Post by FLCeltsFan on May 18, 2010 13:08:35 GMT -5
Celtics-Magic a really tough bet
May, 18, 2010May 1810:09AM ETComment Print Email Share This is what makes gambling so hard. Just look at the Boston Celtics-Orlando Magic Game 2. How are you supposed to handicap that? If you look at four different factors, you will see two reasons to bet the Magic at minus-7.5 and two reasons to take the points and the Celts.
Even if you examined Game 1 in a vacuum, you'd be hard-pressed to come to any satisfying, this-game-is-a-lock conclusion. In the last couple of games of the Cavs series and the first three quarters of the Eastern Conference finals, Boston looked like a clutch-shooting, savvy, veteran team with a dynamic, game-changing point guard blossoming as a superstar. But in Game 1's last quarter, Ray Allen couldn't separate from J.J. Redick, Jameer Nelson spent more time than Kendrick Perkins collecting loose balls underneath the rim and Orlando nearly erased a 20-point deficit for a win.
Meanwhile, the Magic spent a month being unbeatable both against the spread and on the court. Then, in the first game of the series, they looked confused, slow and overmatched. That is, until the Magic were shaken from their doldrums by the Tommy gun that Stan Van Gundy was hiding in his gangster suit and played the fourth quarter the way they should have been playing the whole game.
So, do you play the Celtics team that dominated the Cavs for two games as well as the Magic for three quarters and showed toughness to win? Or do you play the Magic team that dominated in the playoffs for a month, showed up rusty in Game 1 and then played the way it knew it could in the final six minutes? Was that fourth quarter the truest slice of how this series will play out the rest of the way?
Too many questions, too many variables, so hard to know. Then throw in this factor: As I wrote last week, this series was perfectly split against the spread during the regular season. The Celtics covered the two games in Orlando, and the Magic did the same in Boston.
Now it's even more confusing, because you have to ask yourself whether you stick with that trend. And if you do, why wouldn't you do the same thing in Boston? Now your head should be spinning with options, stats and opportunities. And now you know why some of the wiseguys I've been talking to are staying away from this game.
Clearly, though, there are enough people -- public and sharps -- who are playing the zigzag in this game. Game 2 opened in most books at 6.5, the same as Game 1, and was at 7.5 within 24 hours, showing the money came in on Orlando. As I watched Boston dribble out the clock on Sunday, I actually thought bookmakers would open at 7.5, since this was a classic zigzag situation: a home team losing a close game after a decent layoff. I'd be surprised if anyone other than Boston fans put money on the Celtics in the first 24 hours this line was up.
I also know this: For some reason, maybe all the factors I laid out above were racing through my head at warp speed, and for a brief moment I was transformed into a supercolliding, superconducting supercomputer. Because while I was thinking that bookmakers would open the game Magic minus-7.5, I also was thinking I would take that bet.
May, 18, 2010May 1810:09AM ETComment Print Email Share This is what makes gambling so hard. Just look at the Boston Celtics-Orlando Magic Game 2. How are you supposed to handicap that? If you look at four different factors, you will see two reasons to bet the Magic at minus-7.5 and two reasons to take the points and the Celts.
Even if you examined Game 1 in a vacuum, you'd be hard-pressed to come to any satisfying, this-game-is-a-lock conclusion. In the last couple of games of the Cavs series and the first three quarters of the Eastern Conference finals, Boston looked like a clutch-shooting, savvy, veteran team with a dynamic, game-changing point guard blossoming as a superstar. But in Game 1's last quarter, Ray Allen couldn't separate from J.J. Redick, Jameer Nelson spent more time than Kendrick Perkins collecting loose balls underneath the rim and Orlando nearly erased a 20-point deficit for a win.
Meanwhile, the Magic spent a month being unbeatable both against the spread and on the court. Then, in the first game of the series, they looked confused, slow and overmatched. That is, until the Magic were shaken from their doldrums by the Tommy gun that Stan Van Gundy was hiding in his gangster suit and played the fourth quarter the way they should have been playing the whole game.
So, do you play the Celtics team that dominated the Cavs for two games as well as the Magic for three quarters and showed toughness to win? Or do you play the Magic team that dominated in the playoffs for a month, showed up rusty in Game 1 and then played the way it knew it could in the final six minutes? Was that fourth quarter the truest slice of how this series will play out the rest of the way?
Too many questions, too many variables, so hard to know. Then throw in this factor: As I wrote last week, this series was perfectly split against the spread during the regular season. The Celtics covered the two games in Orlando, and the Magic did the same in Boston.
Now it's even more confusing, because you have to ask yourself whether you stick with that trend. And if you do, why wouldn't you do the same thing in Boston? Now your head should be spinning with options, stats and opportunities. And now you know why some of the wiseguys I've been talking to are staying away from this game.
Clearly, though, there are enough people -- public and sharps -- who are playing the zigzag in this game. Game 2 opened in most books at 6.5, the same as Game 1, and was at 7.5 within 24 hours, showing the money came in on Orlando. As I watched Boston dribble out the clock on Sunday, I actually thought bookmakers would open at 7.5, since this was a classic zigzag situation: a home team losing a close game after a decent layoff. I'd be surprised if anyone other than Boston fans put money on the Celtics in the first 24 hours this line was up.
I also know this: For some reason, maybe all the factors I laid out above were racing through my head at warp speed, and for a brief moment I was transformed into a supercolliding, superconducting supercomputer. Because while I was thinking that bookmakers would open the game Magic minus-7.5, I also was thinking I would take that bet.
