Honestly, how is the spread 9.5?

[SoCal Bong]

Over the past 6-8 weeks, and more so in the first round of the playoffs, Vegas has been getting slaughtered by public (non-sharp) money going heavy to the favorite, and the favorites covering. This could be a reaction to that, as well as the possibility that if they opened at say 6.5, the sharps bang the Pats Sunday night through Monday and the line moves up. When the public money starts coming in on the Pats -9 on Sat/Sunday (as it almost certainly will), the Sharps can take the dog and have a 3 point middle ground where they make money both ways.

You are on the money KenSims. It's not so much about the books trying to keep the action balanced as much as it is about anticipating which side is coming in and when. For the most part the pattern is consistent and public money (favorites and overs) comes in on game day. The other factor I don't believe anyone has mentioned yet is parlay exposure (off the board, not pre-printed bubble sheets). The most common parlay written the last two weeks was almost surely taking all 4 favorites and those cashed in the wild card round which even hurts the books.

Another factor that may not have been discussed is that if most every book around Vegas has Pats -9.5, the one book that goes with -10 may get pounded with Ravens Sharp bets so there is little incentive to be bold and stray from the consensus.

As far as tracking the line moves, remember that it sometimes changes just for a minute. If sharps think 10 is gonna be tough to find, they'll hit it hard if it ever shows up with 6 figure wagers (which Cantor will take, just follow Mayweather on Twitter to see proof) and that line goes right back to 9.5 before anyone else gets a chance to get some.

 

[NSPF]

Just re-watched the first game... Honestly the spread is about right, Baltimore is not anywhere near the team the Patriots are. Doesn't mean that they can't win, or that it won't be close, but it's just as likely that it will be a blowout.

 

[BradyFTW!]

But the line was/is inflated in order to attract Ravens money to balance the ledger.

That's true. The betting public tends to bet fairly heavy on the Patriots regardless of what the spread is, so sports books will sometimes compensate for that by moving the line a point or two in favor of the other team.

 

[LiveShot]

Spread is high because most of the money is on the Pats and Vegas has to balance the $$$. More money on Balt and spread will drop.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

What do you mean by "the true spread?"

Just that the spread that is final and gone through all the betting, new information, new assessment, opinions that influence bettors, ...stuff like that. I get that the spread is real today and that you can bet against it or with it if you want. I just prefer to wait it out until gameday just in case Flacco breaks his leg playing hockey Friday night or something stupid like that.

 

[ausbacker]

Just re-watched the first game... Honestly the spread is about right, Baltimore is not anywhere near the team the Patriots are. Doesn't mean that they can't win, or that it won't be close, but it's just as likely that it will be a blowout.

Baltimore, to their credit, has capitalized on the mistakes made by the Colts and the Broncos. I happen to believe that the Texans are better than Baltimore. If you line the teams up on recent form the line looks right. That said, we all know the Ravens play the Patriots tough and have got the W's when they had to in the playoffs. Style points don't matter in January and February, wins do.

The Patriots are long overdue for a positive statement game against the Ravens. This is one of the few times I'd prefer to see a blow out and total domination of the Ravens.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Over the past 6-8 weeks, and more so in the first round of the playoffs, Vegas has been getting slaughtered by public (non-sharp) money going heavy to the favorite, and the favorites covering. This could be a reaction to that, as well as the possibility that if they opened at say 6.5, the sharps bang the Pats Sunday night through Monday and the line moves up. When the public money starts coming in on the Pats -9 on Sat/Sunday (as it almost certainly will), the Sharps can take the dog and have a 3 point middle ground where they make money both ways.

Using a small sample is an unfair picture to paint. There will always be outliers when a small enough sample is taken. Everyone needs to take a look at a large sample to determine Vegas' accuracy. Best I could do is find a sample of 2 years. Taking that 2 year sample of the past, there were 167 games in which the point spread was 7 or more. The favored team outright won the game close to 80% of the time. But the underdog tied or covered the spread close to 50% (51.5%) of the time. Think about that, 167 instances of creating a spread on an uncertain outcome and they were almost 50/50. They are either lucky beyond belief or are really good at what they do.
Sure, they get it wrong sometimes. It's an inexact science they perform. But considering their longer term track record (disregarding the small sample outlier), it is safe to say that a spread from Vegas has as a solid chance of being close to right, period. That isn't homer-ism or pre game nerves, that is a quantifiable fact.

 

[fxkane]

Spread is high because most of the money is on the Pats and Vegas has to balance the $$$. More money on Balt and spread will drop.

Yes, this is the simple truth. But the odds usually make total sense to me, and I was shocked by both of sunday's lines. I expected SF to be this kind of favorite and New Eng to be at around 4 points. Instead the reverse

 

[letekro]

Baltimore, to their credit, has capitalized on the mistakes made by the Colts and the Broncos. I happen to believe that the Texans are better than Baltimore. If you line the teams up on recent form the line looks right. That said, we all know the Ravens play the Patriots tough and have got the W's when they had to in the playoffs. Style points don't matter in January and February, wins do.

The Patriots are long overdue for a positive statement game against the Ravens. This is one of the few times I'd prefer to see a blow out and total domination of the Ravens.

Balt is a mentally tough team with an enormous amount of big game experience. Houston is completely the opposite. Houston may be "better" from a talent standpoint, but that means little in the playoffs.

This line is bananas.

 

[josh24]

Betting against the spread might be the right choice in this one.
If we look at the past 5 seasons ('08-'12), reg. season and playoffs, teams favored with a -9.5 line or more have won by 10+ points in merely 51.3% of such games (95 out of 185 games), so chances are that we win by less than 10 points. Also, in those games, teams have covered the line only 80 times (41%).
On the other hand, in games with this -9.5 line, favored teams are 20-4, although covering the line only 13 times.

With that said, I think we cover.
Our run defense is really good, and the Ravens rely on the run game most of the times. This Ravens defense is not the same we have faced over the last 4-5 games. I like our chances.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I don't understand why everyone is saying the Ravens got lucky to beat the Broncos (who apparently didn't show up.) TWO special teams touchdowns in one game for the Broncos. Even if Denver completely stunk up the field for the rest of the game, that's a lot to overcome. I understand we all love our Patriots, but let's give credit where it's due. Even had the Ravens lost last week by not completing the miracle pass, it was still a tremendous effort in a really tough stadium. Perhaps you don't recall, but everyone said the Ravens age would be a factor playing in the altitude... well, the Broncos scored just 21 points on offense in 77 minutes and couldn't move the ball in the game's final 20+ minutes.

Also, Indianapolis was a good opponent that won 11 games. I realize they're overrated, but let's not act like they were chopped liver. The Ravens also took the Giants to the woodshed- before the game, did anyone really think that the GIANTS would be an easy opponent in a do-or-die game?

 

[Ring 6]

Betting against the spread might be the right choice in this one.
If we look at the past 5 seasons ('08-'12), reg. season and playoffs, teams favored with a -9.5 line or more have won by 10+ points in merely 51.3% of such games (95 out of 185 games), so chances are that we win by less than 10 points. Also, in those games, teams have covered the line only 80 times (41%).
On the other hand, in games with this -9.5 line, favored teams are 20-4, although covering the line only 13 times.

With that said, I think we cover.
Our run defense is really good, and the Ravens rely on the run game most of the times. This Ravens defense is not the same we have faced over the last 4-5 games. I like our chances.

If they win by 10+ 51.3% of the time, that means they cover more than they don't, right? Am I missing something?

 

[Ring 6]

I don't understand why everyone is saying the Ravens got lucky to beat the Broncos (who apparently didn't show up.) TWO special teams touchdowns in one game for the Broncos. Even if Denver completely stunk up the field for the rest of the game, that's a lot to overcome. I understand we all love our Patriots, but let's give credit where it's due. Even had the Ravens lost last week by not completing the miracle pass, it was still a tremendous effort in a really tough stadium. Perhaps you don't recall, but everyone said the Ravens age would be a factor playing in the altitude... well, the Broncos scored just 21 points on offense in 77 minutes and couldn't move the ball in the game's final 20+ minutes.

Also, Indianapolis was a good opponent that won 11 games. I realize they're overrated, but let's not act like they were chopped liver. The Ravens also took the Giants to the woodshed- before the game, did anyone really think that the GIANTS would be an easy opponent in a do-or-die game?

Out of their last 7 games they are 3-4. You are assessing them on the 3 and ignoring the 4.
If you are trying to argue there is a chance they could be a very difficult opponent you have a point, if you are trying to argue it is likely, you really don't.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Out of their last 7 games they are 3-4. You are assessing them on the 3 and ignoring the 4.
If you are trying to argue there is a chance they could be a very difficult opponent you have a point, if you are trying to argue it is likely, you really don't.

This like the the argument last year that the Giants were 9-7, rather than focusing on their five consecutive do-or-die wins, including annihilating the Falcons and 15-1 Packers and then taking out a very good Niners team.

Throwing out the game against Cincy where they didn't play their starters, the Ravens crushed the Giants, knocked off Indy, and then beat the 13-3 Broncos in Denver. How are games that occurred in November even relevant at this point? You really think those games have as much weight as these late season showdowns and recent playoff games? You're insane.

Patriots got down 31-3 against SF at home and then played like hot garbage in Jacksonville (what were they, 2-14?) Those games occurred near the same time as the Baltimore games you referenced.

 

[Ring 6]

Disagree that the why isn't discussion worthy.

The OP and K Simms have some interesting posts about behind-the-scenes aspect of the sports books.

That is why it isn't discussion worthy, because it just isn't correct to say that bookmakers guess who will win and effectively place bets by forcing the money the other way. Just doesn't happen, and any degree of logic will tell you that when they can guarantee a 10% with no risk, they aren't going to plss that away by gambling.
Vegas TAKES bets, they don't MAKE bets.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

That is why it isn't discussion worthy, because it just isn't correct to say that bookmakers guess who will win and effectively place bets by forcing the money the other way. Just doesn't happen, and any degree of logic will tell you that when they can guarantee a 10% with no risk, they aren't going to plss that away by gambling.
Vegas TAKES bets, they don't MAKE bets.

Oh really? Then why do Sportsbooks spend millions of dollars on professional handicappers and pay tons of money for inside information that the public doesn't know about anyway? If the public is unaware of this inside info, then Vegas shouldn't really care about it either, right?

And why bother with computer simulations and spending money on extremely advanced technology and algorithms to come up with a spread? Why not just pay someone 40k a year who researches historical trends, polls bettors, and can figure out exactly where to set the spread for equal betting? Because there is rarely equal betting, so why not just do that?

The reason they don't do this is because sharp bettors would kill them with $5M bets and take all their money. Vegas foremost protects themselves by setting the correct line so it's a 50/50 proposition on who will actually cover... the adjustments are made to hedge bets and risks.

You act like they would give a team 5-6 points because they think that's where the betting will come in. That's crazy! As I said before, maybe 1-2 points. If the spread was giving a team a touchdown that was not calculated into the real probability equation, the books would go bankrupt.

Vegas likes to be somewhat balanced by sometimes adjusting the lines a few points to compensate for unbalanced bets, but in general, they begin with the number that accurately represents the most likely outcome of the game. You obviously don't know how it works.

 

[fnordcircle]

Lines aren't about who will win it is about making money off of gamblers.

Lines have more to do with limiting a sportsbook's risk and managing betting on a particular game than any analysis of the game.

The line is 9.5 because that's where it needs to be to ensure that roughly even number of people are betting against the spread both ways. Sportsbooks make their money on the juice and by breaking even on money on both sides of the line.

Oh really? Then why do Sportsbooks spend millions of dollars on professional handicappers and pay tons of money for inside information that the public doesn't know about anyway? If the public is unaware of this inside info, then Vegas shouldn't really care about it either, right?

How much have you actually gambled? I'm not going to say I'm an expert but I'm up around $5k over the last few years gambling.

Professional handicappers are there to help the oddsmakers set the line just right so that they entice an even number of gamblers on each side of the ball to make a bet so they can keep on earning their money on the juice.

The real line on this game should be Patriots by -1 or -3. That's what anyone who has watched these games who isn't a complete homer would probably say. That the Patriots really only have the homefield edge.

Ok so if Vegas set it at that number the Patriots, gambler favorites for years now, would get a TON of action. And rightly so, the Patriots cover odds like that a ridiculous amount of the time going back to 2007.

So what happens then? The book takes a huge loss if the Patriots beat that spread. Which is why they hire oddsmakers - to limit their risk while enticing betters.

The Patriots at -9.5 will get enough action on the Ravens to balance out the number of people who will still drop money on the Patriots because they've beaten the spread a lot over the years.

And those people who gamble $100 and lose will be paying $95 to the winners, essentially, with the book taking the $5 for themselves, aka, the juice. That's where they make their money.

The hollywood vision of sportsbooks as these master gamblers with inside information are antiquated notions. Sportsbooks are run like a business now and they're all about managing their risk while maintaining steady profit on the juice.

 

[josh24]

If they win by 10+ 51.3% of the time, that means they cover more than they don't, right? Am I missing something?

Read again. I said "teams favored by a -9.5 line or more". So a team that wins by 13 with a -17.0 line doesn't cover. I guess I should have said "-9.5 or less", given -10, -11, etc. are mathematically less than -9.5.

 

[JJDChE]

The spread is 9.5 because the Pats are way better than the Ravens.

 

[Sivy]

Well, the pats beat the ravens already this season (FACT: that FG was no good) and now they have a way better D.

Game wont be close.