San fran opens as 7 point favs

[nsport]

Argh! I was going to bed... now I can't go because this is killing me slowly.

For your first point and second point it's simple market economics. They all gravitate towards the ATS number because when you bet or analyze with bias eventually both sides get a fair shake over time. If you do this for 10 weeks, you'll see that certain teams will cover 8 of 10. But if you do it for 10 seasons, it's going to be near 50%. The demographics of people betting their money on games comes with supply and demand. This all plays out in a macrocosm way, but you are inferring it is a microcosm. I am inferring that there are direct market influences that affect the spread. As a matter of fact, a fighter did exactly what you said and bet on himself at Bodog. I don't know exactly what it did to the traditional books, but I guarantee you it affected Bodog's line. How could it not!!? The book would have never taken the bet otherwise - I would bet (no pun intended) that they actually benefited from it due to the market condition of "look how famous we are, come bet at Bodog" factor - which probably ALSO moved the lines slightly. You forget also that the fat bettors that are indeed out there are not the "sharps" you refer to, but are whales that are about as stupid as the average bettor. Don't forget the seedy underworld of real-time information that also moves lines. Don't be naive man. This is the real world. The sharps are in the minority. The rest of the public says "oh wow, look the line moved a point, I'm going to chase it" - I've seen that so many times my head spins. This whole notion of sharps is plain stupid. Professional bettors scour a board of 250 games every weekend to find 4 or 5 good ones. The only reason this game is relevant is it is competing with Thursday/Friday NCAAF so more money will statistically be bet on this game since it's on prime time network and the only NFL game. Yes... that's a market influence that will affect the betting public. Believe me - this is MACROCOSM of MARKET ECONOMICS and STATISTICS. That's it buddy. That's it.

 

[jewhawk]

For your first point and second point it's simple market economics. They all gravitate towards the ATS number because when you bet or analyze with bias eventually both sides get a fair shake over time. If you do this for 10 weeks, you'll see that certain teams will cover 8 of 10. But if you do it for 10 seasons, it's going to be near 50%. The demographics of people betting their money on games comes with supply and demand.

What kind of bias do you think exists in the betting market that would result in more 49ers bettors than Seahawks bettors. Maybe I misunderstood you, but your earlier posts in this thread led me to believe that you thought the line was inflated because the 49ers are a more popular team and have a larger fanbase than the Seahawks, meaning more people wanting to bet on the 49ers. That isn't a bias that would get a fair shake over time. Teams like the 49ers, Cowboys, Packers, etc. have always been more popular than teams like the Seahawks, Jaguars, Rams, etc. But all of those teams approach 50% ATS historically. If you mean the bias is because the 49ers have been a better team recently and because of that more people would bet them ATS, that isn't the case either. If it were, people would generally want to bet on the favorites so you would expect spreads to be inflated, and thus the favorites would cover less than the underdogs. But that isn't the case either, as favorites and underdogs both cover 50% of the time historically.

As a matter of fact, a fighter did exactly what you said and bet on himself at Bodog. I don't know exactly what it did to the traditional books, but I guarantee you it affected Bodog's line. How could it not!!? The book would have never taken the bet otherwise - I would bet (no pun intended) that they actually benefited from it due to the market condition of "look how famous we are, come bet at Bodog" factor - which probably ALSO moved the lines slightly.

I don't see how that has anything to do with anything I've said in this thread, but I'd be interested to read about it. Do you have a link to the story about that happening (or at least the fighter's name so I can try to google it myself)? I'm not questioning you; I'm just genuinely interested in why a fighter would be allowed by his sport's regulating body to bet on his own match.

 

[nsport]

Here's a couple points of reference - I understand this is a bit weak; a little like Wikipedia - but there's not too many news releases on point spread moves - this is regarded as "ordinary information" in the business: http://www.docsports.com/line/moves.html
College Football: http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-foo ... las-vegas/ - College is much more notorious for big line moves.

One of your "Big points" is the idea that Vegas won't take a chance and put themselves in a position to lose twice by the lines chasers. They do it ALL THE TIME. It's not as frequent in the NFL; mainly because (in my opinion) the NFL can be counted on to be more statistically relevant. But I used to make money finding the errors that Vegas made in those statistics or factors I saw that they didn't.

As for the fighter that bet on himself - I can't find the link... I thought it was Bodog or Bovada and he bet on himself and tattooed the offshore casino on his body somewhere and bragged about it... Here was a guy who did; you might be able to find the associated line move somewhere - but I won't take the time to do it: http://www.proboxing-fans.com/fighter-p ... d-hopkins/

In any case, you need to understand that this or any other than any external factor can move a line. A little or a lot. Whether it's wise guys, weather, whales, or just the public perception. The line CAN move to where Vegas can lose both sides - but you absolutely have to remember that if there were only 10 bettors and the line moved enough to attract 5 more bettors to the other side - at the end of the day (statistically speaking) - the numbers balance out. That's why they have to move the lines.

To your other point - in CFB or even NFL - betting with bias simply means that people choose who they bet on for various reasons. Lots of reasons exist, popularity is just one of them. If the 49ers are 5-0 ATS their last 5 - then guess what? I think it's a pretty good trend that I'm going to take the 49ers on the next game. If they are 9-1 there last 10 night games ATS and 15-0 against rookie QB's ATS - HELL YES - I'm taking the 49ers. But that's just a small amount of data in the grand scheme of things. Over the next 10 years, all of these numbers will even out. That's the difference between micro and macro. That's why the sports bet exists.

One of my favorite sites to find little statistical loopholes and trends is here: http://sportsdirect.usatoday.com/odds/u ... /odds.aspx - USA Today has put this stuff out for over a decade. It shows those micro trends that sometimes help something jump off the board and smack you in the face. I have been on that page 100's of times and caught something only to see the line reflect it on game day. Danny Sheridan's lines are equally helpful in finding these little gems. Look at this one: http://stats.denverpost.com/odds/nfl.aspx - full line moves in the NFL of over 1 point. I don't get what you are saying, honestly. This is COMMON KNOWLEDGE and I feel like you are just trying to say, "hey look, I just out maneuvered the .NET Sports Handicapper" - "Look how smart I am" - that's not what's happening here. You are taking weird angles and twisting them. What I am explaining is very common knowledge.

Again, it is VERY SIMPLE....

The books set the lines where they think the money will be bet fairly evenly. Every week they get close on a lot of games statistically, but often they get it wrong - even when statistics tell you otherwise. One of those stats is popularity. That is why I think the 49ers got a little bump in point spread. If this game is played on Sunday, the line is closer to the 3.5 it should be. Over time, if you played that game 100 consecutive times with 100 different opening lines, I'd be willing to stake my reputation on the fact that you would be 100% right about one thing - everything would gravitate towards 50%. But... we are playing on ONE game on Thursday - which is why there is a weighted preference for the 49ers. They set the line there so you can have that little battle in your head of "jeez, should I bet Seattle because the line is so much in their favor?" - that's the conversation they WANT you to have. Your "sharps" probably are betting Seattle. The whales are probably betting SF. The general public has trended toward betting Seattle based on the fact the line has moved down... And, according to the Denver Post and USA Today, it's done that by a full two points.

You gotta understand - if it's 10 bettors, you'd see this happen in much wider fluctuation - there's not 10 bettors, there are millions of them. Even a 1/2 point is a huge deal to some people. You can see on Denver Post and USA today that the line actually opened much higher - and now you can see it level out at -7. It's going to move again by Thursday night. There are so many people betting on this game and statistically they know what they are doing and how to get people to do what they want. Are there extreme cases where in CFB Florida State has a multiple point advantage if you have them at MGM vs. Hilton? YES!!!! It happens ALL THE TIME. EVERY WEEK. Are there games that the line moves and it lands right in the middle? YES... EVERY WEEK. But that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because it's MACRO to the casinos. For all the bettors, it's microcosms...

** Edited and Added **
One other point regarding point spreads... you can see the microcosm aspect in play if you go to a sports book in NYC, Miami, or Dallas - when you get a line from a bookie in those areas, they get way too many people betting on the home teams. They have to pump their lines up to balance it out. When *clears throat* "a guy I knew in college" used to bet through the greek system's bookies, Washington was in the national championship hunt every year. They were the best team in the Pac-10. You book through them and Washington was a solid 10-14 points different from the betting line published in the newspaper. I remember seeing one week Washington vs. OSU, and the papers had Washington as 15 point favorites or something. This bookie had it at Washington -28. It's because he was getting killed and Washington was probably going to win by 35. If I recall that year, the Huskies pretty much covered every game - but that's not really the point now is it? The same thing happens in the SEC, ACC, BIG 10, WAC, etc. every single week. Add the NFL to that list...

 

[jewhawk]

One other point regarding point spreads... you can see the microcosm aspect in play if you go to a sports book in NYC, Miami, or Dallas - when you get a line from a bookie in those areas, they get way too many people betting on the home teams. They have to pump their lines up to balance it out. When *clears throat* "a guy I knew in college" used to bet through the greek system's bookies, Washington was in the national championship hunt every year. They were the best team in the Pac-10. You book through them and Washington was a solid 10-14 points different from the betting line published in the newspaper. I remember seeing one week Washington vs. OSU, and the papers had Washington as 15 point favorites or something. This bookie had it at Washington -28. It's because he was getting killed and Washington was probably going to win by 35. If I recall that year, the Huskies pretty much covered every game - but that's not really the point now is it? The same thing happens in the SEC, ACC, BIG 10, WAC, etc. every single week. Add the NFL to that list...

There aren't any legal sportsbooks in New York, Florida, or Texas. You're describing what might happen with small underground bookies running their books through a local clientele. I don't know anything about these kinds of books, and you might be completely right about them, but that doesn't have any relevance in a discussion about legitimate Vegas books and their lines.

In any case, you need to understand that this or any other than any external factor can move a line. A little or a lot. Whether it's wise guys, weather, whales, or just the public perception. The line CAN move to where Vegas can lose both sides - but you absolutely have to remember that if there were only 10 bettors and the line moved enough to attract 5 more bettors to the other side - at the end of the day (statistically speaking) - the numbers balance out. That's why they have to move the lines.

No, if there are a few large wagers on one side at the original line, moving the line a couple points to attract more money to the other side does not balance the numbers out. It puts the books at the risk of getting middled – in other words, the potential of a result where bettors on both sides win and the books lose big. If a sportsbook takes 10 bets on the 49ers at -7, responds by moving the line to -5, then takes 5 bets on the Seahawks at +5, the book will lose huge if the 49ers win by 5-7 points. It doesn't guarantee a profit for the book short-term or long-term.

Here is a good article on line movement. It's the sharp bettors that are moving lines. You're right that books will inevitably get middled sometimes, but they are not moving lines based only on the amount wagered on each side at that book.

 

[FidelisHawk]

AAAh nothing better than gamblers arguing about, well gambling, might as well be religion in that everybody’s right as long as they believe….enough.

The only thing I know for sure is the odds are never in your favor when you walk into a casino, if they ever were the MGM would be a KFC

 

[blue 22]

AAAh nothing better than gamblers arguing about, well gambling, might as well be religion in that everybody’s right as long as they believe….enough.

The only thing I know for sure is the odds are never in your favor when you walk into a casino, if they ever were the MGM would be a KFC

HA! my dad always you use to say.... son! "the casino always wins, DONT GAMBLE!" lol

 

[LusciousJames]

-7.5 may seem a bit high, but be forewarned that if you take the Seahawks on the road, or bet against them at home, you're going against The System.

 

[chawx]

am i wierd for reading this whole thread even though i understood about 10% of it...?

LOL ^ this... I love this thread. I kinda want to be a professional gambler when I grow up now. :327321_Spy_23.22:

 

[nsport]

I am so floored at the naivety of Mr Jewhawk. Your article says precisely what I'm saying but you refuse to support it. I swear I'm talking to the lookalike Jim Harbaugh from the other thread.

 

[nsport]

am i wierd for reading this whole thread even though i understood about 10% of it...?

LOL ^ this... I love this thread. I kinda want to be a professional gambler when I grow up now. :327321_Spy_23.22:

And by the way I now officially hate this thread. I have no idea what this fool is doing. By that I think more me than Jewhawk at this point. This whole thing is ridiculous. Secret to baiting me into an argument is to belittle very minor phraseology and regurgitate just what I said and ignore the pertinent parts. Totally under my skin - qualifies for the shack now since I literally want to use foul language and club baby seals.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The only thing I know for sure is the odds are never in your favor when you walk into a casino

No they're not, but Vegas odds are extremely accurate as far as predicting final scores.

So I'm not sure why everyone's all butthurt over a 7 pt spread, we're going on the road (where we don't play well), on a short week, after a big emotional home win, to play a very good team, a team most experts picked to represent the NFC in the Superbowl.

 

[jewhawk]

I am so floored at the naivety of Mr Jewhawk. Your article says precisely what I'm saying but you refuse to support it. I swear I'm talking to the lookalike Jim Harbaugh from the other thread.

This is what you said earlier:

Fact (I think we agree on): Money moves the lines.
Fact: "Sharp" money is the same as "amateur" money

And this is what the article I posted says:

Virgin lines are moved exclusively because of money. But it's not necessarily the amount of money wagered that determines when and how much a line is moved. Many bookmakers respect the opinions of various sharp players. A $1000 bet from one of these fellows (and, yes, they are almost exclusively men) can move a line before a $10,000 bet from a less respected individual.

Much of what you've said is partially correct. I have only responded to the parts where I believe you're wrong.

 

[nsport]

I am so floored at the naivety of Mr Jewhawk. Your article says precisely what I'm saying but you refuse to support it. I swear I'm talking to the lookalike Jim Harbaugh from the other thread.

This is what you said earlier:

Fact (I think we agree on): Money moves the lines.
Fact: "Sharp" money is the same as "amateur" money

And this is what the article I posted says:

Virgin lines are moved exclusively because of money. But it's not necessarily the amount of money wagered that determines when and how much a line is moved. Many bookmakers respect the opinions of various sharp players. A $1000 bet from one of these fellows (and, yes, they are almost exclusively men) can move a line before a $10,000 bet from a less respected individual.

Much of what you've said is partially correct. I have only responded to the parts where I believe you're wrong.

Here's the problem with your article: they are selling a service that supports that point of view. They want the money of the reader who wants to be an informed bettor. You just conveniently use the very biased article to make a very minor point.

 

[jewhawk]

Your article says precisely what I'm saying but you refuse to support it.

Here's the problem with your article: they are selling a service that supports that point of view. They want the money of the reader who wants to be an informed bettor. You just conveniently use the very biased article to make a very minor point.

:34853_doh:

 

[nsport]

Your article says precisely what I'm saying but you refuse to support it.

Here's the problem with your article: they are selling a service that supports that point of view. They want the money of the reader who wants to be an informed bettor. You just conveniently use the very biased article to make a very minor point.

:34853_doh:

Totally agreed. I am going for a long walk off a short pier. I welcome you to join me. Your incessant baiting and twisting is exhausting. How you misinterpret those two paragraphs I will never know. You know beyond a shadow of a doubt that outside of some phraseology that was accidentally misinterpreted, I am 110% on point. Yet the digs continue. I'm done with you fine sir.

 

[blue 22]

regardless of the gambling debate... Im impressed with jewhawk and nsport's knowledge! lol

 

[nsport]

Thanks - and props to Jewhawk for standing ground. Fun to debate in any case. Next time I won't take it personally - I promise!

 

[chawx]

regardless of the gambling debate... Im impressed with jewhawk and nsport's knowledge! lol

I agree. Before those two I thought it was all some big conspiracy...one where the big casinos and gambling rings get together with the commish of the NFL/NBA/etc and tell them, "Hey, we'll win $150 million if this spread isn't covered by Seattle. So, you need to get on the phone with your boys in stripes (or grey shirts, whatever the outfit may be) and make it happen."

Suddenly you start seeing drive killing penalty after drive killing penalty on Seattle, while the other team blatantly and egregiously gets away with holding, PIs, etc, etc, until the Seahawks are deflated and demoralized. Nothing seems to work, and if it does, it's taken back over and over through out the game. The end result is applauded—there's no repercussion for the officials involved in swaying the game—and everyone goes on their merry way, except the select few up at the top that rake in the aforementioned $$.

But, I'm sure that's never happened...ever... especially, not in a super bowl... right? :stirthepot:

 

[FidelisHawk]

No,no,no;
That’s a conspiracy theory…

It’s really done at “Buffalo Wild Wings Restaurants”…
I’ve seen the video evidence… :twisted:

 

[nsport]

No,no,no;
That’s a conspiracy theory…

It’s really done at “Buffalo Wild Wings Restaurants”…
I’ve seen the video evidence… :twisted:

Classic!