Early line...

[Ozymandius]

That's a nice theory, but its completely wrong.  Nothing personal.

771468[/snapback]

 

Please explain then. I take nothing personal.

 

Note: This isn't my "theory" but something that has been told to me by friends I know who live and breathe gambling. They could, of course, be wrong themselves, but it makes a lot of sense to me. They even have a term for what I described called "shading the line."

 

I definitely need to hear more from your side of things before I believe I'm wrong here.

[eball]

The line is dropping a bit...6.5 now.

[Ozymandius]

Theoretically, the bookmaker's only financial interest in the bets it accepts is the vigorish it takes from losing wagers, and it simply wants to ensure that the amount of wagers on each side is equal. In reality, however, bookmakers attempt to maximize their bottom line. While having an exactly equal amount of money wagered on each contestant would guarantee themselves a profit and eliminate their risk, that won't necessarily maximize their bottom line. They can make more money when they accept bets at odds which are "inflated" from those which are likely to occur. So for example, if the majority of their customers are going to bet on a team regardless of the price, they will set the price as high as possible. This is called "shading" the line.

771482[/snapback]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_betting

 

If it's in Wikipedia, it must be true ;-)

 

Basically, I need a REALLY good reason why Denver was only favored by 3.5 over the Rams last week to show me why both Wikipedia and my friends are wrong. Thanks.

[eball]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_betting

 

If it's in Wikipedia, it must be true ;-)

 

Basically, I need a REALLY good reason why Denver was only favored by 3.5 over the Rams last week to show me why both Wikipedia and my friends are wrong.  Thanks.

771505[/snapback]

Nicely done.

 

The REAL key to successful sports betting is recognizing the shaded games, and betting big when you identify them.

[HopsGuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_betting

 

If it's in Wikipedia, it must be true ;-)

 

Basically, I need a REALLY good reason why Denver was only favored by 3.5 over the Rams last week to show me why both Wikipedia and my friends are wrong.  Thanks.

771505[/snapback]

 

Your assumption that 3.5 was an incorrect line (hindsight doesn't count) assumes a vast conspiracy amongst all bookmakers. This might have worked back in the day when bettors only had a few options. These days, the lines are available via the web creating almost perfect information dissemination. At gametime, efficient market theory dictates that the lines are ALWAYS correct. If one betting venue was "wrong", the action of "sports arbitrageurs" would quickly correct it. Go back and read that entry on "middling" again.

 

eball's mention of the shading is correct to an extent, but that is still really just to balance the books. If the line is "too high (like it almost always is for Notre Dame), the "sharps" will pounce.

 

Most Vegas casinos subscribe to a sports line service. They employ a master handicapper in charge of setting their line, making adjustments and laying off excessive action on one side to another casino. Basically he/she is a risk management specialist. Vegas casinos engage is risk - managed risk. Any handicapper that starts playing fast and loose with casino (and thereby shareholder) money will soon find himself out of a job. Quarterly earnings can't be connected to the accuracy of Jeff Wilkins' right leg.

 

I had the Rams, too. No conspiracy theory, I just like home dogs. I didn't have the Raiders because I don't like Art Shell. As for a "REALLY" good reason? I dunno. They guys setting the initial lines are human and still believed that Jake Plummer is the man? They thought that with a new coach that the Rams aren't still "The Greatest Show on Turf" and would easily lose to a superior AFC playoff team? Why weren't the Bears favored by 14?

 

When I hear of conspiracies, my BS detector goes off. Secrets are hard to keep. Just ask Andy Fastow.

 

There's nothing wrong with believing what you believe in this case. Heck, it's probably even a great starting point to try to figure out who you want to bet. In the end, it's almost a coin-flip. Sometimes you'll win, sometimes you'll lose. Sometimes you'll push.

 

I don't know if I've convinced you. In the end, does it really matter?

 

It's all good. Happy gambling.

[Mike formerly from Florida]

You're right...one is derived from logic, the other is derived from a whiney mentality that the world is against us....nothing to do with one another.

771151[/snapback]

 

 

I don't think the world is against us...just the NFL...the refs...ESPN...

 

If you think that game was officiated fairly...well then I'm a udonkey's ass!

[stuckincincy]

It's all good.  Happy gambling.

771595[/snapback]

 

If you bet, let a few games go by. Teams are trying to zero on in what works, and there is enthusiastic emotional money being put down.

[Ozymandius]

Thanks, HopsGuy. I appreciate your response, and don't worry about "convincing" me with a "REALLY good reason" -- that was just my way of responding to what I perceived to be your dismissiveness of my first post on the subject. As in "Oh yeah, you think I'm wrong? Show me why!". But we're in reasonable discussion mode now, which is far better.

 

I don't think we actually disagree very much at all, imo. I never suggested a conspiracy theory; on the contrary, what I'm trying to convey is exactly the concept of MANAGED RISK that you just brought up. Here, let me try to unify what you're saying with what I'm saying, and see if you agree.

 

We both agree that casinos employ a master handicapper to set the lines in a manner in which the casinos can be profitable. We just disagree on how the handicapper performs this task. He IS a risk manager; however, your interpretation of managing risk seems to be always setting the lines with the goal of a 50/50 split on the action so they can collect the vig. If that were the ONLY way to manage risk, then frankly, the master handicapper is doing a poor job because he is NOT setting lines that receive equal action on both sides. The public was all over the Broncos last week, as they were with the Eagles (-4.5 over Houston), the Panthers (-5 over Atlanta), and the Seahawks (-6 over the Lions). Common sense tells us this, but even if it didn't, there are soures that track that kind of information that confirm it. (Heck, Yahoo has a spread pick'em game that tracks the percentage of players on each side: http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/pi...=&type=s&week=1 - very few of these games were close to 50/50)

 

Another way to manage risk, to make profits, is to identify the gaps between what is likely to occur and the public perception of what is likely to occur. So yes, what I'm suggesting is that these master handicappers are VERY good at predicting winners and losers in football games and gauging how far off their predictions are from public opinion; in the end, is it really hard to believe that such a skill exists? Now, let's examine how the handicapper can use this knowledge to MANAGE RISK and make profits. Let's use the Broncos-Rams example again. We're going to also employ the old Expected Value formula, where E.V. = Likelihood x Value.

 

If the master handicapper predicts that there is a 70% chance the Rams will beat the Broncos, and he also knows the majority of the public (say 80%) will bet the Broncos if only giving 3.5 points, tada, he has found a way to create value that is greater than the vig. He COULD try to set the line so that there is equal action on both sides (key word being "try"), but the Expected Value of that move is less than the Expected Value of setting the line at 3.5 points. Explicity (keeping in mind 70% chance the Rams win and 80% of the money on the Broncos at 3.5 points):

 

E.V. of 50/50 action is capturing 100% of the vig, or 1.00 x .10 = .10 (10% of the money)

 

E.V. of setting the line at 3.5 = probability of capturing the 80% of the money on Denver SUBTRACT the probability of losing the 80% of the money on Denver = .70 (.80 - .20) - .30 (.80 - .20) = .24 (24% of the money), or more than twice the E.V. of capturing the vig.

 

So yes, the casinos take on the risk of losing the 80% on the Broncos if Denver covers, but over time and across many bets, this kind of managed risk analysis will be profitable and more profitable than just getting 100% of the vig.

 

To make a poker comparison, sometimes you will go All In while knowing you only have a 33% chance of winning if you are receiving 5 to 1 pot odds because even though you are risking your entire chipstack and, in fact, only have a 1 in 3 chance of not losing it, over the long run, the move will be profitable. Same thing here. The casinos will take on the chance of losing 80% of the money on a line if the pot odds are correct, so to speak.

 

Because across many bets over time, their handicappers are good enough at managing risk in this manner to be profitable. That explains why the lines are not set to receive 50/50 action in most cases. In Week 1, my guess is Vegas lost money on the Eagles game because most of the bets were on the Eagles. But they more than made up for it with the money on the Broncos, Seahawks, and Panthers, who were popular public plays that did not cover. Over the long run, across many bets...

[Stussy109]

Interesting.  I thought the Bills looked more impressive at New England than did Miami at Pittsburgh -- facing a 2nd string QB.

 

I believe Buffalo's defense has a distinct advantage in this game -- the veteran holdovers know how Mularkey likes to call a game and will probably key on his tendencies.

 

That, and Daunte Culpepper has freakishly small hands for such a big man.

 

Look for Buffalo to force 3 or 4 TOs and win this one outright.  It's going to take a couple of weeks for the public to catch on that the Bills are going to be in every game.

770815[/snapback]

 

The minute I saw that line i placed my money on the Bills b4 it starts moving.

[HopsGuy]

Thanks, HopsGuy.  I appreciate your response, and don't worry about "convincing" me with a "REALLY good reason" -- that was just my way of responding to what I perceived to be your dismissiveness of my first post on the subject.  As in "Oh yeah, you think I'm wrong? Show me why!".  But we're in reasonable discussion mode now, which is far better.

771689[/snapback]

 

Your argument is well constructed, and I might even buy into the fact that a large casino might be able to introduce a betting strategy that has quantified risk parameters in place. (I don't think that your example is true quantification, more of a "Best Guess". It's not like there is a derivatives market to hedge, either.) Large funds employ trading algorithms in just such a manner. I believe (though I have no proof) that a large portion of sports gamblers lose money, some tread water, and a small portion (~5%) make good money. I'm just guessing, but this is pretty much how it breaks down in the stock/futures world. It would stand to reason that these people at the top could gain these jobs at the Vegas casinos as handicappers. So okay, Vegas casinos may not be only interested in simply balancing the money. But like I said, you'd better be pretty good. Those palaces in the desert are built on the premise that the house ALWAYS has the advantage (over time).

 

That being said, let's say the Broncos-Rams game starts at Den -3.5 and enough money comes in from the sharps on the Rams to push it to 2.5. Now we're in that middling area that casinos loathe. If there is some malfeasance at play, I'd think it would be elsewhere.

 

Perhaps TheNose76 could comment on this. He's in the business (so to speak).

 

 

Anyway, who do you like this week? There are 4 HUGE lines, but this week every one of them seems reasonable. Maybe Minnesota. Maybe the Bills. I'm not all that thrilled with anything right now.

[ROSCOE P. COE TRAIN]

I like us to win this game. Donte will throw 2 TDS, but McGahee goes for 150 on the ground with a score. Special teams scores one and Evans gets a long one on the post.

[IDBillzFan]

There are 4 HUGE lines, but this week every one of them seems reasonable.  Maybe Minnesota.  Maybe the Bills.  I'm not all that thrilled with anything right now.

771753[/snapback]

Halfway through the Chargers/Oakland game, I promised myself I'd bet against Oakland in Week 2 regardless of the spread. Then I saw it was 11 1/2 (it's now at 12) and I decided I was wrong. That's just way too many points. Same with Indy laying 13 1/2 vs. Houston and San Diego giving 11 1/2 to Tennessee.

 

I do, however, like Cincy giving 10 to Cleveland.

[IDBillzFan]

Don't all games between the Bengals and Browns turn into shoot-outs?

771791[/snapback]

Not these Browns.

[Swift Sylvan]

oops, never accidentally hit the delete button. I guess you're right, I was just basing that question on the 2004 game. Also I think I'm hoping for it since I picked Chad Johnson as a reciever for my league.

[Alaska Darin]

I like us to win this game.  Donte will throw 2 TDS, but McGahee goes for 150 on the ground with a score.  Special teams scores one and Evans gets a long one on the post.

771761[/snapback]

Whitner's a QB, too?

[IDBillzFan]

Whitner's a QB, too?

771797[/snapback]

Really? You donte say?

[eball]

Really? You donte say?

771800[/snapback]

Donte stop now...you're on a roll.

[IDBillzFan]

Donte stop now...you're on a roll.

771845[/snapback]

I must stop or people will get on me for beating a dead horse.

 

See what happens? Damned if you do, damned if you donte.

[Ozymandius]

Anyway, who do you like this week?  There are 4 HUGE lines, but this week every one of them seems reasonable.  Maybe Minnesota.  Maybe the Bills.  I'm not all that thrilled with anything right now.

771753[/snapback]

Same. I was far more comfortable putting money on the Week 1 lines. I wouldn't touch any of the big lines this week.

 

- Pretty sure the sharps are on Tampa. Line started out at 7 and now down to 5.5. It makes sense since the Bucs have historically performed well against Vick and the Falcons, and the public should be overrating Atlanta and underrating Tampa after last week.

 

Besides that, I only have a gut feeling on a couple other games.

 

- I like Carolina to bounce back strong if Steve Smith can play. And maybe even if he can't.

 

- Vegas is begging for action on the Rams at only -3, imo. Yet, I'll probably give it to them because I'm a believer after the Denver game.

 

- I like Dallas. Skins' secondary is a mess without Shawn Springs. Parcells just needs to keep Witten and a RB in to max-protect Bledsoe, and T.O. / Glenn / Crayton should be enough to shred.

 

- Finally, if Big Ben plays, I like the Steelers to beat the Jags.