Betting against the Bears vs. the Packers on the road seems like easy money, but is it?

LAS VEGAS — A confluence of critical factors will converge Sunday in Green Bay, Wisconsin, which might resemble Cape Agulhas off Cape Horn at the tip of Africa.

That’s where the Atlantic and Indian oceans collide into what sailors call “Cape of Needles,” a notorious hazard responsible for destroying more than 150 ships over the centuries.

The Bears might just as well call the Packers’ home the Bay of Needles, for the decades of pain the place and team have inflicted upon them and their fans.

Those who have been wise with their wagers, placing their heads — and wallets — way above their hearts, have profited. Just as wisely, they’ve likely kept the topic mum around family and friends.

Overall, the Bears are 3-26 against the Packers in their last 29 meetings. Against the spread, according to Covers.com, it’s 7-22. Bears supporters have dropped 17.2 units in that spiral. Packer backers have pocketed 14.3 units.

In Green Bay, the Bears are 2-14 (4-12 ATS) in their last 16 games. This season, away from home, the Bears are 1-5-1 ATS; only the 49ers (1-6) have been worse.

And since 2003, the first year TeamRankings.com began tracking spread figures, the Bears are an NFL-worst 75-97-4 (.438) ATS on the road, just ahead of the Jets (77-97-7, .445).

MISSED OPPORTUNITY

Team A has a horrible recent track record — overall and ATS — against Team B and at Team B’s home, and Team A has a brutal road ATS, not only this season but stretching to 2003.

All of which makes Team B, or the Packers, the easiest pick of the century, yes?

“That would be the side to look at,” professional bettor Chuck Edel writes in a text message, “but [all of those figures and history] might be built into the line already, which would zap all the value out of that bet.”

Edel, a Chicago native, is a longtime Las Vegas resident.

“I have been aware of the bad Bears road record against the spread,” he adds, “but would never just bet against them blindly (I wish I would have).”

He and Matt Youmans, the senior Vegas Stats & Information Network broadcaster/scribe, must be living right. Both had the Bears, getting four points at home, in their 6-3 loss to the Seahawks on Thursday.

That represented the Bears’ 10th consecutive loss after they opened the season 4-2.

Youmans had bet under the Bears’ season win total of nine after determining they would win no more than once on the highway; they’re 0-7 in true away tilts.

“I was too optimistic, apparently,” he says. “This team was definitely going to have problems away from home with a rookie quarterback and a weak coaching staff.

“While I expected [QB Caleb] Williams to struggle, he has been worse than my expectations, which were lower than most.”

Youmans typically bets underdogs, but wagering against the Bears on the road hasn’t been a priority. He adds, “A missed opportunity.”

ANTI-TREND

I contacted some of the best punters I know for input about this conundrum, in which all conceivable evidence points to putting cash on one certain play.

Todd Fuhrman, the Chicago native who analyzes sports betting for CBSSportsHQ and co-hosts the popular ‘‘Bet The Board’’ podcast, took a pass. Betting on or against teams in any trendy fashion goes against his tactics and tenets.

He digests each game independently, from his own numbers — including situations like injuries, etc., “rather than blindly” — and proceeds accordingly. He has had scant involvement with the Bears this season.

Bill Krackomberger, the popular gambler who is part of Fox Sports Radio’s NFL pre-game show every Sunday morning, likes this subject matter but is “very much against” trends.

Different seasons, he says, different players, different coaches, different circumstances.

“If run on a simulation of millions of trials, they’d [be] more break-even,” Krackomberger says. “That’s not to say some division games don’t have some relevance. It’s amazing, some of these division games over the years being tough-fought battles.

“[But trends] mean very little in the handicapping world. Sportsbooks send texts to people talking about them. They literally try to get you to bet the trend . . . that’s all you need to know.”

In Florida, pro bettor and WagerTalk co-owner Kelly Stewart knows of those poor Bears statistics.

“But I haven’t been blindly fading them on the road,” she says. “We know how poor the coaching/QB/line have been the past decade, and that’s how long I’ve been blindly betting under their season-win totals.”

ENTICED

In Boston, native Chicagoan, FoxSports.com betting scribe and BetQLDaily co-host Sam Panayotovich pondered this Bears’ spread last Sunday afternoon, noting he would need seven “to bet those bums.”

“But this ship has no sails,” he says. “The Bears lost most of their defensive identity with [coach Matt] Eberflus’ exit. Ironic, eh? And the quarterback just isn’t doing it for me. If the Bears are plus-six or better, I’m in. Anything less, no thanks.”

Upon discovering that it would open Packers -10, Panayotovich told me, “I would definitely consider that.”

In less than 24 hours, Chicago money had shaved it to nine.

The average score of those last 29 meetings? Packers 27, Bears 17. Should the spread eke back to 10, know that the Packers are 3-0 ATS the last three times they gave double digits to the Bears in Green Bay.

Undaunted, Panayotovich steers the sail-less ship straight into the Bay of Needles. V