Posted:
#26
0
Why on earth are the Mavs laying -10 pts to anybody?
Posted:
#27
Posted: 2/5/2010 1:07:44 AM
take dirk out who do you have!!! okay let me just name a few for you. Jason terry, Josh Howard, Jason terry,- Can you please be realistic now and not be such a homer buddy?
J Ho. is not what he used to be and plays without any motivation, and Jet is not in a legit #2 option, his jumpshots can only do so much.
-But yup...im expecting a backdoor cover as the Mavericks always deliver in such a fine fashion!
0
Posted:
#28
Quote Originally Posted by hmb0048:
Posted: 2/5/2010 1:07:44 AM
take dirk out who do you have!!! okay let me just name a few for you. Jason terry, Josh Howard, Jason terry,
- Can you please be realistic now and not be such a homer buddy?
J Ho. is not what he used to be and plays without any motivation, and Jet is not in a legit #2 option, his jumpshots can only do so much.
-But yup...im expecting a backdoor cover as the Mavericks always deliver in such a fine fashion!
Be realistic, i am being FOR REAL, your saying take DIRK out and who do you have? I mean if you think DIRK is going to get hurt before or during the game. You have J.KIDD J.TERRYAND S. MARION. I'll throw GOODEN TOO. You dont need jump shots when you play the T. WOLVES.
0
Posted:
#29
Quote Originally Posted by nymumich:
The Mavs have failed to cover 17 straight home games as a favorite. This has all occurred this year. Does anyone realize how insane that is? How can anyone argue that the Mavs as a DD fav at home sounds fishy? Or that there's value in laying those points? The OP nailed it: the Mavs at home is the single most over-valued play in the 09-10 NBA Season. And it's not even close.
The Mavs have failed to cover 17 straight home games as a favorite. This has all occurred this year. Does anyone realize how insane that is? How can anyone argue that the Mavs as a DD fav at home sounds fishy? Or that there's value in laying those points? The OP nailed it: the Mavs at home is the single most over-valued play in the 09-10 NBA Season. And it's not even close.
Its called the public playes the due factor just like against Golden State. That being said I will prolly be on Dallas cuz I am going to the game. Degen action.
0
Posted:
#30
Quote Originally Posted by smartbets:
because if the line was less than 9 points you would get one sided action on dallas
because if the line was less than 9 points you would get one sided action on dallas
Yes, and if Vegas thinks MIN really has a better chance to cover, wouldn't they love that? Scenario: public pounding an "easy" cover (DAL), because they see MINN has been horrible on the road this month = books making money hand over fist.
This gave me some pause. So I'm laying off this one. I've made enough money off DAL's ineptitude at home this season, so I think I'm just gonna sit back and watch this one on TV and learn more about how my fave ATS loser plays tonight. Btw, Al Jefferson, who wasn't with MINN when they lost by 12 to DAL earlier this season, is playing now.
0
Posted:
#31
Quote Originally Posted by NoWorries21:
Its called the public playes the due factor just like against Golden State. That being said I will prolly be on Dallas cuz I am going to the game. Degen action.
Of course the public plays the "due" factor. This is by far my favorite line of thinking to fade. I absolutely love finding spots like that where the vast majority of gamblers have this tick inside their heads that tells them a trend can't possibly keep up for much longer. Well, they're usually wrong. To me the only play here is Minnesota. Dallas simply does not blow people out at home. If they do, so be it, but the value is clearly not in the Mavs.
0
Posted:
#33
Quote Originally Posted by smartbets:
Vegas doesn't "think" one side has a better chance. Sometimes bettors think Vegas is taking sides, but they are just that good at setting lines. Often times its the bettor who has no idea what the line should be so they bite on what appears to them as a soft line.
Actually, yes. Books do often "think" a game will go one way. Books aren't all about getting even action -- they also love to gamble themselves. If they know they can get heavy action on a line, while simultaneously feeling the game goes the opposite way, they will set it as such. Certain lines scream which way the books are leaning.
0
Posted:
#34
Quote Originally Posted by nymumich:
Actually, yes. Books do often "think" a game will go one way. Books aren't all about getting even action -- they also love to gamble themselves. If they know they can get heavy action on a line, while simultaneously feeling the game goes the opposite way, they will set it as such. Certain lines scream which way the books are leaning.
sorry man, I completely disagree. The objective for the books is to get even action so there is no risk. If anyone knew the outcome before it started, which nobody does, then sure put out some line and let people load up on. This is not the case. The books don't always get even action and soemtimes they take a hit, other times they collect. But the objective for them is to take even action, so there is no risk and they collect their money on what most people pay, -110+
Actually, yes. Books do often "think" a game will go one way. Books aren't all about getting even action -- they also love to gamble themselves. If they know they can get heavy action on a line, while simultaneously feeling the game goes the opposite way, they will set it as such. Certain lines scream which way the books are leaning.
0
Posted:
#35
Quote Originally Posted by smartbets:
sorry man, I completely disagree. The objective for the books is to get even action so there is no risk. If anyone knew the outcome before it started, which nobody does, then sure put out some line and let people load up on. This is not the case. The books don't always get even action and soemtimes they take a hit, other times they collect. But the objective for them is to take even action, so there is no risk and they collect their money on what most people pay, -110+
sorry man, I completely disagree. The objective for the books is to get even action so there is no risk. If anyone knew the outcome before it started, which nobody does, then sure put out some line and let people load up on. This is not the case. The books don't always get even action and soemtimes they take a hit, other times they collect. But the objective for them is to take even action, so there is no risk and they collect their money on what most people pay, -110+
How many times do games end up with even action on both sides? I'd say very, very rare. If you don't believe this to be the case, then why did someone like Jimmy Vaccaro, who is probably one of the most notorious oddsmakers in Vegas history, explicitly state that books love to gamble and do not look for even action on all games? This is straight from the horse's mouth. Check out "The Odds" by Chad Millman. It talks about all of this and how the 50/50 talk is basically a myth.
0
Posted:
#36
The 50/50 "talk" isn't a myth. A friend of mine was once a bookie himself. They would prefer that games go 50-50 most of the time, but then they're also NBA fans themselves, and they do know how the public is leaning sometimes, so they're going to definitely cash in on that as well. Why not? It's a helluva lot more profitable than just earning the juice on wagers.
0
Posted:
#38
Quote Originally Posted by Borat38:
The 50/50 "talk" isn't a myth. A friend of mine was once a bookie himself. They would prefer that games go 50-50 most of the time, but then they're also NBA fans themselves, and they do know how the public is leaning sometimes, so they're going to definitely cash in on that as well. Why not? It's a helluva lot more profitable than just earning the juice on wagers.
The 50/50 "talk" isn't a myth. A friend of mine was once a bookie himself. They would prefer that games go 50-50 most of the time, but then they're also NBA fans themselves, and they do know how the public is leaning sometimes, so they're going to definitely cash in on that as well. Why not? It's a helluva lot more profitable than just earning the juice on wagers.
This is more or less what I'm saying. I realize the books don't gamble on every single game, and would prefer to hedge some risk by trying to get even action in a lot of situations; but the 50/50 ideal for every game is a myth. The books realize which games afford them an opportunity to take advantage of the public attitude and allow them to simultaneously factor in their own opinions on a game.
0
You sure embarrassed the haters today. Not only do they cover they win straight up. Awesome call.
Hot Forum Topics
