2008 Week 7 Gamblers (Anonymous) Thread

[Steeltown Dre]

Will answer tomorrow Gopher

[Mojo Rising]

alright just put the play in den +3, over 48

 

I just cant see the defenses stopping anybody and I think it will be a close game until cassel makes a mistake.

 

rolling the dice big time since the past weeks have been pretty good.

 

gl to everyone

[Steeltown Dre]

with the numbers of things that you listed as reasons why you were not that comfortable with the CIN/PIT game, what factors caused you to lean in the direction of making this one of your posted plays? I know you put a lot of time and thought/effort into determining your weekly plays, and that we only see a snapshot of everything that goes into the decision-making process, but how much do you factor in a particular player's status, in addition to the trends that you seem to rely heavily on? In other words, to use the CIN/PIT game as an example, given that your system showed that the Bengals had a solid chance at covering the spread, what would have caused you to stay away? Palmer was out, yet a lot of the Bengals' trends would have been based on games in which he played... Personally, that would make me want to stay away from that game... similar to how I will be staying away from the NE/DEN game, due to the fact that I still haven't figured out how much Brady's absence affects the Patriots, week in and week out.

 

I also realize that many of the trends are situational trends, not just trends involving the two teams in question. I guess my question is... in what order do you rank the following factors in order of importance, in determining whether or not to make a play:

 

- Trends directly related to the teams in question.

- Trends directly related to the teams in question, particularly when they play each other.

- Where the game is being played.

- Other general trends... West coast/East coast, Monday night games, divisional/non-divisional, after/before a bye, etc.

- Major players missing due to injury.

- Gut feeling.

 

I know it's probably not that easy... My guess is that you probably can't "rank" the above items, necessarily, since every game/situation is slightly different. But, do any of the above stick out as being much more important than one of the others?

 

I made the Cin play because of the value I saw in the line, the fact that I thought, and still do, that Pit's O-Line was a big weakness, and because both my system and trends and other research said there was value there.

 

Value is the #1 thing I look for in a play. If I can get a divisional game w/ 10 points from a team who rarely, if ever, give that many, I will take it time and time again. It didn't work out last week, but I am sure it will again. Remember, though the final score was bad, Cin was down by 3 at the half and by just 7 w/ less than 10 mins left in the game. Look at Houston last week, for example. At team who never lays that many points. My system liked them, but I ruled them out based on my research of their ability and probability of covering a large number.

 

I factor player status into things, but like I said on my site, it then interjects a human element into the program. The program is looking at numbers. Once I begin tweaking injury levels and things like that, I lose confidence in the output. So while I do factor it in, I also look to see what it would look like without injuries. I pretty much explained my logic on Fitzpatrick/Johnson on my website, so no need to repeat it here.

 

As you can see from how I post my plays, I research all types of trends and situations, from those that involve the teams to those that do not. I try not to overlook anything. Home field is overrated in my mind. Of course my system factors it in and so does Vegas. But the past few seasons, road teams have fared very well. Do you know that home dogs of less than 3 since 2006 have gone 13-24-1 ATS? Meanwhile, between 01-04 they were 48-28 ATS. You have to adapt to the changing landscape of perception and how Vegas plays games w/ the betting public. They find a way to win based on public perception, they ride it for a little while, and right when you start thinking like they do, they pull the carpet and move on to another ploy. That's why having the my computer system as a tool helps immensely, to avoid being duped by lines, but doing research is very vital, especially in the ever changing NFL.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Steeltown Dre

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

Dre do you honestly believe Vegas is into booking bets ?

As opposed to putting up a line that assures equal wagering on both sides.

there for assuring a %10 ( vig ) profit no matter who wins ?

[Steeltown Dre]

Dre do you honestly believe Vegas is into booking bets ?

As opposed to putting up a line that assures equal wagering on both sides.

there for assuring a %10 ( vig ) profit no matter who wins ?

 

Just ask yourself this: how many games a week do you believe are equally wagered on?

 

If the vast majority are equally wagered on each and every week, and I mean 50/50 wagering, then you would be right in your assumption.

 

But the fact is, many games each week are not equally wagered on. Even w/ moving the line a point or two, it's virtually impossible to ensure equal wagering. And if they kept moving the line all over the place to balance out wagering, you'd have too many middles/scalps available.

 

Vegas definitely shades lines and takes "positions" on certain games. Not always, but they pick their spots. That is my opinion.

 

Also ask yourself this, how many offline bookies get equal action on games? The answer is VERY few. Yet they still are turning a profit. Reason being, they win a majority of the games they "need" to win. The games w/ perfectly 50/50 action, the bookie does not "need" either team, they have already ensured a profit. But the games w/ unbalanced action they "need" a side.

 

This was posted on line a week or so ago, but its worth a read:

 

DIRECT FROM NEVADA

 

With Linesmaker Nick Bogdanovich

 

THE MYTH OF “SPLITTING THE ACTION”

 

You’ve probably heard for years, even decades, that the goal of the oddsmaker is to “split the action” on each game.

That means he wants half the money on one side of the betting line, and half on the other side. Since losing bets are charged a 10 percent “vigorish,” sportsbooks are guaranteed a profit whenever the money breaks out evenly. The losers pay the winners, and the sportsbooks put 10% in their pockets thank you very much.

 

It doesn’t actually work out that way.

 

Sure, there are some games where the money comes in close to 50/50. Often you’ll see the public (referred to as “squares” in Nevada) betting on one side, while professional wagerers (called “sharps”) are on the other. What’s more common these days is for the sportsbooks to take a position on a game while giving bettors “the worst of it.”

What do I mean by that?

 

If oddsmakers are confident the public is going to be betting one side very strongly, which is fairly common when you’re talking about big name college football teams or the most hyped pro squads, they’ll inflate the line a couple of points in that direction. The public isn’t betting the “true” line that reflects the actual difference between the teams on the field. They’re paying a tax of a couple of points because their betting is so predictable. As a result, squares who still make that bet are laying 11/10 AND a bad number. It’s tough enough to beat the 11/10 over time. Doing that against bad numbers will make money for the sportsbooks even if the money doesn’t split out evenly.

 

In some sports though, it’s mostly sharp action that’s hitting the board. Oddsmakers will try to do the same thing here by studying sharp betting patterns. If they notice that the sharps are hitting an off-the-radar team in college basketball, or maybe Unders with certain NBA teams, they’ll adjust that line a couple of points as well. Now the sharps have to decide whether or not they want to lay 11/10 at a line not particularly to their liking. If they do, the sportsbooks figure they’re okay because they’ve charged the tax and have the 11/10 working for them.

 

Let me give you an example that will help you see how powerful this is. I’ve heard often through the years about “offers” that certain illegal bookies around the country will make to their square clientele. They’re so confident the squares will lose with a lot of action, they tell the mark that he can move the line one point in his favor in every game…but he has to bet EVERY game. Now, this ONLY works against real squares! Most guys can win with that kind of edge. Sharps would make a killing. Squares find a way to lose no matter what the proposition is.

 

Now, imagine a book told you that HE would get to move each game a point in whatever direction HE wanted, you still had to lay 11/10, and you had to play every game on the board. That would be horrible for a player. You’d never take that offer in a million years. Imagine it was two points instead of one. Nobody in their right mind would take that offer.

 

Well, that’s what’s going on here to a degree. Sportsbooks realize how the public bets, they’re charging them 11/10 on each play, and they’re making them lay 1-3 points the worst of it depending on the game. I’m not saying the public plays the board. But, oddsmakers know which games the public will be focused on. That universe is tilted very strongly against the squares. The “squares’ board” is a stacked deck.

 

Oddsmakers haven’t quite yet realized how to beat the sharps. But, they have slowed down the sharps with this type of approach. That 11/10 vig AND “penalty” points create quite a hurdle for players to clear even if you’re talking about an obscure college basketball game or an NBA total.

In baseball, the same thing happens on the moneyline. You saw high prices on the Cubs in their first round National League playoff series against the Dodgers because the public loves betting the Cubs. Squares had to pay a surcharge for the right to bet on Chicago. This past season, when the sharps pounded a young up-and-coming pitcher in his first couple of starts, the line dropped immensely the next time he took the mound. There were several young arms this past summer who were priced like veterans by their third appearance.

 

As you can see, there’s no need for an oddsmaker to sweat how the action breaks down in each game as long as he’s put the house in a good position. He knows that things will work out for the sportsbook over a large sampling of games.

 

“Splitting the action” is a myth. That’s not the way it happens in the real world.

 

If you want to win when betting college and pro football, you have to be aware of this phenomenon and put it to your advantage. Go against the public teams so you can put the free points in your favor. Don’t bet any side or total where you believe the line has been shaded against you. Make your own calculated assessment of what the “true” line should be. Then try to find edges you can exploit. You’ll still be dealing with the 11/10. But, you’ll have a fighting chance to be on the right side more often than not.

 

Then the squares will be paying YOU instead of the house!

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

Just ask yourself this: how many games a week do you believe are equally wagered on?

 

If the vast majority are equally wagered on each and every week, and I mean 50/50 wagering, then you would be right in your assumption.

 

But the fact is, many games each week are not equally wagered on. Even w/ moving the line a point or two, it's virtually impossible to ensure equal wagering. And if they kept moving the line all over the place to balance out wagering, you'd have too many middles/scalps available.

 

Vegas definitely shades lines and takes "positions" on certain games. Not always, but they pick their spots. That is my opinion.

 

Also ask yourself this, how many offline bookies get equal action on games? The answer is VERY few. Yet they still are turning a profit. Reason being, they win a majority of the games they "need" to win. The games w/ perfectly 50/50 action, the bookie does not "need" either team, they have already ensured a profit. But the games w/ unbalanced action they "need" a side.

 

This was posted on line a week or so ago, but its worth a read:

 

 

Great read & thanks