Vegas befuddled on Pats/Eagles betting line

[PatsFanSince74]

Andy Reid says that McNabb is "day to day" and that he can start on Sunday without practicing this week. in other words, your guess is as good as mine.

Since there might not be any further clarification until the weekend, my guess is they'll set a line that they think is big enough to attract bets. i can't imagine it starting any lower than three TD's, maybe 24 points, and then they'll adjust depending on where the money's going.

 

[3RINGS@COUNTING]

someone posted this on espn message boards its about the largest point spreads in nfl history..... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21775365/

 

[mgcolby]

Here is something interesting for those curious about future spreads.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFL/AFC/AFC+East/New+England/Features/2007/patriots2217.htm


Looking into the future

In conjunction with setting odds on the Patriots finishing unbeaten, Las Vegas Sports Consultants has set pointspreads for New England’s final seven games. The lines assume the Pats will stay unbeaten and will keep playing at their current level. They also assume New England won’t suffer any injuries material to the pointspread and won’t rest starters if it secures a postseason bid and/or home-field advantage in the AFC.

Date
Opponent
The Line

Nov. 18
at Buffalo
New England by 17

Nov. 25
vs. Philadelphia
New England by 16½

Dec. 3
at Baltimore
New England by 13½

Dec. 9
vs. Pittsburgh
New England by 13½

Dec. 16
vs. N.Y. Jets
New England by 21

Dec. 23
vs. Miami
New England by 24*

Dec. 29
at N.Y. Giants
New England by 10


* — Could be the highest pointspread for an NFL game since San Francisco was favored by 23½ points vs. Cincinnati on Dec. 5, 1993.

 

[QuiGon]

They try to get near 50% on the majority of games, but it isn't practical in every situation. And their are times just like Thursday night (Oregon vs Arizona) where the bookie entices money on the team they think will lose (Oregon). But again don't listen to me:

I am not going to listen to you because you don't know what you are talking about. And neither does Florio.

The MSNBC article and Washington Times articles you quoted are accurate in that the early action (before the line shifts) can be such that a book will occassionally lose small amounts of money on an individual game. I would be lying if I said every sportsbook makes money on every game.

But when I see ridiculous figures like "80% of the action was on New England" or "90% of the action was on New England" then I see people who just don't know what they are talking about or are just exaggerating their losses. Or, most likely, they are just talking about the money line and not against the spread.

Think about it logically: There's no law that says a Vegas sportsbook has to take action on the Patriots. Believe you me when I say the following: If sportsbooks were losing money week in and week out on the Patriots, then they would take their games off the board. When that happens, then I'll start to believe some of the things written above.

 

[mgcolby]

I am not going to listen to you because you don't know what you are talking about. And neither does Florio.

The MSNBC article and Washington Times articles you quoted are accurate in that the early action (before the line shifts) can be such that a book will occassionally lose small amounts of money on an individual game. I would be lying if I said every sportsbook makes money on every game.

But when I see ridiculous figures like "80% of the action was on New England" or "90% of the action was on New England" then I see people who just don't know what they are talking about or are just exaggerating their losses. Or, most likely, they are just talking about the money line and not against the spread.

Think about it logically: There's no law that says a Vegas sportsbook has to take action on the Patriots. Believe you me when I say the following: If sportsbooks were losing money week in and week out on the Patriots, then they would take their games off the board. When that happens, then I'll start to believe some of the things written above.

Quigon's logic = I don't believe it, so it must not be true, even when there is evidence presented to prove I am wrong.

Good Job..

 

[Eugene Chung]

Vegas.com has Pats giving 22.5

 

[Michael]

What's the over/under on how much McNabb vomits?

 

[He Ban Me]

I heard 22.5 this A.M.


You think you guys will drop 70 on the Jets?

I wouldn't mind watching a nine Pass TD performance by Brady, and a late Eckel run, just cause you're scared JETS might come back from a 63-3 deficit

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Why? Just up the spread until the betting is even. At some point you bet against the Pats.

No?

How about Pats -50 at Philly? Who would you take? -60?

Vegas doesn't really want to experiment, though. They pay guys a lot of money to try to come up with the right line to start. Trial and error is where the casinos lose money.

Here's how it works. Suppose the true place where half the money would be bet on each team is -23. Vegas goofs and comes out with a line of -20. People jump on this and bet overwhelmingly on the Pats. Now Vegas needs to adjust the line to get action back on the other side. 23 won't be enough to recapture the money bet early on the Pats. So maybe it goes to 23.5 or 24, or even higher for a time depending on how much action went on the Pats. (It doesn't jump at once, it goes up incrementally.)

But now there's a problem. A spread this big is great for arbitrage. Suppose you got in for $1,000 for the Pats at -20, and now the line is -24.5. Now you have a golden opportunity. You bet another $1,000 on the Steelers getting 24.5. Now, you can't lose anything but the vig on one of the bets. You have to win one of your bets. And, for the cost of the vig, you have bought a chance to win both bets -- if the Patriots win by more than 20 but less than 24.5, you win both bets.

The loss of the vig makes this not worth it to arbitrage if the spread moves only a point or 1.5. More than that, and Vegas is unhappy. So setting the line is important, as is moving it very quickly when the action starts to come in if it's lopsided.

 

[letekro]

If I owned a house, I would bet it on the Pats -13 at the Ravens.

 

[mgcolby]

Vegas doesn't really want to experiment, though. They pay guys a lot of money to try to come up with the right line to start. Trial and error is where the casinos lose money.

Here's how it works. Suppose the true place where half the money would be bet on each team is -23. Vegas goofs and comes out with a line of -20. People jump on this and bet overwhelmingly on the Pats. Now Vegas needs to adjust the line to get action back on the other side. 23 won't be enough to recapture the money bet early on the Pats. So maybe it goes to 23.5 or 24, or even higher for a time depending on how much action went on the Pats. (It doesn't jump at once, it goes up incrementally.)

But now there's a problem. A spread this big is great for arbitrage. Suppose you got in for $1,000 for the Pats at -20, and now the line is -24.5. Now you have a golden opportunity. You bet another $1,000 on the Steelers getting 24.5. Now, you can't lose anything but the vig on one of the bets. You have to win one of your bets. And, for the cost of the vig, you have bought a chance to win both bets -- if the Patriots win by more than 20 but less than 24.5, you win both bets.

The loss of the vig makes this not worth it to arbitrage if the spread moves only a point or 1.5. More than that, and Vegas is unhappy. So setting the line is important, as is moving it very quickly when the action starts to come in if it's lopsided.

Not that I know what I am talking about, but middling is a great strategy in this case. I have done that twice this year both were pushes for me though.

 

[makewayhomer]

Not that I know what I am talking about, but middling is a great strategy in this case. I have done that twice this year both were pushes for me though.

the trouble is that you still have a small window. what are the odds the Pats win by exactly 21 or 22? prob not enough to cover the juice imo

I'm not sure if you are going to find as big a discrepency as -24.5 and -20

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

the trouble is that you still have a small window. what are the odds the Pats win by exactly 21 or 22? prob not enough to cover the juice imo

I'm not sure if you are going to find as big a discrepency as -24.5 and -20

Actually, the odds are better than you would think, since the line is often a reflection of how the game will be played, and often games are close to the line. When a line moves, the game is often played at least near the middle, giving you a shot.

Your vig on this bet is actually 5 percent, not 10 percent. Think of your bet as the entire $2000. You can only lose on one game, so the vig is 10 percent on one of the $1,000 bets (or 5 percent of your total bet).

Don't forget that pushing one bet and winning the other is also a possibility, which gives you a return of $1,000 for a $100 vig.

 

[mgcolby]

the trouble is that you still have a small window. what are the odds the Pats win by exactly 21 or 22? prob not enough to cover the juice imo

I'm not sure if you are going to find as big a discrepency as -24.5 and -20

I'm not sure I would do it with NE based on their recent scores, but I have done it in college. I could also see it in a game between two middle of the road teams.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I'm not sure I would do it with NE based on their recent scores, but I have done it in college. I could also see it in a game between two middle of the road teams.

You can also do it, by the way, with point spread wagering in the halves. It could work out to a nice arbitrage situation with the Pats if they go up big in the first half -- you bet the Pats to cover and if they have a very large lead after the first half, you can go the other way on the second half (taking the Iggles plus the points) and put yourself in a middled position.