how many games should hawks be the favorite in this yr?

[Sac]

Nineteen.

This

 

[Hawks46]

I will say this team plays best with a chip on it's shoulder.

I think we demolish Atlanta this year. We probably have a lot more to play for than they do, even though both teams will be in the thick of their divisional races.

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

Conversely, there are three major influences on how bookies set lines - computers, the "wise guys" and the people - whereas major bettors only have access to computers.

Computers will set the initial lines - but then they pay close attention to where the "wise guys" are betting (the best gamblers with a lot of money) and where the people are betting.

With the "wise guys," these days the bookies follow the trends of bettors who win often to ascertain whether they have an edge to make their predictions better - then the bookies with change too. There is a famous better who won a ton of money from Vegas betting on NBA second half games because he had a beat on how the bookies set lines but since the bookies have caught up.

With the people, they check which teams the majority of the small bets are going and these usually go with the most popular teams. In the NFL teams like the Cowboys, Packers and 49ers will always have a slight edge in the points toward them to ensure not too much money is put on them and they win.

You're right about the computers and the sharps (aka "wise guys" as you call them). However, the point is that the sharps mostly have systems similar to the books' computers to figure what they believe the spreads should be, so the books' lines will generally be similar/equal to the sharps. That is why the line moves when the known sharps overwhelmingly bet one side, the house reconsiders and line movement happens.

You're wrong about the people and the popular teams having a slight edge. I can't find the exact numbers right now, but every team - including the Cowboys, 49ers, Packers, and unpopular teams like the Jaguars and Rams - is right around 50% historically ATS. The general public doesn't cause line movement, the sharps do.

At the end of the day remember the Vegas edge is 10% so if there is a greater than 10% differences in betting - Vegas would lose money.

See my post above on short-term vs. long-term. The casinos can take a loss one game just like they can take a loss on one roulette spin. Setting accurate lines ensures that the house will win long-term.

jewhawk:

Obviously Vegas can't be perfect on even money every time. But that's their goal and how they make money long-term. It seems like we're arguing the same point.

Their method of guaranteeing money long-term isn't "try to get even money on both sides in every game." Rather, it's "consistently offer wagers that the bettors have a 50% chance to win and offer them 10/11 odds."

So I think looking at the record ATS is the wrong stat to look at when considering the concept of "public teams." Over the long haul everyone's ATS record should be 50/50 and teams don't remain hot in the public eye forever and even in certain games one team or another could be understood as being the public team. You have to watch line movement and public percentages. There are sites that show it but you usually have to pay for that information.

What's more is that the concept applies only to "line movements", as I stated - the initial line is set mostly by the computers.

Here is a good resource:
http://www.wunderdog.com/line-movements.html

"What Causes Line Movements?

As mentioned above, betting activity moves lines. Oddsmakers initially set a line based on where they think it should be based on their goals. Notice that I did not say that they set the lines based on what they think is the "fair" or "right" line. They set it based on their goals, which can differ game-to-game.

It's true that their goal is often to split betting activity, getting about 50% of the bets on one side and 50% on the other side. This way they can't lose. They simply pay out the winners (minus their 10% juice/vig) and collect from the losers. The vig/juice on the winning bets ensures them a profit. They can't lose.

But, the oddsmakers' goal sometimes is to actually take lopsided action. They sometimes roll the dice, believing the betting public will be on the wrong side and they can score a huge win.

Despite popular belief, bets are rarely split 50/50 on most games. There is quite often very lopsided betting. To see this in action, check out this consensus betting tool. As you can see, there are often games in which 60%, 70% or even 80% of the action is on one side.

So on any given game, the sportsbooks have high exposure. But, spread over hundreds of games per week, their exposure is relatively limited. The biggest exposure for them, of course, is on the big games in which the betting is so heavy that it dwarfs the betting activity on other events. The most obvious example of this is the Super Bowl. Sportsbooks have massive exposure both positive and negative on this game, given the high number of bets. In Super Bowl XLIV, 65% of the bets were on Indianapolis, meaning that the sportsbooks were rooting for the Saints to cover (which they did)."

It also goes on to discuss the public vs the sharps but just to take that Super Bowl as an example - who do you think the public team was? Certainly Indianapolis - a chronically losing organization vs Peyton Manning.

Also, I think there is a disconnect between the logic on probability and the difference between casino games vs sports betting.

In roulette, casinos can offer bets where the probability is actually known and give some juice on the odds.

In handicapping sports, they are creating wagers that people perceive as being 50/50 when the true probability is unknown and can never even come close to being ascertained as the game is only played once (not thousands of times). If the casino offers a line of -6.5 for the Seahawks and they blow a team out by 58 - were the casinos really that close? Did they really have a good beat on the game? Absolutely not - but if they put the line at -17.5 which might have been closer to 50% - where do you think all the money would go? Not on the Seahawks and they would be opening themselves up to more risk than would be good over the long term so they tame the bet and let the money move it.