Wait, what is your point? Because my point was simply that it's a misconception that Vegas always takes equal money on both sides. Are you disagreeing with that?
Michigan/ISU Predict the Line
- Thread starter AdamJGray
- Start date
Wait, what is your point? Because my point was simply that it's a misconception that Vegas always takes equal money on both sides. Are you disagreeing with that?
My point is that lines aren't set at "what's supposed to happen." They are set to make the house money. To sucker people.
So I suppose "equal" isn't exactly right, but it's pretty close.
Books are limiting their exposure to loss. Obviously it isn't 50.0000%/50.0000% or they'd never make money, but they're keeping it close to that. They aren't risking $40 in and paying $60 out.
What do you think the average split is?
Last edited:
Vegas does have to think in order to set the opening line. They pay guys huge money to do this " thinking".
I do agree that movement after that is based on what is taken in.
Their thinking is influenced by what they think betting public will do.
It's why Iowa is always favored over Iowa State. The general betting public isn't going to take ISU -X over Iowa in great enough numbers.
Unless you think the guys they're paying huge money are so stupid that they thought Iowa was going to win each of the last 13 games.
I remember the money on the Giants/Patriots Super Bowl was around 65/35. And that's the most bet game in the country - a lot of risk there - so you can imagine that the split could be higher on, for instance, a college basketball game in November.
Say you're a sportsbook that's offering a bet on the Super Bowl coin toss, at -105 either way. If you get $1,050,000 on heads, are you going to change the line? No. You're going to take the $25,000 of expected profit and root for tails.
edit: Math was wrong, point remains.
Last edited:
First, betting the moneyline is a totally different beast than betting against a spread.
Two, I don't even understand what your scenario is here? How much is bet on tails? Where are you coming up with 50k profit?
EDIT: To break even on a bet of 1.05M with a -105 moneyline, you would have needed 1M on the losing side, which is roughly a 52-48% action. 50k profit you have to have 50-50 action.
Last edited:
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Bottom line is, if you think you can do better at making lines than the guys in Vegas, you're probably either a millionaire or an idiot.
You tell me. You came up with this half-explained scenario.
Heads -105. You said there's 1.05M on heads.
Tails -105. You haven't said how much is on tails.
If heads wins, you pay out 1M. How in the world is there 50K of expected profits unless there is also 1.05M lost betting on tails? (I mistyped before, you need at least 1M on tails to break even).
Regardless, whatever you're trying to get at here, doesn't appear to be justifying lopsided books.
Last edited:
I screwed up the $50k number on my heads/tails example. Should have been $25,000. My point there was that even if you get a huge bet on heads, you're not going to adjust the line from -105/-105 to -110/EVEN just to arbitrarily get the same amount of money on both sides. You're just going to take the expected profit and whatever else comes in at -105/-105 on either side.
I thought Vegas gets a cut out of the action on either side. Meaning even if there is even betting on both sides Vegas still makes money. That' why they try to get even action both ways, so they don't have any risk. Does anybody know if this is right? That's how I thought it works anyway.
Except there is no expected profit on bets with even odds for both sides unless the action on both sides is equal, or damn close.
In the case of a -105 line, there is no guaranteed profit if the winning side has more than ~51.2% total staked. That's the math.
If you get outside of that as a book, you are risking taking a bath.
I guess when I was talking about books wanting "even money" on both sides, I figured 51/49 or 52/48 is close enough to even to pass.
Last edited:
Correct. That's why I'm not following ku's argument here. That's the whole basis for having a moneyline with the same odds on both sides.
Point spreads are usually a -110 money line (house keeps $1 for every $10 bet). In that case, if the you've got more than 52.4% of the total $$ bet, than the house loses money.
If you get between the 52.4/47.6 sweet spot, house makes money, no matter which team wins.
Last edited:
How do you explain Nevada sports books losing $2.6 million on the 2008 Super Bowl, then? Or that they lost money over the course of the whole 2012-2013 NFL season? They don't always get equal money on both sides. That's all I'm saying.
Last edited:
They don't "always" get it, but they damn sure try. You're citing an outlier.
Plus, this article flat out contradicts you. They thought more would come in on the Pats. They were shooting for much closer to even money.
But the Pats bets never came. They got burned.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/news/story?id=3232876
Last edited:
So I'm right that they don't always get even money on both sides. What I've been saying the whole time.
They "try" to get equal money. Just like ISU try's to win football games. Just because you try, doesn't always mean you succeed.
