Is this a book mistake???

You said Tanner Roarke like he was Nolan Ryan but no, it's no mistake, and yes, it's a good spot to take a look at Cinci. As I always say, fadecslumps. Unyil the Brew Crew gets right, you've gotta take the +money against them.

Come on Smack... Books making mistakes?  Saw this earlier and I wouldn't be surprised if the Brewers win even though I'm not betting it. The first 5 odds (on 5Dimes) are also higher for Milwaukee hinting that Nelson SHOULD outperform Rourke in the F5 innings.. 

Full game:

Brew Crew: -128

F5: -138

Reds F5 team total odds: O2.5 (+115) U2.5 (-135)

Brew Crew F5 TT odds: O2.5 (-120) U2.5 (+100)

All of us experienced bettors know, when shit doesn't make sense, go against the obvious even though you won't like it.  It's usually these types of bets that win 6 outta 10 times... Then again, this COULD be one of those 4 outta 10 times.. 

Hence, no bet for me on this game.. 

It's my theory that guys that say "Vegas" will forever be losers. Who is this guy, Vegas? Is he the character from Street Fighter?

The earliest lines often aren't out of Vegas. Most guys on this site are not wagering in Vegas. Sports gambling in general is such a small fraction of a casino's take, and a micron of Vegas' industry on a whole, a town now funded by tourism and conventions. So why is there alway a million jokers in here..."Vegas this....Vegas that.... Vegas ain't letting that happen....you think you outsmarted Vegas?!!"

F*ck Vegas. You sound like an idiot everytime you say it. And this rant isn't directed at you, manny, as much as it is the masses.

Tanner Roark has been known to get his tits lit. Just ask Keith Hernandez.

Brewers/Cubs/Rox are different team at home than on road.

Don't let the road losses and slump fool you when they are playing at home. 

One of the most basic aspects of sports books that so few understand. A book's aim is to have even action on either side of a wager. They aren't exposing themselves to the chance of a loss. They take the juice and keep it moving. I learned this in like junior high yet there are grown men, so called experts that fail to grasp this.

I disagree, Stumpy. Books are greedy and will trap you anyway they can. Some games they beg for lop-sided action to lure in the squares for their pay day.

Think outside the box for once! I disagree with your assessment also.

great find their smack 

all the(old)  haters out again (key) smack you keep making your picks and making money while others here lose and lose on on etc...

What is there to disagree with. Simply saying you disagree with something without specifying and countering is pointless.

You're wrong. The whole concept of a "trap line" disproves itself. I've explained this many times. The book puts out a line that many in the general public thinks id off. They think it's trying to "lure" them to one side. The side they were ttying to "lure" them away from covers. People think this proves it was a trap. It doesn't. It proves that no matter how uneven the general public thought a match-up was, the books were telling you the two teams were actually pretty close and giving you an honest number to reflect it. A trap line would be line exactly where the general public expects it to be, or even higher. Charging -200 and higher for a team they know will lose would be more of a trap. Yet nobody refers to these as trap lines. Books will do some sneaky things with reverse line movement, ect. but this is just an attempt to even out extremely lopsided action and almost always done in panic scenarios.

Key said it best. Gamblers assume books think like gamblers thrmselves. They think they're gambling against you. Gamblers lose. Why would they think like gamblers? No, they do think like brokers. They provide a service and charge a fee. It's the slow, steady, sure money that makes you rich. Go ask Warren Buffet. Low risk, low reward. You always profit and you minimize exposure. This is how books are run. These are not my opinions. It's not debatable. These are facts.

To put it in Layman's terms for the uninitiated.

If i'm a book, and I have 50 people bet $110 @ -110 on one side of a wager, and another 50 people bet $110 @ -110 on the other side, then the losers pay the winners and I walk with my $500 with zero risk. And I can do this over and over again, with no risk, and it's like printing money. I'm not gambling. I'm providing a service and charging a service fee. That' what the juice is. It's a service fee. This is why it even exists.

Now ponder that i'm that same book and I want to push people towards one side of a wager. Now instead of 50/50, it's 80/20. Now i'm gambling on factors I have no control over. I'm exposing myself to loss. And that makes no sense.

Again, these aren't my opinions. I have no opinions about this stuff, as it is inconsequential to me. These are just the facts.