This is an old study for the years 1980 thru 1998 but more than likely it's probably still accurate.
The linesmaker is within a field goal or less of the actual result in 21.3% of all games, just over one game in five.
He's within a touchdown of the actual spread 44.4% of the time (a bit more than two games in five).
He's within 10 points of the actual spread just under 59% of the time.
Looked at another way the linesmaker misses the mark by more than a field goal almost 80% of the time (4 games in 5).
He misses by more than a touchdown 56% of the time (almost 3 games in 5).
And he really misses the mark, by more than 10 points, 41% of the time (2 games in 5).
What does this tell you about the linesmaker and how to play the NFL? Just pick the winner of the game and you have an excellent chance of being a pointspread winner!
The accompanying charts reveal that the median difference between the line and the actual result of a game is 8.2 points. What this means is that 50% of the time the linesmaker is within 8.2 points of the actual result and 50% of the time he misses by more than that number.
And you'll note that he has been consistent in that median in that his best years were 1989 and 1991 when he was off by 7.3 points or less 50% of the time. His worst years were 1982 and 1990 when he missed the mark by 9.5 points or more 50% of the time.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Article with charts at the bottom.
This is an old study for the years 1980 thru 1998 but more than likely it's probably still accurate.
The linesmaker is within a field goal or less of the actual result in 21.3% of all games, just over one game in five.
He's within a touchdown of the actual spread 44.4% of the time (a bit more than two games in five).
He's within 10 points of the actual spread just under 59% of the time.
Looked at another way the linesmaker misses the mark by more than a field goal almost 80% of the time (4 games in 5).
He misses by more than a touchdown 56% of the time (almost 3 games in 5).
And he really misses the mark, by more than 10 points, 41% of the time (2 games in 5).
What does this tell you about the linesmaker and how to play the NFL? Just pick the winner of the game and you have an excellent chance of being a pointspread winner!
The accompanying charts reveal that the median difference between the line and the actual result of a game is 8.2 points. What this means is that 50% of the time the linesmaker is within 8.2 points of the actual result and 50% of the time he misses by more than that number.
And you'll note that he has been consistent in that median in that his best years were 1989 and 1991 when he was off by 7.3 points or less 50% of the time. His worst years were 1982 and 1990 when he missed the mark by 9.5 points or more 50% of the time.
Good info, although a linesmakers will say they are not trying to predict the outcome of the game. They say they are trying to get equal action on both sides. Another way to gauge the success of a linesmaker is by how many times the favorite covered and how many times the underdog kept it within the point spread. If it is 50-50, or close to that, in any given year, then he will tell you he's done his job.
0
Good info, although a linesmakers will say they are not trying to predict the outcome of the game. They say they are trying to get equal action on both sides. Another way to gauge the success of a linesmaker is by how many times the favorite covered and how many times the underdog kept it within the point spread. If it is 50-50, or close to that, in any given year, then he will tell you he's done his job.
Good info, although a linesmakers will say they are not trying to predict the outcome of the game. They say they are trying to get equal action on both sides. Another way to gauge the success of a linesmaker is by how many times the favorite covered and how many times the underdog kept it within the point spread. If it is 50-50, or close to that, in any given year, then he will tell you he's done his job.
This subject came up on here a few times last year so I found this and decided to post it.
So many posters on this site are afraid of these guys.
The all knowing Vegas Oddsmakers
Well according to this study, they aren't that good. They are off by 10 points or more 41% of the time. (2 out of every 5 games)
A lot of us already knew this. All you have to do is look at the results every week to know this is true.
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
Good info, although a linesmakers will say they are not trying to predict the outcome of the game. They say they are trying to get equal action on both sides. Another way to gauge the success of a linesmaker is by how many times the favorite covered and how many times the underdog kept it within the point spread. If it is 50-50, or close to that, in any given year, then he will tell you he's done his job.
This subject came up on here a few times last year so I found this and decided to post it.
So many posters on this site are afraid of these guys.
The all knowing Vegas Oddsmakers
Well according to this study, they aren't that good. They are off by 10 points or more 41% of the time. (2 out of every 5 games)
A lot of us already knew this. All you have to do is look at the results every week to know this is true.
I have always felt that you should pick the team you think will win, the spread should never talk you out of it.
Once that happens, the line makers has you beat
Yes, you are right.....what is it, like 80% the winner of the game covers the spread also? If its that high, its an amazing number but that the problem, picking the winner is just as tough.
How many times does an underdog you never thought could win the game, win outright......it happens. Like the Chargers last season needed to beat the Bengals in Cincy to have a chance to get to the playoffs & with the Chargers late season record over the years, it looked like they should win, not......the Bengals won outright as an 8 point home dog.
My point is, its easier said than done.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Gold_Rush:
Interesting post and information.
I have always felt that you should pick the team you think will win, the spread should never talk you out of it.
Once that happens, the line makers has you beat
Yes, you are right.....what is it, like 80% the winner of the game covers the spread also? If its that high, its an amazing number but that the problem, picking the winner is just as tough.
How many times does an underdog you never thought could win the game, win outright......it happens. Like the Chargers last season needed to beat the Bengals in Cincy to have a chance to get to the playoffs & with the Chargers late season record over the years, it looked like they should win, not......the Bengals won outright as an 8 point home dog.
Let's say New England is at Oakland. The line opens up at New England -5. Most people think that spread is too low and a lot of money starts coming in on New England to cover. The linesmakers will raise the line to -5.5. If money keeps coming in on New England the spread will be raised to -6 and so on. The linesmakers do not care about the final score. They will keep adjusting the line until each side starts seeing 50-50 action. When they reach that point the line will hold. If they get the action to 50-50 each casino will make money. How you ask? Obviously, money will be made from the people that choose the losing side. They also make money off of the winning side. Remember, the juice is usually -110 meaning if you bet $100 you win $90. When you compare the guy that won $90 to the guy that lost $100 that is a $10 profit. Their goal is to have the losses offset the wins. That is why they try to get 50-50 action on each team. Same with the over/under.
0
Example:
Let's say New England is at Oakland. The line opens up at New England -5. Most people think that spread is too low and a lot of money starts coming in on New England to cover. The linesmakers will raise the line to -5.5. If money keeps coming in on New England the spread will be raised to -6 and so on. The linesmakers do not care about the final score. They will keep adjusting the line until each side starts seeing 50-50 action. When they reach that point the line will hold. If they get the action to 50-50 each casino will make money. How you ask? Obviously, money will be made from the people that choose the losing side. They also make money off of the winning side. Remember, the juice is usually -110 meaning if you bet $100 you win $90. When you compare the guy that won $90 to the guy that lost $100 that is a $10 profit. Their goal is to have the losses offset the wins. That is why they try to get 50-50 action on each team. Same with the over/under.
Everyone should read some of Steven Levitt's (Freakonomics) papers on sports betting markets and efficiency. He essentially sets out to prove that books often knowingly (and willingly) take disproportionate money on each side (i.e. not 50/50).
One of the papers is called "How Do Markets Function? An Empirical Analysis of Gambling on the National Football League." I couldn't find an acutal link. The paper would have been better coming from someone with actual sports betting experience, but it's definitely still worth checking out.
0
Everyone should read some of Steven Levitt's (Freakonomics) papers on sports betting markets and efficiency. He essentially sets out to prove that books often knowingly (and willingly) take disproportionate money on each side (i.e. not 50/50).
One of the papers is called "How Do Markets Function? An Empirical Analysis of Gambling on the National Football League." I couldn't find an acutal link. The paper would have been better coming from someone with actual sports betting experience, but it's definitely still worth checking out.
Everyone should read some of Steven Levitt's (Freakonomics) papers on sports betting markets and efficiency. He essentially sets out to prove that books often knowingly (and willingly) take disproportionate money on each side (i.e. not 50/50).
One of the papers is called "How Do Markets Function? An Empirical Analysis of Gambling on the National Football League." I couldn't find an acutal link. The paper would have been better coming from someone with actual sports betting experience, but it's definitely still worth checking out.
Alot of people dont believe Vegas plays mind games while others do believe it so. Vegas does want to get even action in all games but we know they dont, its impossible.
Vegas has a line for 40 to 50 games in college on Saturday & then about 16 games in the NFL. There will be freakish years like several years ago where the favorites cover a 60% or higher but in the long haul, they kill the player.
0
Quote Originally Posted by celticpride10:
Everyone should read some of Steven Levitt's (Freakonomics) papers on sports betting markets and efficiency. He essentially sets out to prove that books often knowingly (and willingly) take disproportionate money on each side (i.e. not 50/50).
One of the papers is called "How Do Markets Function? An Empirical Analysis of Gambling on the National Football League." I couldn't find an acutal link. The paper would have been better coming from someone with actual sports betting experience, but it's definitely still worth checking out.
Alot of people dont believe Vegas plays mind games while others do believe it so. Vegas does want to get even action in all games but we know they dont, its impossible.
Vegas has a line for 40 to 50 games in college on Saturday & then about 16 games in the NFL. There will be freakish years like several years ago where the favorites cover a 60% or higher but in the long haul, they kill the player.
Everyone should read some of Steven Levitt's (Freakonomics) papers on sports betting markets and efficiency. He essentially sets out to prove that books often knowingly (and willingly) take disproportionate money on each side (i.e. not 50/50).
One of the papers is called "How Do Markets Function? An Empirical Analysis of Gambling on the National Football League." I couldn't find an acutal link. The paper would have been better coming from someone with actual sports betting experience, but it's definitely still worth checking out.
I'd like to see what evidence he has that Vegas books are willing to basically take a side.
0
Quote Originally Posted by celticpride10:
Everyone should read some of Steven Levitt's (Freakonomics) papers on sports betting markets and efficiency. He essentially sets out to prove that books often knowingly (and willingly) take disproportionate money on each side (i.e. not 50/50).
One of the papers is called "How Do Markets Function? An Empirical Analysis of Gambling on the National Football League." I couldn't find an acutal link. The paper would have been better coming from someone with actual sports betting experience, but it's definitely still worth checking out.
I'd like to see what evidence he has that Vegas books are willing to basically take a side.
Linesmakers try to get even action on both sides even trying to add points to even it out but of course it doesnt always work out that way. Many times, one team will have heavy heavy action on that side even if the books keep moving the line...
0
Linesmakers try to get even action on both sides even trying to add points to even it out but of course it doesnt always work out that way. Many times, one team will have heavy heavy action on that side even if the books keep moving the line...
What an almighty stupid thread..."Just pick the winner of the game and you have an excellent chance of being a pointspread winner!"
The linemakers job is not to predict the outcome of an NFL game therefore your stats on how good linemakers do is beyond laughable, The linemakers job is to find a way of getting balanced action on a game.
So for example if the San Diego Chargers are 4-0 going into New England who are 2-2 having come off 2 close road defeats...and therefore with all the knowledge and info available to the linemakers they predict that New England will bounce back here is what they would do...they would set a line which gives Chargers backers enough reasons to bet the underdog yet at the same time it would give Patriot lovers enough reasons to say "Brady and Bill will get it done tonight".
So for example if the line is set at -4.5.....that gives the Chargers backers more than a fg on the spread and enough value on the ML at +210/220 and it also gives enough reasons for the Patriot backers who wish to bet the spread at -4.5 or buy the -3 at -155..in which case the action would be maybe 55 % - 45 % to either side...which means that neither the Chargers nor Pats will get lopsided action leaving the bookies in trouble. So if the outcome of the game happens to be Chargers 6-38 Patriots it does not mean that the linemakers got the line wrong.
0
What an almighty stupid thread..."Just pick the winner of the game and you have an excellent chance of being a pointspread winner!"
The linemakers job is not to predict the outcome of an NFL game therefore your stats on how good linemakers do is beyond laughable, The linemakers job is to find a way of getting balanced action on a game.
So for example if the San Diego Chargers are 4-0 going into New England who are 2-2 having come off 2 close road defeats...and therefore with all the knowledge and info available to the linemakers they predict that New England will bounce back here is what they would do...they would set a line which gives Chargers backers enough reasons to bet the underdog yet at the same time it would give Patriot lovers enough reasons to say "Brady and Bill will get it done tonight".
So for example if the line is set at -4.5.....that gives the Chargers backers more than a fg on the spread and enough value on the ML at +210/220 and it also gives enough reasons for the Patriot backers who wish to bet the spread at -4.5 or buy the -3 at -155..in which case the action would be maybe 55 % - 45 % to either side...which means that neither the Chargers nor Pats will get lopsided action leaving the bookies in trouble. So if the outcome of the game happens to be Chargers 6-38 Patriots it does not mean that the linemakers got the line wrong.
Jimmy the Greek was asked how he could have been so wrong on Super Bowl III when the Jets beat the Colts and the Colts were 17pt favorites. He said his job was to get equal action on both sides and that's what he got.
0
Jimmy the Greek was asked how he could have been so wrong on Super Bowl III when the Jets beat the Colts and the Colts were 17pt favorites. He said his job was to get equal action on both sides and that's what he got.
Jimmy the Greek was asked how he could have been so wrong on Super Bowl III when the Jets beat the Colts and the Colts were 17pt favorites. He said his job was to get equal action on both sides and that's what he got.
100% correct........he knew everyone & their mother would be betting on the heavily favorite Colts so he put out a line that would bring in money on both sides, hence that huge 17 pts.
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
Jimmy the Greek was asked how he could have been so wrong on Super Bowl III when the Jets beat the Colts and the Colts were 17pt favorites. He said his job was to get equal action on both sides and that's what he got.
100% correct........he knew everyone & their mother would be betting on the heavily favorite Colts so he put out a line that would bring in money on both sides, hence that huge 17 pts.
Jimmy the Greek was asked how he could have been so wrong on Super Bowl III when the Jets beat the Colts and the Colts were 17pt favorites. He said his job was to get equal action on both sides and that's what he got.
Finally...common sense prevails.
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
Jimmy the Greek was asked how he could have been so wrong on Super Bowl III when the Jets beat the Colts and the Colts were 17pt favorites. He said his job was to get equal action on both sides and that's what he got.
It is pretty easy to predict what the lines will ne for a given week in the NFL.
Before the lines are released each week, I examine the game and write in what I think the line for the game will be.
Not to hard to predict about 3 or 4 games exactly right and just miss on a few others. Lines are so tight in the NFL and I give props to the linesmakers.
0
It is pretty easy to predict what the lines will ne for a given week in the NFL.
Before the lines are released each week, I examine the game and write in what I think the line for the game will be.
Not to hard to predict about 3 or 4 games exactly right and just miss on a few others. Lines are so tight in the NFL and I give props to the linesmakers.
I've always held that the idea is to get as even money on both sides, though on many games it is one sided. It usually works out about even over the course of the season..books win some big ones and lose some big ones. At the end of the years if the hold % of total action is 4 or 5 %, the book has done pretty damn good. It's all in the 10% juice. I actually like betting those lines where the book gives you plus odds...as long as I really like the pick. In a sense, it's like you booking the book and a nice way to mitigate some of the losses that tend to be as a result of that 10% juice (most idiots can pick 50-50). The true value of a bettor is his money management. Getting plus odds on points is something I like to slip in whenever I can.
I've run my stats for 2010. The average side and total were both off by an average of 11 points. Something to consider when making picks.
0
I've always held that the idea is to get as even money on both sides, though on many games it is one sided. It usually works out about even over the course of the season..books win some big ones and lose some big ones. At the end of the years if the hold % of total action is 4 or 5 %, the book has done pretty damn good. It's all in the 10% juice. I actually like betting those lines where the book gives you plus odds...as long as I really like the pick. In a sense, it's like you booking the book and a nice way to mitigate some of the losses that tend to be as a result of that 10% juice (most idiots can pick 50-50). The true value of a bettor is his money management. Getting plus odds on points is something I like to slip in whenever I can.
I've run my stats for 2010. The average side and total were both off by an average of 11 points. Something to consider when making picks.
I just ran numbers for 2010. According to MY stats 169 favorites won (I use the numbers from DonBest, which I think are closing lines) (Covers is showing 175). Of those 169 winners, 123 also covered. That's 72%.
0
I just ran numbers for 2010. According to MY stats 169 favorites won (I use the numbers from DonBest, which I think are closing lines) (Covers is showing 175). Of those 169 winners, 123 also covered. That's 72%.
actually, I wouldn't have even run the numbers, but I wanted to break it down team by team for my personal records. You could just go to the trends page and see the fav straight up (175) and the fav ATS (129). 129/175 = 73%
0
actually, I wouldn't have even run the numbers, but I wanted to break it down team by team for my personal records. You could just go to the trends page and see the fav straight up (175) and the fav ATS (129). 129/175 = 73%
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.