KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

bigappleram wrote: ↑4 months ago Matchup wise this should benefit us.

They don’t try to turn you over much. Aren’t overly physical.

As long as our guys read the scout and communicate on D on all the back cuts and motion there is no reason we can’t win there.

Skogman is tough but unlike last Davidson teams their back court doesn’t scare you at all. No Gibbs, Loyer, Lee types in that bunch.

bigappleram wrote: ↑4 months ago Matchup wise this should benefit us.

They don’t try to turn you over much. Aren’t overly physical.

As long as our guys read the scout and communicate on D on all the back cuts and motion there is no reason we can’t win there.

Skogman is tough but unlike last Davidson teams their back court doesn’t scare you at all. No Gibbs, Loyer, Lee types in that bunch.

ramster wrote: ↑4 months ago How unusual is that Adam? To be that far away from a 50-50 spit? Could it also be that a game like this might be thinly bet tonight?

Yes, you heard correctly: Sports books do try to “balance their action,” meaning they take an equal amount of money on both sides of a contest to guarantee a profit. It's solid in theory and is usually the goal.

But it's rarely the reality. There’s almost always more money on one side than the other, either naturally or by design.

When it’s by design, it’s because the book has "an opinion" or is “taking a position” on a game based on what it thinks will happen. The book is still getting its juice from the bet-$11-to-win $10 proposition, but it's also gambling a bit. Some books don’t mind the extra exposure, while others prefer to play it straight.

Our author, Chris Andrews, writes in his book:

"My bookmaking philosophy has always been to take bets in the most advantageous way for the house to profit. I like to have some balance, but it’s not my primary goal. If I have the wiseguys on one side and the public on the other, I’ll do my best to go in needing the wiseguy’s side to win (we wouldn’t call them wiseguys if they weren’t good). If I have a public bettor who I know isn’t a wiseguy and is just straight-out gambling, I’ll put him on for a big bet as long as he’s betting what I believe to be 'the right number,' meaning he hasn’t caught me in a mistake. Of course, this can lead to some very unbalanced games, but that’s okay with me."

In other words, say a book finds itself with a sizable position on one side of a game. In general, if the bets have been made by known winning players, it's usually a good idea to move the number to try to get some action on the other side (and get balanced). However, if the bets have been made by a lot of recreational players, it's not nearly as critical to move quickly, which means maintaining an unbalanced position on a game.

The conservative sports books want simply to earn their profits with balanced action, while the sharp books actively look at the week's roster and try to build positions on games they like, often by shading their lines.

adam914 wrote: ↑4 months ago

ramster wrote: ↑4 months ago How unusual is that Adam? To be that far away from a 50-50 spit? Could it also be that a game like this might be thinly bet tonight?

It's not unusual at all really. I don't follow it as much for NCAA basketball, but for NFL and NCAA football its very common for it to be far away from 50-50. Being thinly bet is definitely a factor for sure on a game like this to though.

The 50-50 split is kind of a common misconception when it comes to gambling these days. In my opinion I think its kind of a carry over from the old days of bookies. Those guys were more likely to be trying to get even action on both sides, but sportsbooks these days react much more to "sharp" money then total money.

There's a really interesting article on Las Vegas Advisor on the topic. I'll include some of the text below. It's got quotes from Chris Andrews who has been a bookmaker for something like 30 years (his books are great, really interesting guy if you are in to this stuff). https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/questio ... ok-action/

Yes, you heard correctly: Sports books do try to “balance their action,” meaning they take an equal amount of money on both sides of a contest to guarantee a profit. It's solid in theory and is usually the goal.

But it's rarely the reality. There’s almost always more money on one side than the other, either naturally or by design.

When it’s by design, it’s because the book has "an opinion" or is “taking a position” on a game based on what it thinks will happen. The book is still getting its juice from the bet-$11-to-win $10 proposition, but it's also gambling a bit. Some books don’t mind the extra exposure, while others prefer to play it straight.

Our author, Chris Andrews, writes in his book:

"My bookmaking philosophy has always been to take bets in the most advantageous way for the house to profit. I like to have some balance, but it’s not my primary goal. If I have the wiseguys on one side and the public on the other, I’ll do my best to go in needing the wiseguy’s side to win (we wouldn’t call them wiseguys if they weren’t good). If I have a public bettor who I know isn’t a wiseguy and is just straight-out gambling, I’ll put him on for a big bet as long as he’s betting what I believe to be 'the right number,' meaning he hasn’t caught me in a mistake. Of course, this can lead to some very unbalanced games, but that’s okay with me."

In other words, say a book finds itself with a sizable position on one side of a game. In general, if the bets have been made by known winning players, it's usually a good idea to move the number to try to get some action on the other side (and get balanced). However, if the bets have been made by a lot of recreational players, it's not nearly as critical to move quickly, which means maintaining an unbalanced position on a game.

The conservative sports books want simply to earn their profits with balanced action, while the sharp books actively look at the week's roster and try to build positions on games they like, often by shading their lines.

ramster wrote: ↑4 months ago

adam914 wrote: ↑4 months ago

ramster wrote: ↑4 months ago How unusual is that Adam? To be that far away from a 50-50 spit? Could it also be that a game like this might be thinly bet tonight?

It's not unusual at all really. I don't follow it as much for NCAA basketball, but for NFL and NCAA football its very common for it to be far away from 50-50. Being thinly bet is definitely a factor for sure on a game like this to though.

The 50-50 split is kind of a common misconception when it comes to gambling these days. In my opinion I think its kind of a carry over from the old days of bookies. Those guys were more likely to be trying to get even action on both sides, but sportsbooks these days react much more to "sharp" money then total money.

There's a really interesting article on Las Vegas Advisor on the topic. I'll include some of the text below. It's got quotes from Chris Andrews who has been a bookmaker for something like 30 years (his books are great, really interesting guy if you are in to this stuff). https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/questio ... ok-action/

Yes, you heard correctly: Sports books do try to “balance their action,” meaning they take an equal amount of money on both sides of a contest to guarantee a profit. It's solid in theory and is usually the goal.

But it's rarely the reality. There’s almost always more money on one side than the other, either naturally or by design.

When it’s by design, it’s because the book has "an opinion" or is “taking a position” on a game based on what it thinks will happen. The book is still getting its juice from the bet-$11-to-win $10 proposition, but it's also gambling a bit. Some books don’t mind the extra exposure, while others prefer to play it straight.

Our author, Chris Andrews, writes in his book:

"My bookmaking philosophy has always been to take bets in the most advantageous way for the house to profit. I like to have some balance, but it’s not my primary goal. If I have the wiseguys on one side and the public on the other, I’ll do my best to go in needing the wiseguy’s side to win (we wouldn’t call them wiseguys if they weren’t good). If I have a public bettor who I know isn’t a wiseguy and is just straight-out gambling, I’ll put him on for a big bet as long as he’s betting what I believe to be 'the right number,' meaning he hasn’t caught me in a mistake. Of course, this can lead to some very unbalanced games, but that’s okay with me."

In other words, say a book finds itself with a sizable position on one side of a game. In general, if the bets have been made by known winning players, it's usually a good idea to move the number to try to get some action on the other side (and get balanced). However, if the bets have been made by a lot of recreational players, it's not nearly as critical to move quickly, which means maintaining an unbalanced position on a game.

The conservative sports books want simply to earn their profits with balanced action, while the sharp books actively look at the week's roster and try to build positions on games they like, often by shading their lines.

Thanks Adam.

I was in Vegas recently and put down a couple Super Bowl bets. It was interesting how just in a few hours the odds for some teams to win the Super Bowl changed wildly. Odds to win like the AFC or NFC or Division Winners can change quite a bit and of course we all have the choice to take it or leave it. But it's an interesting place Vegas is.

Blue Man wrote: ↑4 months ago Rhody is still yet to cover and lose a game.

We either win and cover, or lose and don't.

Seems like the play when being a dog is either Rhody ML or don't bet it.