. You're right though that they often don't fall enough that if it does come in the bookies can get burnt. Famous example is Frankie Dettori's "Magnificent 7":

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/racing-the-day-dettoris-magnificent-seven-left-the-bookies-in-tears-417195.html

This is slightly more complicated in that people won mostly on accumulators rather than a series of straight up bets, you also have to factor in that you are able to lay bets at SP which further muddies the water. 

 

I will admit that bookie gambling isn't my topic of expertise, however if you ever want boring about Casino gambling (former Croupier) . 

 

There is a school of thought though that in a contest like the NFL or say the World Cup you should always have a low bet on the biggest outsiders as the bookies will often offer stupidly crazy odds to encourage bets and although they might not have a big chance of winning it's actually probably better than the odds offered. For example I'll have a low amount bet on the Jags/Titans/Bucs probably, not expecting to win but if they do.... 

 

Put it another way, I applied this theory to World Cups and Euro championships. I hit 18 in 2002 and can expect to probably live to say 70, so I can expect to see maybe 13 tournaments in my lifetime? Normally I'll have a low bet on the top 2 outsiders, say 5 units. That's 130 units in my lifetime, not a huge amount of money. However when one does come in.... like when I bet on Greece in 2004 at 250/1... then my return over a lifetime is crazy. 

 

Sorry for the waffle. 

[GwinnettColt]

We really won't know anything until February of 2016.

[JColts72]

Odds mean squat. I could have the Colts winning the Super Bowl in Madden.  

[jvan1973]

Odds mean squat. I could have the Colts winning the Super Bowl in Madden.

yes Madden is reality

[Warhorse]

For all those who know that we should not be the favorites.....here is your chance to make some easy cash...neh?

[dw49]

I think betting must work a lot differently in the US... to your post yes agree the initial odds must be set somewhere by the bookies and they might go over under what a realistic gambling odds (not "true" odds) to encourage or discourage money on that bet. Past that though it's the money that moves the odds mostly, now I'd agree that roster moves etc. are probably what drives where the money goes. 

 

As for your horse racing analogy if a lot of public money goes on a 100-1 shot then it's odds will fall, simple as. You're right though that they often don't fall enough that if it does come in the bookies can get burnt. Famous example is Frankie Dettori's "Magnificent 7":

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/racing-the-day-dettoris-magnificent-seven-left-the-bookies-in-tears-417195.html

This is slightly more complicated in that people won mostly on accumulators rather than a series of straight up bets, you also have to factor in that you are able to lay bets at SP which further muddies the water. 

 

I will admit that bookie gambling isn't my topic of expertise, however if you ever want boring about Casino gambling (former Croupier) . 

 

There is a school of thought though that in a contest like the NFL or say the World Cup you should always have a low bet on the biggest outsiders as the bookies will often offer stupidly crazy odds to encourage bets and although they might not have a big chance of winning it's actually probably better than the odds offered. For example I'll have a low amount bet on the Jags/Titans/Bucs probably, not expecting to win but if they do.... 

 

Put it another way, I applied this theory to World Cups and Euro championships. I hit 18 in 2002 and can expect to probably live to say 70, so I can expect to see maybe 13 tournaments in my lifetime? Normally I'll have a low bet on the top 2 outsiders, say 5 units. That's 130 units in my lifetime, not a huge amount of money. However when one does come in.... like when I bet on Greece in 2004 at 250/1... then my return over a lifetime is crazy. 

 

Sorry for the waffle. 

 

 

No question where the money goes affect odds but I think maybe you over stated that a bit when you said "or all those discussing the merits of rosters etc.... betting odds aren't directly linked to how good your team is, they just reflect were the money is going. By that definition "favourites" means the team that has had the most bet on it up to that point. "

 

I think if you look at these kind of odds for prop bets , you'll always see that the favorites have the better rosters. Yes money will move them some but to say that the roster has nothing to do with the odds is IMO an over statement. 

 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about . Lets say Indy opens as a 4.5 favorite over the Ravens. A 20 mill is bet on Balt and 7 mill is bet on Indy. They drop the line to 3.5 . The next 10 mill in bets is 7 on balt 3 on Indy. They drop the line to 3 . 6 mill come in on balt and 3 on Indy. The line then goes to 3. It then would take a whole lot to move the game under 3 as that is a big number in betting circles. So lets say that the money still comes in a little heavy on Balt. They probably stay at this # as they don't want to chance getting middled.

 

So with that example ( my money examples prob crazy ) you have all the money on Baltimore but the Colts are favored by 3 points. By your statement , one might think you would have Baltimore the favorite as all the money was bet on them. 

 

I think maybe you just over stated what is no doubt true ?

[SteelCityColt]

No question where the money goes affect odds but I think maybe you over stated that a bit when you said "or all those discussing the merits of rosters etc.... betting odds aren't directly linked to how good your team is, they just reflect were the money is going. By that definition "favourites" means the team that has had the most bet on it up to that point. "

 

I think if you look at these kind of odds for prop bets , you'll always see that the favorites have the better rosters. Yes money will move them some but to say that the roster has nothing to do with the odds is IMO an over statement. 

 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about . Lets say Indy opens as a 4.5 favorite over the Ravens. A 20 mill is bet on Balt and 7 mill is bet on Indy. They drop the line to 3.5 . The next 10 mill in bets is 7 on balt 3 on Indy. They drop the line to 3 . 6 mill come in on balt and 3 on Indy. The line then goes to 3. It then would take a whole lot to move the game under 3 as that is a big number in betting circles. So lets say that the money still comes in a little heavy on Balt. They probably stay at this # as they don't want to chance getting middled.

 

So with that example ( my money examples prob crazy ) you have all the money on Baltimore but the Colts are favored by 3 points. By your statement , one might think you would have Baltimore the favorite as all the money was bet on them. 

 

I think maybe you just over stated what is no doubt true ?

 

I get ya, maybe my wording was a bit too black and white. I guess I just meant I don't think they bookies go so in depth into the roster analysis like some were line in the topic if you get me?

[dw49]

I get ya, maybe my wording was a bit too black and white. I guess I just meant I don't think they bookies go so in depth into the roster analysis like some were line in the topic if you get me?

 

 

Agree and they have major vig to cover any mistakes. Not sure I posted in another post but they probably are working with 30 to 40 % vig on bets like this. If you just add up all the fractions , the number that is greater than 1 would be the % of vig. Other words if all the odds of the 32 teams added up to 1.32 , the sport books vig would be 32%. You agree ?

[SteelCityColt]

Agree and they have major vig to cover any mistakes. Not sure I posted in another post but they probably are working with 30 to 40 % vig on bets like this. If you just add up all the fractions , the number that is greater than 1 would be the % of vig. Other words if all the odds of the 32 teams added up to 1.32 , the sport books vig would be 32%. You agree ?

 

Oh yes, the bookies aren't dumb... they always cover themselves. It take rare exceptional circumstance for them to be out of pocket  

[GoPats]

That's not the point of this thread. It was meant to discuss whether or not being favorites is deserved.

 

Depends on how well Frank Gore and Andre Johnson tackle Blount. 

[GoPats]

They don't have a secondary. Literally. They also have zero runningbacks since Blount and Vereen bailed. Their roster has gotten poached like no SB winner that I can remember in recent history.

 

Vereen is gone but Blount is not. His deal last season was a 2-year contract. 

 

They've lost enough guys already, stop adding to the list, lol... 

[Superman]

Depends on how well Frank Gore and Andre Johnson tackle Blount. 

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the Pats aren't going to run over the Colts in 2015. I don't think it will happen. The Pats might win some other way, they might shut down our offense, they might find a way to move the ball in the air, etc., but I don't see another ground game bulldozing.