7 point favorites tomorrow

[jncuse]

I am surprised to see it -7.

If these were two teams I had only see a handful of times in another power conference, with this same line and history, I would be all over the 7 point underdog.

But not touching this one either way.

 

[jncuse]

I mentioned this last game but certainly some odd lines with Syracuse recently... many start out a point or two higher than expected, and a couple of games have had huge 3 point or more drops on the line (BC / Miami)

 

[LennX6]

We have covered the spread more often than not by almost 2 to 1. And more so recently, Miami notwithstanding. I am sure some of that is based on this.

 

[PoppyHart]

What is our record ats this year?

 

[jncuse]

What is our record ats this year?

Sportsinteraction currently says 10-3. Perhaps they did not have the game line available a few times this year, which is why they only show a 13 game record.

Anyway line is down to 5 for them anyway.

 

[UnderHisOwnPower]

Who's that douche with the bombshell?

 

[Townie72]

I disagree. While the general rule is to balance the books 50-50, when the oddsmakers feel they have a better than normal understanding of the game in question coupled with proven examples of human biases (e.g. teams like Notre Dame), they will skew the odds knowing that the action is betting with their hearts and not inclined to switch sides. So, rather that attracting action, they are simply weighting the odds more heavily against you.

Let's say the "true odds" say a team is a 7 point favorite. That is, completely objective bookmakers without a dog in the fight say its -7. For some teams, the books will never balance at -7. If Vegas can entice those people to pay a loyalty premium that is significant enough, they would likely accept the risk that the books are unbalanced.

You appear to be making the same mistake. It's never about what the oddsmakers think will happen. It's always about what they think the betting public thinks ... and then they adjust the line as the bets come in to get the action equal on both sides of the bet.

The oddsmakers don't have an opinion on the relative strengths and weaknesses of teams and the likely margin of victory.

Its all about what they think bettors think the winner and the winner's margin of victory will be. Because they understand the behavior of Bettors and Bettor psychology, they factor that into the line they set.

If ND has a pool of Bettors who "overvalue" ND than the books will incorporate that into their thinking.

 

[kirbivore]

Doug Gottlieb makes Pitt his upset special for the weekend on his cable show Lead Off. He thinks Pitt has Cuse's number and they have had success in the Dome so they go in with no fear. Didn't take DG long to jump off the bandwagon did it? His hottie side-kick, Allie, just shook her head and kinda rolled her eyes.

What did Doug say that was wrong?

 

[kirbivore]

I dont think Doug was ever on the bandwagon. I think some of these people(the better ones) may have some idea of the perception they give off, and will take action to adjust it from time to time. I mean, I wouldnt doubt some of them get some side pay from vegas.

 

[kirbivore]

The only way your theory could be true is if they were also betting. They are not.

Yes they are. If they screw up the line and 80% of the action is on one side and the public wins the books are screwed.

 

[CiceroCuse]

They are laying a trap for the public to overbet on Pitt. Seeing 7 pt makes me think we may have a great day.

Good call. Totally thinking the same thing.

 

[cusetown1]

I will say it again Vegas wants the public to take Pitt covering. I would be shocked if we don't cover the 7, shocked! If the public goes heavy on one side you always go the other way. It works out more often than not for me. Wiseguys! Enjoy the cigar game!

 

[Townie72]

Rules for sports wagering ... if you are interested in making money as opposed to supplying yourself with extra incentive to watch a game.

1. Never bet on any game in which you have a rooting interest. It'll cloud your judgement.
2. It's all about the "numbers".

A neighbor of mine in Dallas in the late 1970's --- a statistician, by education --- always bet against the Cowboys even though they won alot because they rarely covered. The Cowboys were almost always "overvalued" by the betting public. This guy could not care less about football. He also would sometimes bet with any team that had lost big the previous week and against team that had won big. His reasons were "bettor psychcology" and "the numbers" associated with this practice.

 

[cusetown1]

Rules for sports wagering ... if you are interested in making money as opposed to supplying yourself with extra incentive to watch a game.

1. Never bet on any game in which you have a rooting interest. It'll cloud your judgement.
2. It's all about the "numbers".

A neighbor of mine in Dallas in the late 1970's --- a statistician, by education --- always bet against the Cowboys even though they won alot because they rarely covered. The Cowboys were almost always "overvalued" by the betting public. This guy could not care less about football. He also would sometimes bet with any team that had lost big the previous week and against team that had won big. His reasons were "bettor psychcology" and "the numbers" associated with this practice.

That's funny you mention the cowboys. My father in law lived in Texas during that time and says the same thing about the cowboys and betting them.

 

[LennX6]

I disagree. While the general rule is to balance the books 50-50, when the oddsmakers feel they have a better than normal understanding of the game in question coupled with proven examples of human biases (e.g. teams like Notre Dame), they will skew the odds knowing that the action is betting with their hearts and not inclined to switch sides. So, rather that attracting action, they are simply weighting the odds more heavily against you.

Let's say the "true odds" say a team is a 7 point favorite. That is, completely objective bookmakers without a dog in the fight say its -7. For some teams, the books will never balance at -7. If Vegas can entice those people to pay a loyalty premium that is significant enough, they would likely accept the risk that the books are unbalanced.

One of the "biases" that comes into play is the reputation College Basketball has for upsets more than any other sport. Realistically baseball has the best chance for an "upset" but who bets on Baseball

 

[LGO85]

4.5 now. Really thinking about pulling the trigger...

 

[cusetown1]

This is part of them evening the bets out. College Basketball has a reputation for upsets. Making the spread on this game anywhere from 4 up is going to

One of the "biases" that comes into play is the reputation College Basketball has for upsets more than any other sport. Realistically baseball has the best chance for an "upset" but who bets on Baseball

Sometimes they just throw the computer numbers out the window and set the line wherever the hell they want.

 

[LennX6]

4.5 now. Really thinking about pulling the trigger...

I will. Two major factors in my decision are the fact its a home game. Second is the SOS for Pitt is a huge factor. Not just for the fact that their record may or not be inflated due to that, but also if they have been playing lesser teams and looking good, that skews everything we would grade them by. Game tapes, plays, how effective their defenses are, all stats basically would be skewed. I think we have this by 8-10, based on how I see it.

 

[LGO85]

I will. Two major factors in my decision are the fact its a home game. Second is the SOS for Pitt is a huge factor. Not just for the fact that their record may or not be inflated due to that, but also if they have been playing lesser teams and looking good, that skews everything we would grade them by. Game tapes, plays, how effective their defenses are, all stats basically would be skewed. I think we have this by 8-10, based on how I see it.

I was thinking the same thing. They don't have their 3 man either so it'll be up to CJ, Grant, and Xmas/Keita to take them out. I like those odds.

 

[Knicks411]

i would lay the 7 for sure if that was still the line

 

[LennX6]

Its dropped to 5 in most houses.

 

[cusetown1]

Its dropped to 5 in most houses.

Just about where nova game was.

 

[Cusefannotindc]

Here is a real bet, which will be greater SU's margin or the number of years Carl Krauser was in college?

 

[LennX6]

Here is a real bet, which will be greater SU's margin or the number of years Carl Krauser was in college?

Ha I used to think that about Troutman. I thought they should have given him a retirement tour when he left.

 

[ORRange]

It is my belief that in select games (rare maybe 1 or 2 on a Saturday docket) the oddsmakers will put out a line that seems to be too good to be true. They are pigs sometimes. A perfect example today is #16 UMass @ Elon + only 5.5. Come on Elon is 10-8 and look at what they've done this year. The oddsmakers could make that line -10 and not have even money on it. It doesn't mean that Elon will cover, but it sure stinks. It's a perfect example of why Vegas doesn't always want even money on a game.