The numbers are in....

[Larry]

Vegas casinos lost 2.6 million on this years super bowl. The first time they have lost since 1995. And the MOST they EVER lost on a super bowl.

[vazman05]

:beerbang: :beerbang: :beerbang:

[JB]

Shows that the public was on NYG....
But my guess would be that the loss was real bad for the casinos due to NYG winning outright.

If they (NYG) would have just covered the line and not won outright I bet the books would have saved themselves at least a million bucks....would have still lost but not near as bad.

[JohnnyMapleLeaf]

:laughing:

[Stifler's Mom]

There was plenty of sharp money on NYG.

2.6 mil is really not alot of sharp money.

Normally the sharp money on the SB is offset by the public pounding the other side. Not in this case. I say the public was about split, and the money they lost was mostly smart $$, maybe a very small percentage public money.

NYG winning outright could have done nothing but help their cause, IMO, because it broke up a ton of NE teasers and parlays including the NE ML

[Jerbeek]

What they don't tell you is how much extra the casino made from fleecing all the ''so called winners" at the tables and slots. I don't think they will be turning the lights off in Vegas anytime soon - LOL!

[Larry]

More proof that the Giants were a huge public play. QN had the Giants plus the points and the ml:puke:

[The Mailman]

More proof that the Giants were a huge public play. QN had the Giants plus the points and the ml:puke:

Looks like Parker Bros. can slow down the presses on printing the monopoly money this year.

QN lives to see another year.

[Stifler's Mom]

LOL. QN's first SB winner ever probably.

Seriously though, the books dug their own grave with the Patriots in the super bowl. They blew out a whole lot of **** bag teams this year (just take a freakin look at the teams they blew out....all NOBODY'S/and or teams who were struggling at the time!!), and were VERY lucky to escape with wins against most of the better teams they played (at Indy who just fell apart late, vs NYG, a game in which without Eli's pick in the 4th qtr, NE probably loses by double digits, the AFC championship game vs SD where they were physically outplayed, but won cause SD couldn't get in the endzone, and even at Baltimore where they were whipped on, but won cause BAL sucked and the refs got flag happy on the last drive).

All proof that NE could be physically handled, hung with, and beaten....if you don't make the costly mistake when it counts.

NE without a doubt should have been favored in the super bowl, because they are still a very good team, had the SB experienced players, and had proven they don't beat themselves time and time again....but 2 touchdowns was just plain idiotic (IMO) for a team who hadn't blown out a good team all year and quite frankly, was lucky to even be in the super bowl, cause SD dug their own grave in the AFC championship game....NE sure didn't whip em.

I read articles with interviews from oddsmakers/bookmakers and such that said they actually expected an overflow of NE money at -14, and that they expected to have to move it up to coax NYG money. Guess they weren't watching the same 2 teams I was throughout the playoffs, but apparently the public was....for a change.

NE -7 would have been more than plenty

[Daws1089]

hypothetically, what do you think the spread would be if these two played for a 3rd time this weekend? Would the books get money on NE-4.5??

[Stifler's Mom]

I honestly think NE would be about -7. At that line, the sharps would probably shy away, while half of the public would see the super bowl as a fluke and still think NE is the best thing since sliced bread, while the other half would see the Giants just as they were in the first 2 contests....able to hang with NE to the end, no matter which way the game went.

The things that would scare me about playing NY at +7 if the game were played again this weekend are #1, revenge, and #2, pick the winner applies. NE could win this time just as easily as they could lose again.

The problem I would have with playing NE is that the Giants have shown they could handle them physically, and hang with them till the end, weather it be an offensive type game, or a defensive one.

That's why I think NE -7 or so would be a good line....because I see no clear value in it. The only value on the game at that line would be NYG ML at whatever it is, IMHO, since it would pay well over 2/1 (I'd estimate probably closer to +280) and the Giants have proven they have a far better than 33% shot of winning SU.

But yea, I think it would be NE at about a TD fave if they played it a 3rd time.

[Stifler's Mom]

By the way, to answer your second question, I personally believe the books would get flat out pounded on NE -4.5....