November 18, 200916 yr In general, yes. This would fall into the "sucker bet" category. Explain that logic to me. This is exactly what I was talking about two weeks ago. :lol: This is how they make more money than just collecting juice. They won't win every one like this, but they win way more than they lose. I could have sworn I was the only person saying this.
November 18, 200916 yr Author Explain that logic to me. This is exactly what I was talking about two weeks ago. :lol: This is how they make more money than just collecting juice. They won't win every one like this, but they win way more than they lose. I could have sworn I was the only person saying this. Explain to me the line movement... If they knew more than everyone then why would they move the line when heavy money is being placed on one side ?
November 18, 200916 yr Explain to me the line movement... If they knew more than everyone then why would they move the line when heavy money is being placed on one side ? So in theory Baltimore will go off as a 1 point favorite right? It would truly be even money when they get enough bet on Baltimore that they need to start moving it back. They wanted money on Indy +1. They got enough and moved it. They're not dumb enough to not reduce their risk. They're just a lot smarter than most of the bettors. They know they will still get some Indy money at -1. Reducing risk doesn't mean getting directly even. You are admitting I was right about this, but don't want to admit it. There is no such thing as a "sucker bet" if the goal is truly even play on both sides.
November 18, 200916 yr Author So in theory Baltimore will go off as a 1 point favorite right? It would truly be even money when they get enough bet on Baltimore that they need to start moving it back. They wanted money on Indy +1. They got enough and moved it. They're not dumb enough to not reduce their risk. They're just a lot smarter than most of the bettors. They know they will still get some Indy money at -1. Reducing risk doesn't mean getting directly even. You are admitting I was right about this, but don't want to admit it. There is no such thing as a "sucker bet" if the goal is truly even play on both sides. ^Not really. I've said the general goal is to get even money on both sides. I've followed it long enough to know that nobody except them actually knows all of what is going on.
November 18, 200916 yr ^Not really. I've said the general goal is to get even money on both sides. I've followed it long enough to know that nobody except them actually knows all of what is going on. I've said over and over they rarely get even money. If they don't get even money doesn't it make sense that they would want people betting on the team that doesn't cover the spread? I believe you even said yourself in another thread how much it takes to go from a 3 to 3.5 point spread. You know they don't get even play often if you follow it. Even play is a good theory. That's it though.
November 18, 200916 yr Author I've said over and over they rarely get even money. If they don't get even money doesn't it make sense that they would want people betting on the team that doesn't cover the spread? I believe you even said yourself in another thread how much it takes to go from a 3 to 3.5 point spread. You know they don't get even play often if you follow it. Even play is a good theory. That's it though. :ohbrother: They try to get even money though. With all of the games in all of the sports with all of the different lines it would be impossible to get even money on them all, or even a lot of them. Saying that they want the team with the most money bet on them to not cover is pretty obvious isn't it?
November 18, 200916 yr I hope Ray River has a great game and sets records, of course it wouldn't hurt my fantasy team either.
November 18, 200916 yr :ohbrother: They try to get even money though. With all of the games in all of the sports with all of the different lines it would be impossible to get even money on them all, or even a lot of them. Saying that they want the team with the most money bet on them to not cover is pretty obvious isn't it? Why try to do the impossible then? Don't you think after years of people studying it they would figure out how to make more than 5% if they obtained the impossible goal of a dead even split? Yes it is obvious. That's why I don't understand why people who follow betting don't understand this.
November 18, 200916 yr Author Why try to do the impossible then? Don't you think after years of people studying it they would figure out how to make more than 5% if they obtained the impossible goal of a dead even split? Yes it is obvious. That's why I don't understand why people who follow betting don't understand this. But the line is placed to try and get even money, or close to it, right?
November 18, 200916 yr But the line is placed to try and get even money, or close to it, right? No. Not exactly. I agree that they would try to get close to even money in theory. You still ducked my question about a sucker bet. If they are trying to get dead even there is no such thing as a sucker bet right? You're right that they would be trying to get 50/50, but if it doesn't happen and we agree that it doesn't wouldn't they try to make as much profit as possible? In this game alone doesn't it seem they would get closer to even money if Indy opened -1 like it is now? I think we agree on this a lot more than we're both saying. I think they would take just the juice if it were possible, but it's not so they put out lines that are sucker bets.
November 18, 200916 yr Author ^I agree that we both agree. They are out to make as much money as possible and obviously they make more than just juice.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.