Then what is the truth?

 

I am with you OR, they want it equal, they make their money off the juice...

What is UK's record? If people picked UK to win every game this year they would be right more than wrong. I understand where you're coming from. I didn't even pick the last game that I know of, but it did come off as a tad demeaning when you said 70% would pick them this weekend. I'll take them this weekend, but I would take the C's over them.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I don't know how that comes off as demeaning. It was just given as a point of reference that most people pick with their hearts and not their heads. If that's what they want to do fine, but it would be nice for those who are picking with their heads to give their reasons as to why they feel UK will win. Who knows, maybe they would be able to sway my opinion.

The odds are made to project equal betting on both sides, not predicting the outcome of the game.

 

I am with you OR, they want it equal, they make their money off the juice...

 

 

I agree. That's why you see the point spreads move, it's based on how people are bettting.

The bottom line is that SC wanted the game WAY more than UK last night and played 10 times as agressive on both ends of the floor.

 

1. I don't want Liggins shooting the ball that much

2. Get the ball to Meeks (remember him)

3. Miller gets 2 shots?

4. Oh where art thou Perry Stevenson?

I'm sorry, but I don't know how that comes off as demeaning. It was just given as a point of reference that most people pick with their hearts and not their heads. If that's what they want to do fine, but it would be nice for those who are picking with their heads to give their reasons as to why they feel UK will win. Who knows, maybe they would be able to sway my opinion.

 

I later put that if no sarcasm was intended my bad.

Then what is the truth?

 

They want to win more money than they lose. I'll look for the article, but I think I already posted it on here. It's from a few years back though so I may not find it.

They want to win more money than they lose. I'll look for the article, but I think I already posted it on here. It's from a few years back though so I may not find it.

 

It's all about the juice baby. That is why a line moves when the majority are betting on one side.

I am with you OR, they want it equal, they make their money off the juice...

 

I agree. That's why you see the point spreads move, it's based on how people are bettting.

 

Why then can you find instances where over 80% of the public is playing one side and the money is huge on that side where the line doesn't move or it goes the opposite way of where you would think it would go? If you don't think they lay traps then we disagree.

Why then can you find instances where over 80% of the public is playing one side and the money is huge on that side where the line doesn't move or it goes the opposite way of where you would think it would go? If you don't think they lay traps then we disagree.

 

That is a lot different than them setting lines to predict games. There are a lot of questionable(shady) things that happen in Vegas that nobody can explain.

However, this simple analysis only applies to single events. Most bookmakers offer wagering on many events at once, and for the most part, no single game will attract an amount of betting which is significant relative to the book's total capitalization. While having an exactly equal amount of money wagered on each contestant would guarantee the book a profit and eliminate the event risk, that won't necessarily maximize the book's profits. The book can make more money by accepting wagers at odds which are "inflated" from the true odds. For example, if the majority of customers are expected to bet on a team regardless of the price, the book set the price as high as possible. This is called "shading" the line. Generally, the public prefers to back the favorite, and unsophisticated bettors often show up during large events such as the Final Four and the Super Bowl. Popular teams often attract bettors who wager because they are fans of the team and are willing to pay higher odds, and the bookmaker will set odds to extract the maximum possible amount. Some bookmakers actually offer different prices to different customers, using past bets as an indicator of who the customer will bet on as a way of additionally increasing their potential profit. This practice is known in the industry as offering "dual lines".

 

 

This came from wikipedia. I will find the article. The casinos do not try to get the game in the middle and make the juice though for the most part.

It's all about the juice baby. That is why a line moves when the majority are betting on one side.

 

:thumb:

 

The goal is to attract as close to even numbers on each side of the line to guarantee a profit, no matter the outcome.

That is a lot different than them setting lines to predict games. There are a lot of questionable(shady) things that happen in Vegas that nobody can explain.

 

No it isn't. It can simply be explained that they want as much money as possible on one side b/c they think the outcome will be different than the public in some cases. I think this weekend is a good possibilty for that. If LSU is favored I would bet the farm on them too. Basically whoever is getting points in the UK game this week will be the popular play.

:thumb:

 

The goal is to attract as close to even numbers on each side of the line to guarantee a profit, no matter the outcome.

 

Excpet that it isn't. There is no guarantee of profit unless it falls perfectly. Also if the line moves more than a point and they can be middled. Where oh where does the profit come from then? Years ago that may have been the case, but it is far from the case now.

No it isn't. It can simply be explained that they want as much money as possible on one side b/c they think the outcome will be different than the public. I think this weekend is a good possibilty for that. If LSU is favored I would bet the farm on them too. Basically whoever is getting points in the UK game this week will be the popular play.

 

Yes, it really is.

Yes, it really is.

 

If it were that simple how did they lose money on the SuperBowl? Why would they have rather the game gone under and the Steelers have covered? For people to think that they win money on every game b/c they get it close to the middle is naive at best. If you could turn between 5-9% profit or close to 20% or more which would you rather have? Trust me I kind of follow this stuff more than most people. I've read a lot about it. The casinos generally make more than the standard gig per year profit on sports betting.