Routilla
Footballguy
True. Those were 2 of my "locks" last week. LOL.A lock ... Like NE over Miami or the Giants to blowout Cincy at home? That type of lock?
True. Those were 2 of my "locks" last week. LOL.A lock ... Like NE over Miami or the Giants to blowout Cincy at home? That type of lock?
There are 2 basic truths when it comes to beting:1. Vegas knows more than the publicThat's what I've always thought, too. I wonder if those that disagree would come back in and explain further. I don't see why Vegas would risk losing money by encouraging a lopsided distribution, when they have guaranteed money in their pockets if they get equal money on both sides of the line...That's why the lines are always created right on the edge. Some think the line is too much, others too little. Vegas makes it's money on the juice.
If everybody and their mother bets one side, the line moves, in an attempt to get EQUAL amounts of money on both sides.
(sorry...that rant wasn't towards you)
They can and do take on extra risk/return without "exposing themselves to bankruptcy". Why would they pass up edges that are well within their bankroll?Saying that they shouldn't take risk for extra return is like saying everyone should invest in T-Bills instead of stocks.But I refuse to believe a sportsbook, with anyone competent in charge, would willingly allow the money to be distributed unevenly on a game. They make millions and millions a year just on the vig. There's absolutely no reason to expose themselves to the risk of getting bankrupted just to make a few more million because they have an "opinion" on the game.
Can you elaborate on #1? What do they know more of specifically ...Steeler43 said:1. Vegas knows more than the public2. Vegas has more money than the publicConsidering that, Vegas can take calculated risks whenever they want.
They know that most people are idiots when it comes to betting. They aren't. Not being an idiot >>>> being an idiot.Can you elaborate on #1? What do they know more of specifically ...Steeler43 said:1. Vegas knows more than the public2. Vegas has more money than the publicConsidering that, Vegas can take calculated risks whenever they want.
They know that most people are idiots when it comes to betting. They aren't. Not being an idiot >>>> being an idiot.Can you elaborate on #1? What do they know more of specifically ...Steeler43 said:1. Vegas knows more than the public2. Vegas has more money than the publicConsidering that, Vegas can take calculated risks whenever they want.
I hope you win with denver, but its too close.................ballstein guruA lock??? LOL- Then take the chiefs NOOB
Did you even read the posting itself, or did you just read the title of the thread?How does your LOCK look so far today?
I posted in this thread like 8 times TELLING everyone this game wasn't a cakewalk.Did you read the thread, or are you just jumping in to be a peckerhead?Did you even read the posting itself, or did you just read the title of the thread?How does your LOCK look so far today?
BLACKI posted in this thread like 8 times TELLING everyone this game wasn't a cakewalk.Did you read the thread, or are you just jumping in to be a peckerhead?Did you even read the posting itself, or did you just read the title of the thread?How does your LOCK look so far today?
BLACKI posted in this thread like 8 times TELLING everyone this game wasn't a cakewalk.Did you read the thread, or are you just jumping in to be a peckerhead?Did you even read the posting itself, or did you just read the title of the thread?How does your LOCK look so far today?LABEL DEAD ON TARGET
MARK IT DOWN.I love these threads.
![]()
You're wrong.No...they don't.Yes, they do sometimes. Dallas/GB last week a great example.That's a very "public" pick. I don't mean that it's necessarily wrong, but Vegas isn't stupid. There will likely be more money on Denver than KC, and I'd guess that the line won't move, which means Vegas is fine with that distribution. I am much more comfortable being on the book's side than on the public side. All that said, I don't plan on playing either side here.Vegas does not make lines to get more action on one side.
I was told that when I said KC had a decent chance of covering this game too.You're wrong.No...they don't.Yes, they do sometimes. Dallas/GB last week a great example.That's a very "public" pick. I don't mean that it's necessarily wrong, but Vegas isn't stupid. There will likely be more money on Denver than KC, and I'd guess that the line won't move, which means Vegas is fine with that distribution. I am much more comfortable being on the book's side than on the public side. All that said, I don't plan on playing either side here.Vegas does not make lines to get more action on one side.
Actually they fail about 50% of the time. And Vegas charges juice which means you can't beat a line unless its >52.5% likely for one side to win.Each week theres a new "lock". Green Bay -3@ Detroit in week 2, Car+3.5@ Min in week 3, this one here in week 4, probably Buffalo this coming week.....some people swear by these locks. Others swear that if the line looks off then it must be a trap by the bookmakers and you should bet the side the doesn't make sense to you...both are wrong.Whenever you see lock in the title, bet the opposite. Seems like these locks fail 75% of the time.
One is a guarantee and the other is not. Vegas' #1 goal is to get equal money on both sides; I 100% disagree that they sometimes make a line knowing/wanting more action on one side.They can and do take on extra risk/return without "exposing themselves to bankruptcy". Why would they pass up edges that are well within their bankroll?Saying that they shouldn't take risk for extra return is like saying everyone should invest in T-Bills instead of stocks.But I refuse to believe a sportsbook, with anyone competent in charge, would willingly allow the money to be distributed unevenly on a game. They make millions and millions a year just on the vig. There's absolutely no reason to expose themselves to the risk of getting bankrupted just to make a few more million because they have an "opinion" on the game.
Well done.Tough break. Laying 9.5 with a terrible defense on the road in a rivalry game involving two of the largest home/road split teams in the league sure seemed like a solid play.Cue Uma Thurman from Pulp Fiction diagraming that square.
...if I do say so myself.KC looks great to me.
One is a guarantee and the other is not. Vegas' #1 goal is to get equal money on both sides; I 100% disagree that they sometimes make a line knowing/wanting more action on one side.They can and do take on extra risk/return without "exposing themselves to bankruptcy". Why would they pass up edges that are well within their bankroll?Saying that they shouldn't take risk for extra return is like saying everyone should invest in T-Bills instead of stocks.But I refuse to believe a sportsbook, with anyone competent in charge, would willingly allow the money to be distributed unevenly on a game. They make millions and millions a year just on the vig. There's absolutely no reason to expose themselves to the risk of getting bankrupted just to make a few more million because they have an "opinion" on the game.
One is a guarantee and the other is not. Vegas' #1 goal is to get equal money on both sides; I 100% disagree that they sometimes make a line knowing/wanting more action on one side.They can and do take on extra risk/return without "exposing themselves to bankruptcy". Why would they pass up edges that are well within their bankroll?Saying that they shouldn't take risk for extra return is like saying everyone should invest in T-Bills instead of stocks.But I refuse to believe a sportsbook, with anyone competent in charge, would willingly allow the money to be distributed unevenly on a game. They make millions and millions a year just on the vig. There's absolutely no reason to expose themselves to the risk of getting bankrupted just to make a few more million because they have an "opinion" on the game.That is why the line changes. When too much money is being put on one team, Vegas changes the line to try to get the amounts bet on theteams as close to even as they can. Vegas makes money on the "juice", not on the outcome of the game.
Vegas' #1 goal is to set a line in which neither side is a profitable bet due to the juice. Because of that they don't care about balancing action like the common bettor thinks- in the same way, they don't care about getting an equal number of bets on black and red for each spin of roulette- if both are -EV bets then they cannot lose in the longterm.Sometimes though, they make these lines that are -EV for both side, fully knowing that the public is going to eat up one side and it will be a "risk" for them. However, since that side, like the other side, is right around 50% to win and they are charging -110 juice they don't care.For the most part Vegas isn't worried about risk like you think they are because they have plenty of $$ to offset risk. They are most concerned with maximizing their EV. The one exception may be huge events like the Super Bowl where balancing action may be the #1 priority because such a ridiculous amount of money will be bet on it that it would be a risk, even for them, to have it very inbalanced.As a regular poker player at the Wynn, trust me when I say that I've seen some extremely rich people come through there....people risking millions on stupid table games at the casino. When you consider that the casino is willing to give them action on some very very slightly -EV games like craps, it makes you realize that the casino is most definitely not going to be too worried if they get unbalanced action from a few tourists betting $100 per game.One is a guarantee and the other is not. Vegas' #1 goal is to get equal money on both sides; I 100% disagree that they sometimes make a line knowing/wanting more action on one side.They can and do take on extra risk/return without "exposing themselves to bankruptcy". Why would they pass up edges that are well within their bankroll?Saying that they shouldn't take risk for extra return is like saying everyone should invest in T-Bills instead of stocks.But I refuse to believe a sportsbook, with anyone competent in charge, would willingly allow the money to be distributed unevenly on a game. They make millions and millions a year just on the vig. There's absolutely no reason to expose themselves to the risk of getting bankrupted just to make a few more million because they have an "opinion" on the game.
Vegas' #1 goal is to make lots of money without taking undue risk. Sometimes that means going for balanced action; sometimes it doesn't.One is a guarantee and the other is not. Vegas' #1 goal is to get equal money on both sides; I 100% disagree that they sometimes make a line knowing/wanting more action on one side.They can and do take on extra risk/return without "exposing themselves to bankruptcy". Why would they pass up edges that are well within their bankroll?Saying that they shouldn't take risk for extra return is like saying everyone should invest in T-Bills instead of stocks.But I refuse to believe a sportsbook, with anyone competent in charge, would willingly allow the money to be distributed unevenly on a game. They make millions and millions a year just on the vig. There's absolutely no reason to expose themselves to the risk of getting bankrupted just to make a few more million because they have an "opinion" on the game.