Odds, Lines, Futures (All Gambling Related CBB Discussion)

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

Another example...The Clemson/Alabama line was 6.5. It held steady. But the moneyline did not. It kept shrinking. Why would it move so much without the spread moving? If it's not about balance, wouldn't they just have a by the book moneyline for 6.5 spreads and keep it there? No need to fluctuate, right? No. It moved bc people weren't taking Clemson +6.5. They were taking the Clemson moneyline. They kept moving it bc they were trying to entice action on Alabama. If it wasn't about 2 way action, why would they care? And a better question, if it's not about 2 way action, what is it about? Vegas predicting scores? If that's the case, why would a line ever move? Wouldn't they just hold firm to what "they believe"? After all, it wouldn't be about the 2 way action. There's a reason why they don't do that, and it's the same reason they're on the other side of the counter. They have the vig, the gamblers don't. That's why bookmakers drive nice cars while even pro bettors have months where they struggle to pay the rent. The books don't get in the mud and gamble with the gamblers bc the vig ensures they don't have to. And they aren't going to make predictions then let the market correct them. They'll let the bettors correct each other based on perceived value. Again, the difference between being on one side of the counter or the other. One is gambling, and one is managing risk. In a general sense, it's that simple. Why? Bc one has every single game bet at +110, so they don't need to complicate it. It's not magic. A guy like Matthew Holt at CGT could tell you every lookahead line for the whole NFL season on Week 1. It's not bc he knows the scores. It bc all they have to do is create a baseline rating and make small week to week tweeks from there. And once it's set, any shift is strictly based on the action.
 
Last edited:
jacobkdoyle said:
Another example...The Clemson/Alabama line was 6.5. It held steady. But the moneyline did not. It kept shrinking. Why would it move so much without the spread moving? If it's not about balance, wouldn't they just have a by the book moneyline for 6.5 spreads and keep it there? No need to fluctuate, right? No. It moved bc people weren't taking Clemson +6.5. They were taking the Clemson moneyline. They kept moving it bc they were trying to entice action on Alabama. If it wasn't about 2 way action, why would they care? And a better question, if it's not about 2 way action, what is it about? Vegas predicting scores? If that's the case, why would a line ever move? Wouldn't they just hold firm to what "they believe"? After all, it wouldn't be about the 2 way action. There's a reason why they don't do that, and it's the same reason they're on the other side of the counter. They have the vig, the gamblers don't. That's why bookmakers drive nice cars while even pro bettors have months where they struggle to pay the rent. The books don't get in the mud and gamble with the gamblers bc the vig ensures they don't have to. And they aren't going to make predictions then let the market correct them. They'll let the bettors correct each other based on perceived value. Again, the difference between being on one side of the counter or the other. One is gambling, and one is managing risk. In a general sense, it's that simple. Why? Bc one has every single game bet at +110, so they don't need to complicate it. It's not magic. A guy like Matthew Holt at CGT could tell you every lookahead line for the whole NFL season on Week 1. It's not bc he knows the scores. It bc all they have to do is create a baseline rating and make small week to week tweeks from there. And once it's set, any shift is strictly based on the action.
Click to expand...
Each book is its own separate entity with its own balance sheets and risk tolerance. Some are more willing to take a stance on a game than others. In theory a 50/50 split would be easy peasy with a steady stream ROI. The problem is it's pretty hard to get exactly 50/50 on a side. Couple in that most books are more concerned with maximizing their EV than minimizing their variance due to having such a large sample of different games, events, etc.

There are a lot of possible and plausible explanations for line moves as well. For example say many books took a TON of action preseason on Clemson to win a title, which wouldn't surprise me at all. To hedge this, and lower their exposure, they could conceivably lower the moneyline hoping to get a certain amount just on Bama to win in order to help offset those futures payouts. At the same time, they wouldn't want to change the spread
 
Last edited:
ervins84 said:
Each book is its own separate entity with its own balance sheets and risk tolerance. Some are more willing to take a stance on a game than others. In theory a 50/50 split would be easy peasy with a steady stream ROI. The problem is it's pretty hard to get exactly 50/50 on a side. Couple in that most books are more concerned with maximizing their EV than minimizing their variance due to having such a large sample of different games, events, etc.

There are a lot of possible and plausible explanations for line moves as well. For example say many books took a TON of action preseason on Clemson to win a title, which wouldn't surprise me at all. To hedge this, and lower their exposure, they could conceivably lower the moneyline hoping to get a certain amount just on Bama to win in order to help offset those futures payouts. At the same time, they wouldn't want to change the spread
Click to expand...

I think the bolded part is the key. It's much harder in practice. Ideally the bettors wouldn't be betting against "the book", rather betting against each other. Most likely making the public the long-term loser. I've heard it described as being chased by a bear. You don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than whoever you're with. Ideally for the bettors, you don't have to beat the book, just the squares who are moving (non-NFL) lines with unbalanced ticket counts, which is therefore "big" money by way of volume bets. The book will move a line bc hard is it may be, they do try for 2-sided action, which then allows you to bet weak spots in the market, not necessarily the initial line. Like last week, the Giants line went from +6.5 or +7 (I don't remember which) to 4.5 in just 8 minutes. Some people misidentified this as "sharp" money bc some pro bettors placed 5-figure limit bets on NYG even after it started to move through 6. They obviously know that big money will move a line, bc again, they book doesn't want to be so vulnerable. But what ended up happening is these guys waited until closer to kick then hammered huge bets at higher limits on GB bc they were just setting it up earlier in the week so they could grab the better number once they could bet more. Crazy what you can expose yourself to when you're the one handing out the tickets. Anyway, that was another case of the book at the very least attempting to entice 2-sided betting...since they obviously don't have a dog in the fight. By the end of the day I don't think that was the game that killed them though even though it had by far the highest handle and a home favorite covering bc the public isn't sharp enough to pick up on key numbers and limit bet strategies so they kept firing away on NYG to at least neutralize the late action.

I brought up the Clemson moneyline bc I specifically heard an interview with Matthew Holt and he was saying they were lowering it to draw Alabama money just bc without getting the full 7 people were hammering the Clemson moneyline. I know CG is a lot of properties in Vegas. Idk what the preseason odds were on Clemson but he didn't seem all that concerned about the future tickets, possibly bc just as many were on the Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Florida State's of the world idk.
 
Got this one going now:
Villanova -5 @ St. John's
Florida -2.5 at home vs Georgia
Providence +10 at home vs Seton Hall
 
Did a parlay for later on NBA:
Spurs -12.5 @ Suns
Jazz -785 at home vs Magic
Wizards -504 at home vs Sixers

And 6 pt NFL teaser at -120
Patriots -9
Texans/Patriots Under 50.5
 
Bell has everything to prove in the playoffs. He will be putting up 150+ again today. Guess we will see what happens. Alex smith is gonna have his hands full
 
The site I use randomly gave me $50 in "free play" so I am using some it today.
UC-15.5
GB +5
GB @ Dal o53
Raptors -9.5
 

Similar threads

E
Odds, Lines, Futures (All Gambling Related CBB Discussion)
11 12 13
Replies
248
Views
47K
Bearcat_NTS
B
J
Looking at the Non Conference Opponents
Replies
7
Views
4K
cincyguy13
C
B
What Big 12 Expansion Should Look Like
Replies
7
Views
5K
Bearcat1234
B
J
Koch: Move UC basketball to the Banks
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
23K
charlie hustle
C
bearcat jeff
Dehner's Interview With Mick Part 2
Replies
2
Views
3K
adrock
adrock

Latest posts

Back
Top