What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Betting Lines and Public Money (1 Viewer)

Steeler

Footballguy
Earlier this year someone brought up  a couple games where the public money was coming in on one side but the lines didn't move in the direction you would expect - I think it was week 4 when DET played at CHI.  I don't remember the line in that game, but CHI won outright and DET players under performed from a fantasy POV.  Anyway, I made a mental note to check that stat in future weeks and this is the first time I actually looked, but I might have found a couple similar situations.

I'm checking here: http://www.thespread.com/nfl-football-public-betting-chart

The SEA/NO and OAK/TB games seem to fit this criteria.  As I'm writing this, 64% of the public money is coming in on SEA but the line moved from -3.5 to -3.  Also, 77% of the money is coming in on OAK but the line moved from pick-em to +1 for OAK.  

If I'm reading this right, what does it mean for the game? And more importantly what does it mean for fantasy purposes?  Downgrade SEA and OAK?  Upgrade expectations for NO and TB?  Is this meaningful at all?

 
Supposedly when the line movement doesn't follow the public money, it's an indication of where the "smart money" is going:

https://www.sportsinsights.com/sports-betting-systems/smart-money/

Question is who determines the smart money wagers vs. public money wagers and what is their criteria to do so?  Can't find those answers clearly.  Maybe the oddsmakers have tapped the coaches home and they know when they call their extended family and tell them to bet on the opponent that week.

I have a friend who's trying an NFL system this year where he bets with smart money when it goes contrary to public money - kind of like the alerts the website above is offering to send you for a fee I'm sure.  He's doing quite well so far, up about $60k on the year, but I have no idea the details of this as I just play fantasy with a few extra bucks a week.

So, if you believe in this and we wanted to bet the farm today, we'd take NO +3 and TB -1.  Guess we'll wait and see if these would have won.  Maybe you're onto something here.

 
Not surprisingly, the lines have changed since earlier in the week.  Again, I'm trying to see if this reverse line movement (or whatever it's called) has any relevance, or predictive ability for DFS.  So here are the current "reverse lines" as of Friday night at ~6:00PM.

First, lets cover the lines I mentioned earlier in the week:

OAK 77%
TB 23%
Line opened as pick'em and now back to pick'em; so probably nothing to see here

SEA 53%
NO 47%
Line opened SEA - 3.5 now at -2.5

----------------------------------------------------------------------

KC 64%
Indy 36%
Line opened KC -3 now at -2.5

ARI 58%
CAR 42%
Line opened ARI +2.5 now at +3.0

MIN 85%
CHI 15%
Line opened MIN -5 now at -4
 

The MIN/CHI line is the most intriguing to me.  85% of the cash is coming in on MIN but the line moved toward CHI by a full point?  Why is vegas encouraging more money to come in on MIN?  Is this a way for us to predict lower FF scores for MIN players?

Not sure if this will provide any useful information, but wanted to document it here in case it does.

 
Reverse line movement happens every week in the NFL and college.  Public money does not move the line, only sharp money does which usually comes in right away or very late depending on when pros believe they'll get the best number.  Lines are also based on public perception.  They have to take into account teaser action as well.  When setting the line the book decides where they want to be the most vulnerable. It bothers me when guys like evan silva (who's great) use team totals to justify dfs plays. Team totals are derived from spreads and totals which are based on public perception. If GB is playing Miami at Lambeau the books can't set the line high enough. They know they're going to get one way public action. So they have to decide where they want to set it in terms of pro action and teasers as not to get hurt. The goal is to get as much money on a bad number as possible and the least amount on the good ones.

 
Reverse line movement happens every week in the NFL and college.  Public money does not move the line, only sharp money does which usually comes in right away or very late depending on when pros believe they'll get the best number.  Lines are also based on public perception.  They have to take into account teaser action as well.  When setting the line the book decides where they want to be the most vulnerable. It bothers me when guys like evan silva (who's great) use team totals to justify dfs plays. Team totals are derived from spreads and totals which are based on public perception. If GB is playing Miami at Lambeau the books can't set the line high enough. They know they're going to get one way public action. So they have to decide where they want to set it in terms of pro action and teasers as not to get hurt. The goal is to get as much money on a bad number as possible and the least amount on the good ones.
Thanks Willie.  Your last sentence coupled with the idea that the lines are used pretty much universally in the DFS community (at least as a starting point) makes me want to explore the idea of reverse line movement as another tool when evaluating DFS plays.  Maybe it's an indication to fade a certain team or something?  Maybe there is no predictive value to reverse line movements for DFS?  Either way, I'm planning to track it (for at least this week :-)).  But, I'm sure someone smarter than me would have found the correlation by now if it exists.

 
Reverse line movement happens every week in the NFL and college.  Public money does not move the line, only sharp money does which usually comes in right away or very late depending on when pros believe they'll get the best number.  Lines are also based on public perception.  They have to take into account teaser action as well.  When setting the line the book decides where they want to be the most vulnerable. It bothers me when guys like evan silva (who's great) use team totals to justify dfs plays. Team totals are derived from spreads and totals which are based on public perception. If GB is playing Miami at Lambeau the books can't set the line high enough. They know they're going to get one way public action. So they have to decide where they want to set it in terms of pro action and teasers as not to get hurt. The goal is to get as much money on a bad number as possible and the least amount on the good ones.
This. It isn't the coaches that the odds makers follow, but the sharps. If someone drops the ball on an initial line, the sharps pounce like a pride of lions on a wounded wildebeest. The rest of the week is spent trying to entice a bunch of money to come in the other way. 

One of the maxims of sports betting is "everyone is ususlly wrong", as in "if everyone is betting a certain way, odds are you should go the other way". 

 
Recap of week 8:

Reverse line movement favored NO over SEA, IND over KC, CAR over ARI, and CHI over MIN - had you bet on those 4 games you would have won 3 of them (only KC covered the spread).  But, can we take anything away from this from a fantasy POV?  Lets take them one game at a time:

SEA under-performed expectations on offense, scoring only one TD, against a NO team that has been pretty bad this year.  None of the SEA offensive players performed well - could have faded all SEA players and been fine.

KC won the game, but Ware and A. Smith under-performed due to injury (maybe Foles helped KC more than Smith would have ;-) ).  T. Kelce was the only player who was considered a good start before the game who actually had a good game.  T. Hill would have been a good start, but he wasn't highly touted before the game.  I'm giving this whole game an incomplete because of the injuries, but it probably would have been wrong to fade the KC players in this game had they not been injured during the game.

ARI players scored well (I actually started JJ. Nelson in several GPP this past weekend :bow:).  Nelson, Palmer, Fitz, Johnson, and even Brown scored well enough that fading this team would have been a mistake.

MIN sucked.  I mentioned this was the game that stood out the most since 85% of the public money was coming in on MIN but the line moved a whole point in the opposite direction!  S. Diggs is the only player worth starting from this MIN team so fading them was probably OK... everyone else was worth fading.

So this was pretty much a flop.... no concrete patterns emerged from this exercise that could be applied to future weeks for DFS.  I'll probably check this out at some point in the future but the only thing that is still intriguing is the MIN/CHI game where there seemed to be such a huge discrepancy between the money and the line (again, it was 85% on MIN but the line moved a full point).  If I see that big of a difference again (or over 70% or something) I'll be sure to think long and hard before starting anyone from that team.

 
Recap of week 8:

Reverse line movement favored NO over SEA, IND over KC, CAR over ARI, and CHI over MIN - had you bet on those 4 games you would have won 3 of them (only KC covered the spread).  But, can we take anything away from this from a fantasy POV?  Lets take them one game at a time:

SEA under-performed expectations on offense, scoring only one TD, against a NO team that has been pretty bad this year.  None of the SEA offensive players performed well - could have faded all SEA players and been fine.

KC won the game, but Ware and A. Smith under-performed due to injury (maybe Foles helped KC more than Smith would have ;-) ).  T. Kelce was the only player who was considered a good start before the game who actually had a good game.  T. Hill would have been a good start, but he wasn't highly touted before the game.  I'm giving this whole game an incomplete because of the injuries, but it probably would have been wrong to fade the KC players in this game had they not been injured during the game.

ARI players scored well (I actually started JJ. Nelson in several GPP this past weekend :bow:).  Nelson, Palmer, Fitz, Johnson, and even Brown scored well enough that fading this team would have been a mistake.

MIN sucked.  I mentioned this was the game that stood out the most since 85% of the public money was coming in on MIN but the line moved a whole point in the opposite direction!  S. Diggs is the only player worth starting from this MIN team so fading them was probably OK... everyone else was worth fading.

So this was pretty much a flop.... no concrete patterns emerged from this exercise that could be applied to future weeks for DFS.  I'll probably check this out at some point in the future but the only thing that is still intriguing is the MIN/CHI game where there seemed to be such a huge discrepancy between the money and the line (again, it was 85% on MIN but the line moved a full point).  If I see that big of a difference again (or over 70% or something) I'll be sure to think long and hard before starting anyone from that team.
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it. I think reverse line movement can be a useful tool and if it's going against players/teams you like, it should give you some pause and maybe force you to go back and challenge some of your assumptions.

It ended up being pretty accurate this week, especially when you consider that Carolina was up on AZ 30-7 late in the 3rd quarter and basically all of the Cardinals fantasy damage was done in garbage time. All points count the same, but there was some flukiness to the final numbers for AZ that makes me kind of feel like playing anyone from that offense was a bad play that worked out due more to lucking out on the game script. 

 
Ten 29%
SD 71%
Line opened SD -5 now at -4

Den 69%
Oak 31%
Line opened EVEN now DEN +1.5
-------

Only two instances this week, but both games fall into the "extreme" criteria (or whatever we should call it) of being around 70% money going to one side and the line moving at least 1 point in the opposite direction.  So if this has any value, we should fade SD and DEN players.  Also, perhaps we should take a closer look at TEN and OAK players?

Legend (Pos, Name, DVOA Rank at Position, DK PPG, Game, DVOA Rank VS Oppenent)

TEN
QB-M.Mariota (13)    18.76    TEN @ SD (6)    
RB-D.Murray (19)    22.79    TEN @ SD (20)    
RB-R-D.Murray (20)    22.79    TEN @ SD (18)    

WR-R.Matthews(5)    10.09    TEN @ SD (10)    
TE-D.Walker (9)        12.4    TEN @ SD (21)

OAK
QB-D.Carr (6)        22.12    OAK vs DEN (2)    
RB-L.Murray (9)        13.98    OAK vs DEN (14)    
RB-R-J.Richard (26)     6.89    OAK vs DEN (19)    
WR-M.Crabtree(18)    18.49    OAK vs DEN (1)    
TE-C.Walford(26)     6.23    OAK vs DEN (6)    
 

So the weakest part of the SD defense (in DVOA terms) is against RB and TE  (D. Murray and D. Walker come on down!).  DEN is dominant against QB and WR and we don't need DVOA to tell us that.  However, they are susceptible to RB and particularly to RB who catch the ball.  The DVOA by player ranks J. Richard as the highest rated pass catching RB on OAK, but he simply isn't getting enough snaps/targets to make playing him worthwhile.  L. Murray got 6 targets per game over the last two weeks and gets all the goal line work as well... so he's someone to look at here.

I play a bunch of GPPs ever week ($1 entry :D  ) and one of those lineups will have D. Murray, L. Murray and D. Walker -- what the hell, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ten 29%
SD 71%
Line opened SD -5 now at -4

Den 69%
Oak 31%
Line opened EVEN now DEN +1.5
-------

Only two instances this week, but both games fall into the "extreme" criteria (or whatever we should call it) of being around 70% money going to one side and the line moving at least 1 point in the opposite direction.  So if this has any value, we should fade SD and DEN players.  Also, perhaps we should take a closer look at TEN and OAK players?

Legend (Pos, Name, DVOA Rank at Position, DK PPG, Game, DVOA Rank VS Oppenent)

TEN
QB-M.Mariota (13)    18.76    TEN @ SD (6)    
RB-D.Murray (19)    22.79    TEN @ SD (20)    
RB-R-D.Murray (20)    22.79    TEN @ SD (18)    

WR-R.Matthews(5)    10.09    TEN @ SD (10)    
TE-D.Walker (9)        12.4    TEN @ SD (21)

OAK
QB-D.Carr (6)        22.12    OAK vs DEN (2)    
RB-L.Murray (9)        13.98    OAK vs DEN (14)    
RB-R-J.Richard (26)     6.89    OAK vs DEN (19)    
WR-M.Crabtree(18)    18.49    OAK vs DEN (1)    
TE-C.Walford(26)     6.23    OAK vs DEN (6)    
 

So the weakest part of the SD defense (in DVOA terms) is against RB and TE  (D. Murray and D. Walker come on down!).  DEN is dominant against QB and WR and we don't need DVOA to tell us that.  However, they are susceptible to RB and particularly to RB who catch the ball.  The DVOA by player ranks J. Richard as the highest rated pass catching RB on OAK, but he simply isn't getting enough snaps/targets to make playing him worthwhile.  L. Murray got 6 targets per game over the last two weeks and gets all the goal line work as well... so he's someone to look at here.

I play a bunch of GPPs ever week ($1 entry :D  ) and one of those lineups will have D. Murray, L. Murray and D. Walker -- what the hell, right?
Isn't SD like #6 in rush yards allowed?

 
Recap of week 9:  Ten did not cover the spread, but OAK won the game outright.  So against the spread this method went 50/50 this week (4-2 over since week 8).

SD/TEN - it was clearly wrong to fade SD players as most of them played well and Gordon was a beast.  However, playing TEN players was a good move especially in GPPs because TEN expected total was only 20.75 - 19th for this week, and the ownership of the main players was great:  Mariota (3.4%), Walker (3.1%) and good: D. Murray (12.8%).

OAK/DEN - it would have been fine to fade all DEN players yesterday.  Plus, playing L. Murray was an awesome move (3.8% owned).

Stay tuned for next week's installment (if anyone is still interested in this thread).

 
Hopefully you paired this core with good WR and QB. 
I changed strategies and played 50 entries at DK in one of the 25 cent GPPs :lol:   ROI really isn't there unless you win the thing, but it was fun to have such a variety of options/plays/etc.  I'm just trying to work out a system or whatever and have some fun so I'll be doing this going forward.... anyway, to your question:  IIRC, I went with 3 or 4 of these Murray/Murray lineups and none were outstanding.  The best one cashed and was this:  D. Prescott, D. Murray, L. Murray, K. Britt, D. Bryant, T. Montgomery, D. Walker, M. Gordon, Chiefs

Gordon and L. Murray - beasted
D. Murray worked out well
Dak was adequate
Walker and Chiefs did OK
WR sucked - Dez in particular was pathetic ( I know some suggested to fade Dez, didn't have him a lot but had him here).

 
I changed strategies and played 50 entries at DK in one of the 25 cent GPPs :lol:   ROI really isn't there unless you win the thing, but it was fun to have such a variety of options/plays/etc.  I'm just trying to work out a system or whatever and have some fun so I'll be doing this going forward.... anyway, to your question:  IIRC, I went with 3 or 4 of these Murray/Murray lineups and none were outstanding.  The best one cashed and was this:  D. Prescott, D. Murray, L. Murray, K. Britt, D. Bryant, T. Montgomery, D. Walker, M. Gordon, Chiefs

Gordon and L. Murray - beasted
D. Murray worked out well
Dak was adequate
Walker and Chiefs did OK
WR sucked - Dez in particular was pathetic ( I know some suggested to fade Dez, didn't have him a lot but had him here).
Yeah, Dez was rough. I rolled him in a couple GPPs, but no cash. He was a lineup killer. 

 
So something I thought about too late was matching reverse line movement against player props.  I saw Oak last week too.  Carr's prop was like 220 yards.  So if we assume the Raiders are going to over perform and win, and it's not going to be Carr, then Latavius is the guy we should have been looking at.  I know I wasn't, but the info was there.

 
Week 9 MNF bonus reverse line movement!  Not sure if I overlooked this one on Saturday, or the line wasn't available, or there was no reverse line movement for this game at that time.  But whatever the reason, I wanted to post this before the game starts:

BUF 36%
SEA 64%
Line opened SEA -7 now -6

Going to get a M-T GPP going with T. Taylor, C. Clay, and one of the BUF WR - I might have a problem :lol:

 
It had been trending that way for a few days.  The line only dropped today, but they had been jacking the vig up on Buffalo and reversing it on Seattle.

 
Recap of week 9 after MNF:  against the spread this method is 4-2-1 ATS since week 8.

BUF played better that SEA with ~40 minutes in time of possession but just couldn't get it done on the scoreboard.   T. Taylor likely performed better than expected, fading SEA players except R. Wilson and J. Graham was warranted.

This "process" is still interesting to me and I'll keep looking at it going forward.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the team this week that the books are begging for money on is Houston.  They love Jacksonville.  There was also some reverse line movement earlier this week on Pittsburgh, but that seems to have leveled out.

 
Week 10 - Saturday night reverse line movements

HOU 69%
JAX 31%
Line opened EVEN now at HOU +2

Rams 33%
NYJ 67%
Line opened NYJ -2.5 now at -1

CHI 43%
TB 57%
Line opened EVEN now at TB +2.5

CIN 44%
NYG 56%
Line opened NYG -2.5 now at +1

-------------------------------------------------

So the lines like JAX, Rams, CHI, CIN (3.5 point line movement!).

JAX:  
Maybe a bortles stack with 2 WR?
Ivory + Jags D?

Rams:
I have one Keenum, Britt, Quick stack in a GPP

CHI:
Cutler + Miller + Jefferey stack?
Cutler + Jefferey + Meredith stack?

CIN:
I have a couple Dalton, Green, Eifert stacks.

Good luck everyone!

 
I haven't kept up with this research but I started checking the lines a few weeks ago.  The reverse line movement theory favored NYG over KC a few weeks ago and NYG won the game outright 12-9.

This week we have one candidate: 

GB 75%
CLE 25%
Line opened +4 and now CLE is at +3.5

I've been playing 20 GPP lineups per week in $1 and $0.25 contents (big baller, I know) and 6 to 10 of these lineups with have Kizer, Gordon and Njoku.  GB DVOA against QB (21), WR1 (29) and TE (22) is pretty bad.

 
I haven't kept up with this research but I started checking the lines a few weeks ago.  The reverse line movement theory favored NYG over KC a few weeks ago and NYG won the game outright 12-9.

This week we have one candidate: 

GB 75%
CLE 25%
Line opened +4 and now CLE is at +3.5

I've been playing 20 GPP lineups per week in $1 and $0.25 contents (big baller, I know) and 6 to 10 of these lineups with have Kizer, Gordon and Njoku.  GB DVOA against QB (21), WR1 (29) and TE (22) is pretty bad.
There's always resistance to moving the line against a home underdog. There is no better wager in sports than taking the home underdog and the points in the NFL.  Sharps are almost always heavy on the home 'dog while the public handle is almost always on the road favorite. 

 
I haven't kept up with this research but I started checking the lines a few weeks ago.  The reverse line movement theory favored NYG over KC a few weeks ago and NYG won the game outright 12-9.

This week we have one candidate: 

GB 75%
CLE 25%
Line opened +4 and now CLE is at +3.5

I've been playing 20 GPP lineups per week in $1 and $0.25 contents (big baller, I know) and 6 to 10 of these lineups with have Kizer, Gordon and Njoku.  GB DVOA against QB (21), WR1 (29) and TE (22) is pretty bad.
what about Browns D?

 
I haven't kept up with this research but I started checking the lines a few weeks ago.  The reverse line movement theory favored NYG over KC a few weeks ago and NYG won the game outright 12-9.

This week we have one candidate: 

GB 75%
CLE 25%
Line opened +4 and now CLE is at +3.5

I've been playing 20 GPP lineups per week in $1 and $0.25 contents (big baller, I know) and 6 to 10 of these lineups with have Kizer, Gordon and Njoku.  GB DVOA against QB (21), WR1 (29) and TE (22) is pretty bad.
Giants v Cowboys seems to fall into this category as well this week. Public money is coming in for Cowboys but line moved to Giants. 

 
Yep, saw that one and some other appeared later in the week as well:

DAL 60%
NYG 40%
Line open NYG +6 now at +3.5 (2.5 point move!)

PHI 69%
LAR 31%
Line open LAR -1 now at -2

LAC 54%
WAS 46%
Line open WAS +6.5 now at +6
 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top