Vegas running scared??????

[QuiGon]

Generally that's true - but they DO sometimes try to get the money on the losing side if they're confident in the result and can get the money on the side they want (the side they expect to lose). There's more risk but a heck of a lot better payoff then getting bets equal on both sides. On the average game, you are right - but not on all games; there's way too much money to be had in winning the bet than in just being a facilitator in the betting process.

BF, my good friend, this is one of those rare instances where we're going to have to agree to disagree. Casinos don't gamble. They don't sit around playing hunches trying to predict who will win a game and get money in on that team. That leave that for the idiotic degenerate gamblers (like me). They didn't build all them castles in the desert by playing hunches and guessing

 

[FrontSeven]

They didn't build all them castles in the desert by playing hunches and guessing

Well they should have tried to guess if the desert had enough water to sustain the type of development for the long term.

I guess they can move to Atlantic City and get a little closer to the boss.

 

[ColtinIraq]

They will usually only take them off the board if they feel like something shady is going on.

 

[ALP]

They will usually only take them off the board if they feel like something shady is going on.

wuts THAT supposed to mean? LOL

 

[VJCPatriot]

There are an awful lot of people in here who don't really have a thorough grasp on how Vegas sportsbooks operate. By an amazing coincidence, these are the same people who are always telling you they have a "brother" or "cousin" or "friend of a friend" who works/owns/manages a sportsbook in Vegas.

Fact is they do steadily raise the line until there is roughly equal action on both sides, hence the week's record-breaking line against Philly. The only reason this game is off the boards at some places is because of the questionable status of Philly's starting QB.

Check out the article below:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3120882

The spread was initially 17 points for Pats v Eagles. The big money quickly jumped on that 17. The spread increased to 23.5 points in anticipation of the money they were going to lose from the people who got the early jump and bet on 17. 17 is an easy cover for this Pats offense. 23.5 is going to be more difficult but it wouldn't shock me at all if the Patriots covered that as well.

 

[QuiGon]

Check out the article below:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3120882

The spread was initially 17 points for Pats v Eagles. The big money quickly jumped on that 17. The spread increased to 23.5 points in anticipation of the money they were going to lose from the people who got the early jump and bet on 17. 17 is an easy cover for this Pats offense. 23.5 is going to be more difficult but it wouldn't shock me at all if the Patriots covered that as well.

This is also a good explanation of how Vegas can occassionally lose money on an individual game. If the early action is completely lopsided, the line will shift until it finds equilibrium - but those early bets are certainly still valid. That's why a game is usually cirlced when the line is first released (meaning Vegas only takes limited action until an equilibrium is reached). If we're at equilibrium at 23.5, there's still an imbalance from the period when the line was at 17, 18, 19, etc.

But if the line is at 23.5, and has been that way for a while now, that means the books have finally found something which reasonably approaches equal money being bet on each side.

 

[mgteich]

The casinos can indeed lose money. Consider if the actual result is patriots by 20. The bettors who gave 17 would win and the bettors who took 23 will also win.

Most casinos lay off the imbalance on their books, but that costs. And what if no one wants to bet on Philly unless you move the line to 28? The line can be at 28, but there would likely be much less action, and therefore much less profit for the casinos. Some casinos would rather have a bit of imbalance, which they can lay off; rather than having almost no profit and a "perfect" line.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The casinos can indeed lose money. Consider if the actual result is patriots by 20. The bettors who gave 17 would win and the bettors who took 23 will also win.

Most casinos lay off the imbalance on their books, but that costs. And what if no one wants to bet on Philly unless you move the line to 28? The line can be at 28, but there would likely be much less action, and therefore much less profit for the casinos. Some casinos would rather have a bit of imbalance, which they can lay off; rather than having almost no profit and a "perfect" line.

Speaking of which, with the line at -22.5, 87% of the money is on the Pats (yes, that many people are giving the points).