Honestly, how is the spread 9.5?

[Ring 6]

You're missing his point. This line clearly is inviting money to come in on Baltimore.

No it isn't. It is clearly inviting equal money, and since it hasn't moved, that apparently is what is happening.

 

[Deus Irae]

You might be right, but I don't think the OP was saying he doesn't understand point spreads. I think the question is why is the spread 9.5, when I think most would have honestly guessed before the line was announced that it would be at least a couple of points less than that. (Now that it's out, everyone's an expert and would have pegged it within a half point of that, of course.)

It's the same as it opened for the Texans. Why would you expect different?

 

[Ring 6]

Not sure why you're taking this incredulous ("Surely?") stance. They might be "different teams" but these two teams, with many of the same players, have a history of playing close games. This history would play into the considerations of the betting public.

Nice theory, but apparently not the case since the line is at 9.5 and hasn't moved.

 

[upstater1]

Reasons:

1. Broncos brought a pop-gun to a knife fight. That was some dismal football you saw out there on Saturday; says more about how abysmal the Broncos are than how good the Ravens are.

2. Brady and the offense had its way against the Ravens earlier this year/ It was the most frustrating game of the year (more frustrating than Arizona) because the Patriots actually played well and had the game ripped from them by various factors.

3. Ravens may be tired?

 

[aluminum seats]

No it isn't. It is clearly inviting equal money, and since it hasn't moved, that apparently is what is happening.

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

 

[aluminum seats]

It's the same as it opened for the Texans. Why would you expect different?

The Pats had just beaten Houston by 80. The Pats and the Ravens play game after game that comes down to a FG.

 

[aluminum seats]

Nice theory, but apparently not the case since the line is at 9.5 and hasn't moved.

Exactly! That's precisely why the line is interesting. You're just stating that the line is the line. It's the why of it that's worthy of discussing.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

If we had real refs in week 3, we wouldve killed them.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

One side of my brain tells me that the Ravens are worse for the season than the Texans in running, in passing, in stopping the run, and in stopping the pass, so... we should have a stress-free day as fans.

But the other side tells me that the individual matchups are not as favorable as last week and that a Ravens D will make adjustments that a Wade Phillips D was too stubborn to try.

I'd like the comfy stress-free option to be correct, but if I were actually placing money on it (which I don't do) I'd think 9.5 is a little large.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

since the OP asked the question, ya might want to ask him why he doesn't get it.

He's just answering the question.

I am the OP, and actually, I just reject this explanation. I have always been fascinated by betting odds, and I can tell you with surety that this notion of "equal betting on both sides" is somewhat of a myth. Books set the lines, first and foremost, where they think the actual score will be; they do move the line sometimes to hedge their bets if they're afraid they will really take a huge beating, but the line is almost always set within 1-2 points of where computer advanced simulations project the mean score.

There are examples all the time of lines that were set despite knowing that bettors would overbet on one side. Last year's Super Bowl is a prime example, and a good majority of the betting came in on the Giants. Vegas knew this would happen but put their faith in long-term probabilities, which is that the Patriots win that matchup 55-60% of the time, which was consistent with most simulations. Vegas lost that bet, but they are correct 55-60% of the time. Had they really wanted to get equal betting, last year's Super Bowl would have been a pick 'em. The emotional sentiment was clearly with the Giants.

 

[KenSims]

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.

 

[KenSims]

This is from Jan 6:

On Sunday night, I was talking to John Avello, the bookmaker at the Wynn in Las Vegas. He was driving home, shortly after the Seattle Seahawks had beaten the Washington Redskins to become the fourth favorite in four NFL playoff games to cover. I was on a speaker phone and he was driving through a tunnel, so every other word was interrupted with static. But there was no mistaking the message: With favorites beating the numbers at a rate that make a bookmaker's stomach bleed, the folks running the show in Vegas are anxious for the season to end.

"There is not much time left in the year," Avello told me. "Then we can get rid of football until next year."

No one's going to cry for Las Vegas bookmakers, but this weekend was truly a microcosm of a strange year. As the Los Angeles Times reported recently, during one particularly bad November weekend full of favorites covering, the 12 MGM-owned sports books took a seven-figure hit and had to summon emergency reserves of cash to pay off its losses.

"That first game this Saturday between the Bengals and Texans didn't kill us," Jeff Sherman, a sports book manager at the Las Vegas Hotel, told me Sunday night as he screamed above the din of customers cashing Seahawks tickets. "But it's the liability you see compounding over the weekend. By Sunday, we couldn't stop writing Ravens tickets. The money for them just poured in."

It has been nastier than a Trent Williams shove to Richard Sherman's face behind the counters, and there aren't any match-ups this weekend that will make them feel any less queasy come game day. Because, between the Green Bay Packers, the New England Patriots and the Denver Broncos, three of the most public teams in the NFL will be in play.

"Some teams just have it, they will always get the money," Sherman said. "And those are the teams."

All three games happen to be rematches from earlier this season, with this weekend's home teams having won all three games. And the lines that the books opened not only reflect those results but how they anticipate public perception will impact the action.

 

[KenSims]

Last one, this is for this week:

Meanwhile, no one needed the Patriots-Texans game to end before posting a number for the Pats-Ravens AFC Championship Game. I have the Don Best software and, with about 10 minutes left in the game, I saw spreads popping up like Whac-A-Moles. A nine here, a 9.5 there, a 9.5 at the Las Vegas Hotel and a 9.5 at the Wynn. What makes this number interesting is the wide variance it shows from earlier in the season, when Baltimore was a Week 3, 2.5-point home favorite over New England. In a vacuum, based on that reference point, this AFC title game number should have been New England minus-3.5. But postseason point spreads aren't made in a vacuum. They're made in a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately vortex. And, lately, the money has been pouring in on the Pats.

"We saw this game as being similar to the Broncos-Ravens in the way the money came in on the favorite at an equivalent number," Sherman said. "We also have to consider the fact this is the second game. Whatever money people make earlier in the day they will want to let ride on this game. And inevitably, that will mean betting on the favorite. So if we end up taking some Baltimore money leading up to that we are fine. When you have liability adding up, if you are going to err, it doesn't hurt to err on the side of the favorite and get 'dog money. We need to be prepared."

 

[Ring 6]

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

Huh?
The line hasn't moved. I could argue it is too low in order to attract Patriots money, and there is just as much evidence, namely none.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Looks like the Pats opened at -10 and are now at -9 or -9.5, so the Houses had to move the spread just a bit to draw enough bucks to New England. That doesn't mean a whole lot, but what I always find most interesting is how/whether the line moves in the 24--48 hours before the game when the big money guys make their plays.

In the other game, San Francisco opened at -3 and is now at -4 or -4.5, which is more than "just a bit" up. Since they're on the road, that suggests that there's not a lot of bettor confidence in Atlanta.

 

[Ring 6]

I am the OP, and actually, I just reject this explanation. I have always been fascinated by betting odds, and I can tell you with surety that this notion of "equal betting on both sides" is somewhat of a myth. Books set the lines, first and foremost, where they think the actual score will be; they do move the line sometimes to hedge their bets if they're afraid they will really take a huge beating, but the line is almost always set within 1-2 points of where computer advanced simulations project the mean score.

There are examples all the time of lines that were set despite knowing that bettors would overbet on one side. Last year's Super Bowl is a prime example, and a good majority of the betting came in on the Giants. Vegas knew this would happen but put their faith in long-term probabilities, which is that the Patriots win that matchup 55-60% of the time, which was consistent with most simulations. Vegas lost that bet, but they are correct 55-60% of the time. Had they really wanted to get equal betting, last year's Super Bowl would have been a pick 'em. The emotional sentiment was clearly with the Giants.

That is simply wrong.
Vegas bookmakers TAKE bets, they don't MAKE them.
It is crazy to think that if they can keep 10% of the take with zero risk that they would try to predict the winner, effectively turning from house to gambler.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly! That's precisely why the line is interesting. You're just stating that the line is the line. It's the why of it that's worthy of discussing.

But the why isn't discussion-worthy, the why is because that is the line that has as close to 50% of the money on either side as possible.

If oyu are talking about why the betting public is betting that way, thats kind of a different topic. (well same topic, but the question should be asked differently)

 

[aluminum seats]

Huh?
The line hasn't moved. I could argue it is too low in order to attract Patriots money, and there is just as much evidence, namely none.

The line is higher than one would expect considering the variables of the match-up.

 

[aluminum seats]

But the why isn't discussion-worthy, the why is because that is the line that has as close to 50% of the money on either side as possible.

If oyu are talking about why the betting public is betting that way, thats kind of a different topic. (well same topic, but the question should be asked differently)

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Pats had just beaten Houston by 80. The Pats and the Ravens play game after game that comes down to a FG.

The Patriots just blew out the Texans again, and the Ravens won a game they shouldn't have. The first game was a virtual tie, in Baltimore, despite officiating which clearly went in favor of the Ravens in terms of impact. The Patriots secondary has been completely revamped and is playing at a much higher level. The Patriots offensive line is healthy in comparison to the first encounter. Why do you people keep ignoring what's actually happened this season? Vegas doesn't.

NE is a heavily bet team
NE is a better team than they were earlier in the year
NE is relatively healthy
NE just covered against the Texans
BAL won because of a bad play in the Denver secondary rather than because of stellar play
The first game was played in Baltimore, while this one is being played in NE

That all tells Vegas to set the line higher, not lower.