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

[jacobkdoyle]

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.

[ervins84]

Originally Posted by jacobkdoyle

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.

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

[jacobkdoyle]

Originally Posted by ervins84

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

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.

[Bearcat_NTS]

I hate Purdue so freaking much. Pathetic.

[jacobkdoyle]

Not sure about this one
Celtics +10.5 @ Hawks
Grizzlies @ Rockets Over 206.5
Heat @ Bucks Over 196.5

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Originally Posted by jacobkdoyle

Not sure about this one
Celtics +10.5 @ Hawks
Grizzlies @ Rockets Over 206.5
Heat @ Bucks Over 196.5

look at Toronto, Portland and OKC.

[jacobkdoyle]

Originally Posted by WAITE HOYT 2

look at Toronto, Portland and OKC.

I did
Raptors -7 vs Nets
Hornets @ Sixers Under 217.5
Thunder @ Timberwolves Over 200

2 teasers on all NBA doesn't seem very smart. But here goes nothing.

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Originally Posted by jacobkdoyle

I did
Raptors -7 vs Nets
Hornets @ Sixers Under 217.5
Thunder @ Timberwolves Over 200

2 teasers on all NBA doesn't seem very smart. But here goes nothing.

ill be rooting for you.

[jacobkdoyle]

Got this one going now:
Villanova -5 @ St. John's
Florida -2.5 at home vs Georgia
Providence +10 at home vs Seton Hall

[jacobkdoyle]

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