Vegas says we have less than 7 wins this season

[MidnightVoice]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/laces-out/get-your-money-ready-vegas-releases-win-totals-for-2014-season-051914

Get your money ready: Vegas releases win totals for 2014 season

Denver Broncos -- 11
Seattle Seahawks -- 11
New England Patriots -- 10.5
San Francisco 49ers -- 10.5
Green Bay Packers -- 10
New Orleans Saints -- 9.5
Indianapolis Colts -- 9.5
Cincinnati Bengals -- 9
Philadelphia Eagles -- 9
Baltimore Ravens -- 8.5
Pittsburgh Steelers -- 8.5
Detroit Lions -- 8
Chicago Bears -- 8
Atlanta Falcons -- 8
Carolina Panthers -- 8
Kansas City Chiefs -- 8
San Diego Chargers -- 8
Dallas Cowboys -- 8
Miami Dolphins -- 8
Houston Texans -- 7.5
New York Giants -- 7.5
Arizona Cardinals -- 7.5
St. Louis Rams -- 7.5
Washington Redskins -- 7.5
Tennessee Titans -- 7
Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- 7
New York Jets -- 7
Cleveland Browns -- 6.5
Buffalo Bills -- 6.5
Minnesota Vikings -- 6
Oakland Raiders -- 5
Jacksonville Jaguars -- 4.5

[GreedoII]

Man Buff 6.5 and the over is soo tempting...(7 wins is all you need...7!!)

also like:

over New Orleans Saints -- 9.5
under Houston Texans -- 7.5
over Arizona Cardinals -- 7.5
over Washington Redskins -- 7.5
under Tennessee Titans -- 7
under Minnesota Vikings -- 6
over Oakland Raiders -- 5
under Jacksonville Jaguars -- 4.5

[GingerP]

Well, they haven't won 7 games since those heady days of 2008, when Dick Jauron was coach. Not sure why Vegas would have much faith, until the Bills actually show they can win some.

[GreedoII]

I'm not saying they win 12 and the division but to ask for 7 wins with this roster? I like the odds

[TacklingDummy]

All depends on EJ.

I'd take the under.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Who's going to Vegas? I want to put some money down. PM me I'm serious.

[Ed]

I feel like we see a thread like this every year and everyone always gets excited about taking the over. Anyone know if the Bills ever actually cover the over?

I always stay away from betting on anything Bills related. Not smart to bet on teams you're emotionally invested in.

[better days]

I feel like we see a thread like this every year and everyone always gets excited about taking the over. Anyone know if the Bills ever actually cover the over?

I always stay away from betting on anything Bills related. Not smart to bet on teams you're emotionally invested in.

I agree with you about betting on a team you are emotionally invested in, but 6.5 is very tempting.

IMO, if Marrone can't get 7 wins out of this team in his second season, he should be fired.

[tampabay25690]

Who's going to Vegas? I want to put some money down. PM me I'm serious.

just do it online

[OpIv37]

You'd have to be crazy to bet either way on this team at 6.5.

We know at any given moment they can tank and have a four win season, and we know they're really good at those meaningless late Dec wins after having been eliminated from the playoffs for a month already. That could be #7.

[better days]

You'd have to be crazy to bet either way on this team at 6.5.

We know at any given moment they can tank and have a four win season, and we know they're really good at those meaningless late Dec wins after having been eliminated from the playoffs for a month already. That could be #7.

Even if this team totally tanks, they should win at least 6 games.

There is too much talent on this team to not do that.

[coastal]

Super Mario has to be good for at least 8 wins... or is it relevance on ESPN.

I forget.

[Pinkerton Security]

Super Mario has to be good for at least 8 wins... or is it relevance on ESPN.

I forget.

I know you need to somehow include a Mario jab in every single thread but this one is pretty poor.

[trapezeus]

Even if this team totally tanks, they should win at least 6 games.

There is too much talent on this team to not do that.

didn't you say that last year?

[Pinkerton Security]

Maybe its just being homerish and hating the Jets but I truly think we have a better team than them - CJ2K isnt going to be their savior.

[better days]

didn't you say that last year?

Well, last year I said if Marrone did not win at least 6 games he should be fired.

He won 6.

This year, barring injuries, if the Bills do not win at least 8 games, I think Marrone should be fired.

[Dr. Who]

Obvious, but Vegas sets its line to generate bets that favor Vegas making money. It has nothing to do with how many games an analyst might think the team would actually win.

[Bill Cody]

All depends on EJ.

It really does. I know you think he stinks. Pretty sure anyone with at least 1 post knows this. Personally I think it could go either way. The first thing he has to figure out how to do is stay on the field. The 2nd thing is to adjust to the speed of the NFL. He's not there yet. He needs a lot of reps. What we need is to still be alive come December. I give him the first 12 games to build his game to something approaching consistency. After that? The training wheels come off.

[ticatfan]

I think the bears will do better then 8. Team to watch this yr. And the bills under 7.

[Woodman]

OVER!!!!!!!! 6.5

[The King]

The payout is crap on this. Just looked it up.

[trapezeus]

i think picking the bills over under is impossible. they have a nice team on paper. but they also never seem to get the breaks. last year alone they could have easily been a 2-14 as much as a 10-6 team. They had average qb play. Nothing spectacular, but not enough to take advantage of a strong defense.

If they improve on that, i can see 7 or more wins.

if hackett continues to have questionable play calling, EJ continues to be average or injured, if watkins can't be a bonafide playmaker out the gate, if the defense can't adjust to schwarz new defense and if the famous injury bug comes rummaging through, it's really easy to see the team implode. Add in the buffalo curse that we don't have a 1st round pick, it could easily be one of our memorable blunders that burns a hole in your memory banks for years. "remember when we could never finish high enough to be a top pick, then we traded for that wide out and we went 1-15 and couldn't pick the can't miss qb" I think even the optimists worry about that scenario.

to me, i take the over only because i like rooting for my team. even if its unrealistic, i'd take the over, bet a small amount so it's not a big deal if i lost and see how it shakes out. if i win a little money and we won 7 games, excellent. if we lost, no biggie.

[Generalissimus Gibby]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/laces-out/get-your-money-ready-vegas-releases-win-totals-for-2014-season-051914

Get your money ready: Vegas releases win totals for 2014 season

Denver Broncos -- 11
Seattle Seahawks -- 11
New England Patriots -- 10.5
San Francisco 49ers -- 10.5
Green Bay Packers -- 10
New Orleans Saints -- 9.5
Indianapolis Colts -- 9.5
Cincinnati Bengals -- 9
Philadelphia Eagles -- 9
Baltimore Ravens -- 8.5
Pittsburgh Steelers -- 8.5
Detroit Lions -- 8
Chicago Bears -- 8
Atlanta Falcons -- 8
Carolina Panthers -- 8
Kansas City Chiefs -- 8
San Diego Chargers -- 8
Dallas Cowboys -- 8
Miami Dolphins -- 8
Houston Texans -- 7.5
New York Giants -- 7.5
Arizona Cardinals -- 7.5
St. Louis Rams -- 7.5
Washington Redskins -- 7.5
Tennessee Titans -- 7
Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- 7
New York Jets -- 7
Cleveland Browns -- 6.5
Buffalo Bills -- 6.5
Minnesota Vikings -- 6
Oakland Raiders -- 5
Jacksonville Jaguars -- 4.5

I'm saying 5-11 this year. I might be wrong, and I hope I am, but this team hasn't shown me any reason to believe so I am going 5-11

[swiper]

5-11 and a QB knee injury are on the horizon.

[better days]

I'm saying 5-11 this year. I might be wrong, and I hope I am, but this team hasn't shown me any reason to believe so I am going 5-11

With pessimism like this why even bother watching from day one?

[BuffaloRedleg]

Vegas sure has made a lot of money off of Bills fans for the last 13 years. More than any other fan base other than the Cowboys I bet.

[Night Train]

It's a betting line to draw $$ on the over/under...not a prediction. Vegas could care less.

[Generalissimus Gibby]

With pessimism like this why even bother watching from day one?

In the insane and unlikely hope that my pessimism is dyslexic and we actually go 11-5 and make the playoffs.

[BillsImpossible]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/laces-out/get-your-money-ready-vegas-releases-win-totals-for-2014-season-051914

Get your money ready: Vegas releases win totals for 2014 season

Denver Broncos -- 11
Seattle Seahawks -- 11
New England Patriots -- 10.5
San Francisco 49ers -- 10.5
Green Bay Packers -- 10
New Orleans Saints -- 9.5
Indianapolis Colts -- 9.5
Cincinnati Bengals -- 9
Philadelphia Eagles -- 9
Baltimore Ravens -- 8.5
Pittsburgh Steelers -- 8.5
Detroit Lions -- 8
Chicago Bears -- 8
Atlanta Falcons -- 8
Carolina Panthers -- 8
Kansas City Chiefs -- 8
San Diego Chargers -- 8
Dallas Cowboys -- 8
Miami Dolphins -- 8
Houston Texans -- 7.5
New York Giants -- 7.5
Arizona Cardinals -- 7.5
St. Louis Rams -- 7.5
Washington Redskins -- 7.5
Tennessee Titans -- 7
Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- 7
New York Jets -- 7
Cleveland Browns -- 6.5
Buffalo Bills -- 6.5
Minnesota Vikings -- 6
Oakland Raiders -- 5
Jacksonville Jaguars -- 4.5

Things change.

[Fletch]

Vegas says we have less than 7 wins this season



Anyone with a brain and a sense of reality would agree.

This happens every season.

[Fletch]

Here's the reality, it all comes down to Manuel and the offense.

Stevie's gone, leaving Woods as Manuel's only real target that took any significant number of passes from him last year. Watkins is a rookie and he'll be lucky to post 800 yards and 50 catches, and if he's lucky 6 TDs. Williams is Williams and yet another low-end starter if that, but who also has never taken a pass from Manuel.

Now we're hearing about Manuel's seeming chronic injury issues (not as it that was a risk when we drafted him or anything /sarcasm), and Fred Jackson is on the cusp of being irrelevant.

So who's going to carry the O? Spiller? ... lol

It's going to come down to Manuel. If anyone thinks that he's going to propel this team into the playoffs then the drug testing program needs to be expanded to the fan base.

[better days]

Here's the reality, it all comes down to Manuel and the offense.

Stevie's gone, leaving Woods as Manuel's only real target that took any significant number of passes from him last year. Watkins is a rookie and he'll be lucky to post 800 yards and 50 catches, and if he's lucky 6 TDs. Williams is Williams and yet another low-end starter if that, but who also has never taken a pass from Manuel.

Now we're hearing about Manuel's seeming chronic injury issues (not as it that was a risk when we drafted him or anything /sarcasm), and Fred Jackson is on the cusp of being irrelevant.

So who's going to carry the O? Spiller? ... lol

It's going to come down to Manuel. If anyone thinks that he's going to propel this team into the playoffs then the drug testing program needs to be expanded to the fan base.

I agree it comes down to EJ, but if Watkins puts up 800 yards & 6 TD's those will be much better numbers than Stevie put up last year.

And I expect other teams to concentrate on stopping Watkins, double teaming him.

That will open things up for Woods, Williams & Goodwin. If EJ gets them the ball this offense will be EXPLOSIVE.

And with defenses concentrating on stopping the pass, CJ & Freddie will find a lot of room to run.

And Fred Jackson is on the cusp of being irrelevent the same way Tom Brady is.

[Fletch]

i think picking the bills over under is impossible. they have a nice team on paper. but they also never seem to get the breaks. last year alone they could have easily been a 2-14 as much as a 10-6 team. They had average qb play. Nothing spectacular, but not enough to take advantage of a strong defense.

If they improve on that, i can see 7 or more wins.

if hackett continues to have questionable play calling, [if] EJ continues to be average or injured, if watkins can't be a bonafide playmaker out the gate, if the defense can't adjust to schwarz new defense and if the famous injury bug comes rummaging through, it's really easy to see the team implode. Add in the buffalo curse that we don't have a 1st round pick, it could easily be one of our memorable blunders that burns a hole in your memory banks for years. "remember when we could never finish high enough to be a top pick, then we traded for that wide out and we went 1-15 and couldn't pick the can't miss qb" I think even the optimists worry about that scenario.

to me, i take the over only because i like rooting for my team. even if its unrealistic, i'd take the over, bet a small amount so it's not a big deal if i lost and see how it shakes out. if i win a little money and we won 7 games, excellent. if we lost, no biggie.

Good post. That's 5 if's. I'll add a few more.

IF Spiller finally takes that next step to be a 3-down RB, something he's never been at any level.

IF Woods and/or Williams fills Stevie's shoes.

IF the lack of Byrd and the addition of a run-stuffing-only MLB doesn't have serious ramifications.

IF Fred Jackson doesn't see a significant downturn in his game at 33, something that would be astonishing. He's been reduced to a speller for Spiller anyway.

[Fletch]

I'm saying 5-11 this year. I might be wrong, and I hope I am, but this team hasn't shown me any reason to believe so I am going 5-11

I agree. I'd love nothing more for all the things to work out, Manuel to do what he's never done, Watkins to do what a rookie WR has never done, Spiller to do what he's never done, Marrone/Hackett to turn into good coaches all of a sudden, etc. Seems pretty unreasonable though.

[OpIv37]

Even if this team totally tanks, they should win at least 6 games.

There is too much talent on this team to not do that.
As usual, you grossly overvalue the talent on this team. We were 6-10 last year.

On D we lost Byrd and gained Spikes. Push.

On O all we added were rookies and depth.

And guess what? Other teams get to draft too. It's not all about us- we have to close the talent gap by improving more than they do in the off-season.

[better days]

As usual, you grossly overvalue the talent on this team. We were 6-10 last year.

On D we lost Byrd and gained Spikes. Push.

On O all we added were rookies and depth.

And guess what? Other teams get to draft too. It's not all about us- we have to close the talent gap by improving more than they do in the off-season.

We added rookie WR's last year as well. Woods & Goodwin. Last year you said we would have been better off keeping Donald Jones & David Nelson.

Now Woods & Goodwin have experience so they should be better than last year.

And yes by adding the best WR in the draft according to everyone, the Bills improved more than the Pats* the Fins & the Jets.

[OpIv37]

We added rookie WR's last year as well. Woods & Goodwin. Last year you said we would have been better off keeping Donald Jones & David Nelson.

Now Woods & Goodwin have experience so they should be better than last year.

And yes by adding the best WR in the draft according to everyone, the Bills improved more than the Pats* the Fins & the Jets.
FOR THE LAST ****ING TIME I NEVER SAID WE'D BE BETTER OFF GOING INTO THE SEASON WITH JONES AND NELSON.

I said it was stupid to go into the season with so little experience at WR and it was, especially a rookie QB.

And it's not just the draft- it's FA as well. And it's not just improving more than them- it's closing the talent gap so we can beat them. And it's not just them- we have to play 10 other teams as well.

[better days]

FOR THE LAST ****ING TIME I NEVER SAID WE'D BE BETTER OFF GOING INTO THE SEASON WITH JONES AND NELSON.

I said it was stupid to go into the season with so little experience at WR and it was, especially a rookie QB.

And it's not just the draft- it's FA as well. And it's not just improving more than them- it's closing the talent gap so we can beat them. And it's not just them- we have to play 10 other teams as well.

BS, you said the Bills would have been better off with the Vets Nelson & Jones.

You were *****ING because the Bills got rid of them.

And it was proven the Bills did the right thing getting rid of them......Jones is out of Football & Nelson missed the beginning of the year.

The Bills also added Chris 7-11 Hogan.

The Bills lost Byrd, but added the best run stuffing LB in the NFL. To a team that could NOT stop the run last year.

And winning the division is the way to the playoffs, not that the Bills will do that, but division games are much more important than the other games.

[OpIv37]

BS, you said the Bills would have been better off with the Vets Nelson & Jones.

You were *****ING because the Bills got rid of them.

And it was proven the Bills did the right thing getting rid of them......Jones is out of Football & Nelson missed the beginning of the year.

The Bills also added Chris 7-11 Hogan.

The Bills lost Byrd, but added the best run stuffing LB in the NFL. To a team that could NOT stop the run last year.

And winning the division is the way to the playoffs, not that the Bills will do that, but division games are much more important than the other games.

I said the Bills would be better off with vets. I never said those vets had to be Nelson and Jones. You are hung up on this false logic that Jones and Nelson were the only vet WR's in the NFL last off-season. And the Bills weren't proven right because Nelson got hurt. They just got lucky- they had no way of knowing that would happen.

[better days]

I said the Bills would be better off with vets. I never said those vets had to be Nelson and Jones. You are hung up on this false logic that Jones and Nelson were the only vet WR's in the NFL last off-season. And the Bills weren't proven right because Nelson got hurt. They just got lucky- they had no way of knowing that would happen.

Jones & Nelson were the VETS on the Bills & they were the VETS you wanted the Bills to keep.

And Jones was injured the year BEFORE. The Bills knew he was injured & that is the reason they did not resign him.

You are just trying to spin it saying there were other vets because you were proven WRONG.

And I already pointed out the Bills did add a vet in Chris Hogan.

[OpIv37]

Jones & Nelson were the VETS on the Bills & they were the VETS you wanted the Bills to keep.

And Jones was injured the year BEFORE. The Bills knew he was injured & that is the reason they did not resign him.

You are just trying to spin it saying there were other vets because you were proven WRONG.

And I already pointed out the Bills did add a vet in Chris Hogan.

I absolutely was not proven wrong. Lack of experience at WR absolutely hurt the Bills last year. And you are the one who applied the criteria that the vets must already be on the Bills- I never did.

And if the Bills are so good at not signing guys who get hurt, explain why we have so many guys on IR every year. They got lucky.

And Hogan was not a vet. He spent two years on practice squads and never played in an NFL game before Buffalo last season.

[better days]

I absolutely was not proven wrong. Lack of experience at WR absolutely hurt the Bills last year. And you are the one who applied the criteria that the vets must already be on the Bills- I never did.

And if the Bills are so good at not signing guys who get hurt, explain why we have so many guys on IR every year. They got lucky.

And Hogan was not a vet. He spent two years on practice squads and never played in an NFL game before Buffalo last season.

You can try to SPIN it all you want the FACT is you were talking about JONES & NELSON, not anyone else.

[OpIv37]

You can try to SPIN it all you want the FACT is you were talking about JONES & NELSON, not anyone else.

That is absolutely not true. You keep claiming that's what I said: prove it. Go back and find the post or posts where I said it.

You're the one applying the spin because you're desperate to prove me wrong about something.

[EDS]

Jones & Nelson were the VETS on the Bills & they were the VETS you wanted the Bills to keep.

And Jones was injured the year BEFORE. The Bills knew he was injured & that is the reason they did not resign him.

You are just trying to spin it saying there were other vets because you were proven WRONG.

And I already pointed out the Bills did add a vet in Chris Hogan.

Nelson did have more receiving yards last season than either Graham or Goodwin. Also not sure how Hogan could be considered a veteran given that he had no NFL receptions entering the 2013 season.

Bottom line, Nelson is a useful receiver, though clearly best in a 3rd or 4th receiver role. I personally would prefer him over Graham at this point.

[better days]

Nelson did have more receiving yards last season than either Graham or Goodwin. Also not sure how Hogan could be considered a veteran given that he had no NFL receptions entering the 2013 season.

Bottom line, Nelson is a useful receiver, though clearly best in a 3rd or 4th receiver role. I personally would prefer him over Graham at this point.

I liked Nelson myself, but he was injured & was not under contract to the Bills. He was a FA.

The Jets signed him because they were desperate for WR help.

[better days]

That is absolutely not true. You keep claiming that's what I said: prove it. Go back and find the post or posts where I said it.

You're the one applying the spin because you're desperate to prove me wrong about something.

YES it is true. You said the Bills made a mistake getting rid of Jones & Nelson.

You find a post of yours that says otherwise.

[OpIv37]

YES it is true. You said the Bills made a mistake getting rid of Jones & Nelson.

You find a post of yours that says otherwise.
You're the one who constantly claims I said that. Making the claim puts the burden of proof on you. If you can't prove it's true then you have to stop making the claim.

[better days]

You're the one who constantly claims I said that. Making the claim puts the burden of proof on you. If you can't prove it's true then you have to stop making the claim.

You are the one that constantly denies what he said.

The burden of proof is on you.

[OpIv37]

You are the one that constantly denies what he said.

The burden of proof is on you.

If I didn't say it, it never happened. Hence, there can't be proof of an event that never occurred.

You are constantly accusing me of saying something that I never said. Either prove I said if or stop making the accusation.

We disagree constantly and I've never gotten mad simply because we have a difference of opinion but I'm getting really pissed off about you repeatedly mischaracterizing what I said. Prove I said it or let it go.

[better days]

If I didn't say it, it never happened. Hence, there can't be proof of an event that never occurred.

You are constantly accusing me of saying something that I never said. Either prove I said if or stop making the accusation.

We disagree constantly and I've never gotten mad simply because we have a difference of opinion but I'm getting really pissed off about you repeatedly mischaracterizing what I said. Prove I said it or let it go.

How about you prove you didn't say it..................you know you did................unless your memory is failing you.

[better days]

If I didn't say it, it never happened. Hence, there can't be proof of an event that never occurred.

You are constantly accusing me of saying something that I never said. Either prove I said if or stop making the accusation.

We disagree constantly and I've never gotten mad simply because we have a difference of opinion but I'm getting really pissed off about you repeatedly mischaracterizing what I said. Prove I said it or let it go.

I just tried looking & the board does not go back that far in time.

I guess we will have to see if other peoples memories are better than yours.

[OpIv37]

How about you prove you didn't say it..................you know you did................unless your memory is failing you.

My memory is fine. Yours is biased- you remember what you wish happened instead of what actually occured.

[better days]

My memory is fine. Yours is biased- you remember what you wish happened instead of what actually occured.

I think you have that reversed.

As usual we will have to agree to disagree.

I would like to see what other people remember about it.

I have no doubt your minions would stick up for you.

[WagonCircler]

My memory is fine. Yours is biased- you remember what you wish happened instead of what actually occured.

His memories are filled with rainbows and lollipops.

[better days]

His memories are filled with rainbows and lollipops.

More like COLD beer & NAKED Women.

[Mr. Pink]

Vegas is going out on a huge limb. :rofl:

[WagonCircler]

More like COLD beer & NAKED Women.


Sooooo, you're bragging about wet dreams?

Ewwwww.

[feldspar]

Who's going to Vegas? I want to put some money down. PM me I'm serious.

I'm going to Vegas on Tuesday, actually. Not kidding. I don't really want to be responsible for coordinating your bet, though. You can probably place the bet online

Also, to the OP, Vegas doesn't say that the Bills will have less than 7 wins this season. If you think that, you don't know squat about gambling. They just set the over/under at 6.5...they NEVER tell you what they REALLY think. If they set the point-spread on any given game at 7.5-points, what does that tell you about what they think? You can't be sure about which side of that they want you take, if any.

Do you assume that they always think that the end result will fall UNDER the spread? If that were true, then there would be easy money to be had for those with longevity.

[YardRat]

It will be interesting to see if the line moves, and which way. IMO most bettors are raising the same concerns as some have in this thread...Will the team tank, or finally have a shot at .500 or better?

[better days]

Sooooo, you're bragging about wet dreams?

Ewwwww.

MEMORIES NOT DREAMS!

[PromoTheRobot]

Note the payoff. The over gets you pennies back. Vegas wants you to bet the under.

[feldspar]

Note the payoff.

Yep, the payouts show that Vegas favors the Bills to win at least 7 games, or that's the more likely scenario...or so they tell us.

The Las Vegas Hilton has this:

Over 6½ (-130)
Under 6½ (+110)

As a simple example, this basically means that you have to bet $130 to win $100 if you bet the over...and if you bet $100 on the under, you win $110. So you are betting more to win less if you bet the Bills will win more than 7 games, as opposed to betting the Bills win 6 games or fewer, in which case you win more than you bet. In other words, the Bills are favored to win at least seven games, and the message is that it's more unlikely that the Bills will win 6 games or fewer.

This tell us that they think more people are going to bet the over. That doesn't mean that they want people to bet only one way, though. They generally like to cover their bases. Even if more people bet the over and that happens, they could still pay those people off with the "under" bets and still turn a profit.

For those predicting a poor showing this year, put your money where your mouth is. I've seen places where you can get the Bills Under 6½ (+135).

[Typ0]

Not really ... it tells us there is more opportunity to beat the over than the under.


Yep, the payouts show that Vegas favors the Bills to win at least 7 games, or that's the more likely scenario...or so they tell us.

The Las Vegas Hilton has this:

Over 6½ (-130)
Under 6½ (+110)

As a simple example, this basically means that you have to bet $130 to win $100 if you bet the over...and if you bet $100 on the under, you win $110. So you are betting more to win less if you bet the Bills will win more than 7 games, as opposed to betting the Bills win 6 games or fewer, in which case you win more than you bet. In other words, the Bills are favored to win at least seven games, and the message is that it's more unlikely that the Bills will win 6 games or fewer.

This tell us that they think more people are going to bet the over. That doesn't mean that they want people to bet only one way, though. They generally like to cover their bases. Even if more people bet the over and that happens, they could still pay those people off with the "under" bets and still turn a profit.

For those predicting a poor showing this year, put your money where your mouth is. I've seen places where you can get the Bills Under 6½ (+135).

[Typ0]

Obvious, but Vegas sets its line to generate bets that favor Vegas making money. It has nothing to do with how many games an analyst might think the team would actually win.

Yep... they want to balance the people betting on both sides of the line. So the lines are based on betting behavior. Then, when a tie pops up they get to pocket all the money.

[feldspar]

Not really ... it tells us there is more opportunity to beat the over than the under.

What do you mean by "more opportunity?"

[alohabillsfan]

interesting look back... TY Vegas