THE EARLY LINE URI VS DAVIDSON

[luke]

Covers .com has the opening line set as Davidson - 5 . This is a tough one . Looking for a URI victory , but i wouldn't bet on it . Another gae to stay away from because it could easily go either way.

[ramster]

That’s the entire goal of a betting line - such that the “game can go either way”

But for Davidson NET 125 and URI NET 215 that’s 90 slots higher. Plus Davidson home court advantage of 3 points which is normal then Davidson is only 2 points higher. Feels low for Davidson being home.

Also from Spookydog’s write up:
Rankings (URI):
NCAA NET: 107 (235)
RPI: 90 (162)
KenPom: 130 (209)
BPI: 169 (223)
Barttovik: 130 (181)

[NYGFan_Section208]

What exactly is an EAARLY LINJE? Sounds Scandinavian?

[luke]

HA HA , guess my fingers weren't working there .Sorry about that. Could really use a win tomorrow , but it will take a very good effort . From
what I've seen of Davidson they haven't looked that good so far .

[rhodyblue12]

I feel good about this one. Rhody by 8

[bigappleram]

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.

[Rhody15]

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.

Peyton Aldridge (Aldrich? Idk) was a monster too.

[Blue Man]

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.

Very rare that they don’t. Bob McKillop is as always able to get those guys.

The problem with a school like Davidson is that you wonder what they’ll be like without their legendary coach - same concern as Bonnies.

Tough to recruit those guys if you’re not a legend and you play in a multipurpose rec center.

[Blue Man]

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.

[luke]

The line has moved slightly to Davidson - 5.5 according to Vegasinsiider.

[theblueram]

Looks like money moving to URI. Was -6 and now -4.5.

[ramster]

At 6:15 seeing these variations depending on the house

Ranging from 4.5 to 5 to 5.5

[adam914]

86% of the bets and 83% of the money on Davidson according to Action Network. But sharp money being tracked on URI which is more likely to affect the line.

[ramster]

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?

[adam914]

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.

[STC]

Laying the points with Davidson -5.5. I think URI keeps it close by Davidson pulls away down the stretch.

[reef]

Wi saw 4.5 on Caesar’s

[ramster]

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 before Christmas just for a couple of days 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.

[adam914]

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.

Yeah absolutely. Being in Southern California I go to Vegas more than I probably should. I'm fascinated by the "behind the scenes" stuff regarding how the sportsbooks work and make decisions on their lines.

[Blue Man]

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.

Streak stays alive. Rhody ML is the play when we’re dogs.

Very curious to see what happens for Saturday.

[reef]

Think UMass will be -2.5