Gambling 101 Bills line

[The Frankish Reich]

48 minutes ago, Offside Number 76 said:

How much did you lose?

The OP is strangely silent!  I suspect he may need to set fire to his home to collect the insurance money to pay off his bookie.

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

This is as wrong as wrong can be

This was about my comment on how Vegas makes money - the vig. I am apparently wrong, but no explanation as to how or why. Perhaps the more accurate comment would be "Reading this thread makes it clear how Vegas makes money."

[CommonCents]

Welp I pulled a McD on this one. Should have picked the other guy. What a horrible effort, I don’t have any excuse. That was bad, I am dumb. I wanted to believe in the spread and ignore the obvious with Nate.

[Aussie Joe]

Just now, Commonsense said:

Welp I pulled a McD on this one. Should have picked the other guy. What a horrible effort, I don’t have any excuse. That was bad, I am dumb. I wanted to believe in the spread and ignore the obvious with Nate.

 

Yep.. I was with you unfortunately....

 

They might have a double digit spread next week..

 

Salvaging the week a little with Cincinatti( +3) and Jax -2.5)..

 

Also on KC & CAR in the late games.....

[CodeMonkey]

22 hours ago, Commonsense said:

Bills line is now +8, as I said it would be. Easy money. Bills probably lose by 3-6, they won’t lose my more than 7. I said this in a random thread the other night. I expect the spread to go up another half a point and then get hammered down by sharps and probably end up back at 8 by kickoff.

 

 

Teaching Bills Gambling 101 or looking to take a class?

Week 1 is always a crap shoot anyway.,

Edited September 9, 2018 by CodeMonkey

[row_33]

Just now, CodeMonkey said:

Teaching Bills Gambling 101 or looking to take a class?

 

It wasn’t reasonable to expect it would be this horrible today

 

 

[CodeMonkey]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

It wasn’t reasonable to expect it would be this horrible today

 

 

Not for Bills fans.  Some national media thought this game was a blowout however.  Maybe not quite that horrific though I agree..

Imagine if the Ravens weren't playing this Thursday and kept their starters in the 2nd half. I suspect that's why Allen played. 

[row_33]

17 minutes ago, CodeMonkey said:

Not for Bills fans.  Some national media thought this game was a blowout however.  Maybe not quite that horrific though I agree..

Imagine if the Ravens weren't playing this Thursday and kept their starters in the 2nd half. I suspect that's why Allen played. 

 

don’t recall many on here all week that didn’t think this was easy money betting on the Bills

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

4 hours ago, Commonsense said:

Welp I pulled a McD on this one. Should have picked the other guy. What a horrible effort, I don’t have any excuse. That was bad, I am dumb. I wanted to believe in the spread and ignore the obvious with Nate.

Commonsense, you get credit for being a standup guy here. I’ll take some blame myself as I thought the line was a pretty fair reflection of where the teams are now and the fact that the game was in Baltimore. Obviously the line should have been more line 20. Or 40. 

[Ol Dirty B]

5 hours ago, Commonsense said:

Welp I pulled a McD on this one. Should have picked the other guy. What a horrible effort, I don’t have any excuse. That was bad, I am dumb. I wanted to believe in the spread and ignore the obvious with Nate.

 

I appreciate you coming back and owning it, that is admirable.

 

However this gridrick guy, I'm interested in what he has to say about gambling in the future.

[plenzmd1]

16 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The OP is strangely silent!  I suspect he may need to set fire to his home to collect the insurance money to pay off his bookie.

This was about my comment on how Vegas makes money - the vig. I am apparently wrong, but no explanation as to how or why. Perhaps the more accurate comment would be "Reading this thread makes it clear how Vegas makes money."

The thinking that Vegas Makes a line to get 50% on each side and only makes money on the vig is just wrong. On certain games, they do have a pretty even amount on each side and as , you say, make their money on the vig..., but many games they "fade" the public pretty freaking hard. Yesterday, for instance, Vegas was betting hard that neither Cinci or Baltimore would win and cover..just about 75% of the money bet on those games was on one side(Ravens and Bengals). Vegas got beat in those games 

 

As a rule, the public bets favorites and "name " teams..Packers, Steelers, Cowboys..etc. Vegas tends to take the other side in those games. On weeks where lots of favorites cover, Vegas gets beat. When lots of underdogs cover, Vegas tends to win. ( btw, need to make a distinction here..Vegas should be "books").  So they lose a little money on Cinci and Baltimore but win big on the Bears last night. Most likely way more money bet on the Sunday night game than the other two games combined.

 

Here is a good article to give yu a feel for what i mean

 

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/18836496/nfl-was-cause-rough-stretch-las-vegas-sportsbooks-nfl-season

 

If you read the thread, you noticed common and myself discussing what teams all the public money were being bet on..and staying away from those games or going agsint the public. That's usually a decent strategy..over a long period of time. Like hitting 16 in blackjack..its the right move over time..but any individual case can vary. Cinci taking all the money as a dog was EXTREMELY rare..and why I wanted no part of that game. When I started looking at the  slate  of games, Cinci was my #1 pick..but that money flow scared me off. This time it hurt me..but I will continue to use money flows as I make my bets every week.

 

Where Common and I differ is in the use of points..I never use em, he likes them. Does not mean one is right or wrong, just where you feel comfortable. Historically,  in only 20% of games in the NFL  points come into play..meaning the underdog loses but covers the point  spread. 80% of games, whoever wins the games, wins the bet. So far in week 1, 3 of 14 games the points came into play.. .so right at the historical average of 21%. 

 

So my betting strategy over the years had evolved to where I only play dogs on the moneyline...and a lot of times I am getting 2 to 1 on my money or better. Now if I went 50% on my picks..I would absolutely crush it and have an outstanding year. If I pick 40% winners...that's a  really good year and I have done that several of the last number of years. Last year it all went south on me... I picked a ton of dogs that covered but did not win games..some of them getting 8,9, 10 points. That's when people told me I was an idiot for not taking the points...but I will live with that? .

 

Last word..if someone picks 60% winners consistently, they prolly lying!!!!

 

BTW, if you want to follow "sharps" ..watch what happens when the following week's lines come out on Sunday night.  Bills opened +9. for the Chargers.already down to  +7 1/2. That ain't JoeQ public betting and moving a line ..that is  guys(sharps) who live to spot lines that are wrong and jump on them.

Edited September 10, 2018 by plenzmd1

[The Frankish Reich]

Plenzmd1, I think we might be talking about different things here when we say “Vegas.” I’m talking about the sports books alone, not something more general like the “inside Vegas money.” The espn article you linked to actually shows that the sports books need to get the line right (roughly 50/50 on the money bet) to avoid the possibility of huge losses, particularly when we take parlays into account. Now, it also suggests that the smart/big money is able to exploit “bad” lines and turn them into huge winnings for the same reason. My guess is that as sports wagering goes mainstream and is no longer limited (legally) to Nevada, the market will become more efficient and will move to pari-mutual betting much like horse racing. That will mean that only the opening point spread will offer the opportunity to beat the book; after that, the odds/spread will move automatically with the money put down on either side. By the way, I’m sure you’re more sophisticated about NFL wagering than I am. Most of my experience with wagering comes from a long time ago and had to do with the race track. I’m no “quant” by the modern standard, but I did have a lot of training in stats and programming at a time when that was pretty rare amongst the betting public. It was fun: I had time (umm, marriage and family will take that away real fast), not much money, and a desire to “beat the system.” Ultimately I decided that the vig (17 percent on straight wagers, 21 percent on exotics at the time) on betting on horses made it damn near impossible. I could be 10% better than the crowd, but that meant that over the long haul I’d still lose 7 to 11 bucks on every 100 wagered. I suspect football is similar, although maybe not quite as much of a sucker bet. Again, for me, it’s for “entertainment purposes only.”

[gridrick]

Good bet lined up tonight.  Lions/Jets under 45. 

[Gordio]

5 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

The thinking that Vegas Makes a line to get 50% on each side and only makes money on the vig is just wrong. On certain games, they do have a pretty even amount on each side and as , you say, make their money on the vig..., but many games they "fade" the public pretty freaking hard. Yesterday, for instance, Vegas was betting hard that neither Cinci or Baltimore would win and cover..just about 75% of the money bet on those games was on one side(Ravens and Bengals). Vegas got beat in those games 

 

As a rule, the public bets favorites and "name " teams..Packers, Steelers, Cowboys..etc. Vegas tends to take the other side in those games. On weeks where lots of favorites cover, Vegas gets beat. When lots of underdogs cover, Vegas tends to win. ( btw, need to make a distinction here..Vegas should be "books").  So they lose a little money on Cinci and Baltimore but win big on the Bears last night. Most likely way more money bet on the Sunday night game than the other two games combined.

 

Here is a good article to give yu a feel for what i mean

 

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/18836496/nfl-was-cause-rough-stretch-las-vegas-sportsbooks-nfl-season

 

If you read the thread, you noticed common and myself discussing what teams all the public money were being bet on..and staying away from those games or going agsint the public. That's usually a decent strategy..over a long period of time. Like hitting 16 in blackjack..its the right move over time..but any individual case can vary. Cinci taking all the money as a dog was EXTREMELY rare..and why I wanted no part of that game. When I started looking at the  slate  of games, Cinci was my #1 pick..but that money flow scared me off. This time it hurt me..but I will continue to use money flows as I make my bets every week.

 

Where Common and I differ is in the use of points..I never use em, he likes them. Does not mean one is right or wrong, just where you feel comfortable. Historically,  in only 20% of games in the NFL  points come into play..meaning the underdog loses but covers the point  spread. 80% of games, whoever wins the games, wins the bet. So far in week 1, 3 of 14 games the points came into play.. .so right at the historical average of 21%. 

 

So my betting strategy over the years had evolved to where I only play dogs on the moneyline...and a lot of times I am getting 2 to 1 on my money or better. Now if I went 50% on my picks..I would absolutely crush it and have an outstanding year. If I pick 40% winners...that's a  really good year and I have done that several of the last number of years. Last year it all went south on me... I picked a ton of dogs that covered but did not win games..some of them getting 8,9, 10 points. That's when people told me I was an idiot for not taking the points...but I will live with that? .

 

Last word..if someone picks 60% winners consistently, they prolly lying!!!!

 

BTW, if you want to follow "sharps" ..watch what happens when the following week's lines come out on Sunday night.  Bills opened +9. for the Chargers.already down to  +7 1/2. That ain't JoeQ public betting and moving a line ..that is  guys(sharps) who live to spot lines that are wrong and jump on them.

 

 

That is very interesting.  Not that I doubt but I went thru Saturdays games & the point spread only came into play 9 out 44 games.  meaning the winning team covered in 35 of these games.  I thought you were crazy to just bet money lines but looking at this past Saturday, your theory is dead on right.  Scary thing to do though but still should payoff in the end.  

[plenzmd1]

50 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Plenzmd1, I think we might be talking about different things here when we say “Vegas.” I’m talking about the sports books alone, not something more general like the “inside Vegas money.” The espn article you linked to actually shows that the sports books need to get the line right (roughly 50/50 on the money bet) to avoid the possibility of huge losses, particularly when we take parlays into account.

2

I think we are reading different articles LOL.No worries. Maybe these quotes  sum it up best

 

Quote

You want to gamble against the public, but at some point you'd like to see a team cover. It's hard to be that bad and not cover, because the spreads get so inflated."

Quote

By leaving themselves exposed to such a degree, rather than balancing their bets, the bookmakers effectively bet the other side in all 10 of those games

Quote

We've got our business model, and we stuck to it," Bogdanovich of William Hill said. "We'll win with it and we'll lose to it. Big decisions are just part of the deal."

Books make their money gambling against the public...not on vigs alone. They don't want 50/50 action, they want 75% action on one team ..they look at "squares" ( you and I) and say they will lose more than they win..and they take advantage of that. 

 

Another good example of that was the Pats-Atlanta Superbowl. The public was hammering the Pats..but the books would not budge that line from 3 to 3 1/2 cause they knew that half point hook would garner them an avalanche of sharp money on Atlanta...and they thought they had a winner already betting against the Pats..and that sure as hell looked good! Man, I got crushed on that bet as well..playing you guessed it the money line on Atlanta!!!!!

 

Also, I agree with your analysis on the takeout at the track. I used to play the horses pretty hard..but back in the day when a trifecta on a race was a big deal..amazes me that tracks get higher handle when they reduce takeout, but they refuse to do so cause it hurts em in the short run. 

 

Now I play for fun and play numbers and names as much as I handicap..

Edited September 10, 2018 by plenzmd1

[gridrick]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

I think we are reading different articles LOL.No worries. Maybe these quotes  sum it up best

 

Books make their money gambling against the public...not on vigs alone. They don't want 50/50 action, they want 75% action on one team ..they look at "squares" ( you and I) and say they will lose more than they win..and they take advantage of that. 

 

Another good example of that was the Pats-Atlanta Superbowl. The public was hammering the Pats..but the books would not budge that line from 3 to 3 1/2 cause they knew that half point hook would garner them an avalanche of sharp money on Atlanta...and they thought they had a winner already betting against the Pats..and that sure as hell looked good! Man, I got crushed on that bet as well..playing you guessed it the money line on Atlanta!!!!!

you guys dont have a clue....they might have 75 percent tickets on one team but 75 percent of the dollars wagered is on the other.... 

[MJS]

On 9/8/2018 at 5:15 PM, MJS said:

If I was a betting man I would totally take that.

 

But I'm not.

 

Good thing I'm not a betting man

[plenzmd1]

27 minutes ago, Gordio said:

 

 

That is very interesting.  Not that I doubt but I went thru Saturdays games & the point spread only came into play 9 out 44 games.  meaning the winning team covered in 35 of these games.  I thought you were crazy to just bet money lines but looking at this past Saturday, your theory is dead on right.  Scary thing to do though but still should payoff in the end.  

thx for this..i  dont track NCAA as much..as you know just love that first week FCS action!!!

1 minute ago, gridrick said:

you guys dont have a clue....they might have 75 percent tickets on one team but 75 percent of the dollars wagered is on the other.... 

Could be..I dont care if they have 100 tickets and on team and 30 on the other..i care about how much money is wagered...tracking # of tickets..WTF cares?

[gridrick]

its a market.  much like any other market.  trades are made and the price goes up or down.  A sportsbook doesnt want to expose itself to too much risk.  They get 10 percent on wagers that cancel each other out. It's a 150 billion dollar industry in the USA alone.  Books like Pinnacle are bigger than all of las vegas put together.  

[The Frankish Reich]

37 minutes ago, gridrick said:

its a market.  much like any other market.  trades are made and the price goes up or down.  A sportsbook doesnt want to expose itself to too much risk.  They get 10 percent on wagers that cancel each other out. It's a 150 billion dollar industry in the USA alone.  Books like Pinnacle are bigger than all of las vegas put together.  

This is correct, and sorry, plenzmd1, you’re simply misinterpreting the article you linked to. The quote you use states that with a “bad” line—a line that attracts a clear majority of the money to one side—it is AS IF the sports book has a betting interest in one side, since a “win” by the other side will expose it to huge losses. You might want to re-read that article. In the meantime, maybe just follow the simple rule: if Peterman is starting, the line is too low ....

[LSHMEAB]

When I see a line move beyond 7 with no buy back from sharps, that's a sign I want to be on the favorite. That thing went from 6.5 to 7 to 7.5 to 8 to 8.5 with ZERO resistance. Plenty of public money eventually trickled in on the Bills and that enticing touchdown cushion.

 

I generally focus on small home dogs, but I'm also more likely to take a big favorite than a small one. Just how I roll.

 

As far as how books operate and approach a line, they will shade but damn near never gamble. The notion that they're setting lines JUST to trap idiots is fallacious. It certainly happens, but it's not their original intent.

Edited September 10, 2018 by LSHMEAB