The books can always balance the action all they have to do is move the line. Take the Colts this week (a pick of mine) right now the line is 7 and most people are on the Birds. What if they went to 10 how bout 20 -how bout Falcons minus 30. Well, that seems absurd and 99.9% of America would take the Colts at plus 30. That 50-50 marker is always there, the books have the best handicappers and choose to bet against the public. They know or could quickly figure out the 50-50 number but why move it when the public is wrong, most of the time. I choose to be with the books. Dolts plus 7, may get 7.5 or 8 at game time. Not the 80% of covers members on the Birds. Good Luck Crash
This is simply not true they very rarely can balance the action to 50/50 by just moving the line it will almost always be skewed one way or the other but if they keep it within 5% they cant lose anyway.The only way the books can balance the action 50/50 is by laying off action!!
0
Quote Originally Posted by Crashdavis565:
The books can always balance the action all they have to do is move the line. Take the Colts this week (a pick of mine) right now the line is 7 and most people are on the Birds. What if they went to 10 how bout 20 -how bout Falcons minus 30. Well, that seems absurd and 99.9% of America would take the Colts at plus 30. That 50-50 marker is always there, the books have the best handicappers and choose to bet against the public. They know or could quickly figure out the 50-50 number but why move it when the public is wrong, most of the time. I choose to be with the books. Dolts plus 7, may get 7.5 or 8 at game time. Not the 80% of covers members on the Birds. Good Luck Crash
This is simply not true they very rarely can balance the action to 50/50 by just moving the line it will almost always be skewed one way or the other but if they keep it within 5% they cant lose anyway.The only way the books can balance the action 50/50 is by laying off action!!
I once had a thought that the "right answer" wrt fading the public is there is some intermediate range, say 65-70%, which is a sweet spot for the public betting like sheep. If the % is too high, its like taking Boise ats, and if its too low, there is no sharp play relative to fading the public.
In the current situation, 70% backing KC is mildly interesting.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MJ2345:
It looks like
ATL 78.26% SF 74.32% KC 70.13%
I once had a thought that the "right answer" wrt fading the public is there is some intermediate range, say 65-70%, which is a sweet spot for the public betting like sheep. If the % is too high, its like taking Boise ats, and if its too low, there is no sharp play relative to fading the public.
In the current situation, 70% backing KC is mildly interesting.
I once had a thought that the "right answer" wrt fading the public is there is some intermediate range, say 65-70%, which is a sweet spot for the public betting like sheep. If the % is too high, its like taking Boise ats, and if its too low, there is no sharp play relative to fading the public.
In the current situation, 70% backing KC is mildly interesting.
Really cant argue with Bets2win's strategy here he is 17-7 ATS 70% so far doing it his way !!
0
Quote Originally Posted by Howard_Jughes:
I once had a thought that the "right answer" wrt fading the public is there is some intermediate range, say 65-70%, which is a sweet spot for the public betting like sheep. If the % is too high, its like taking Boise ats, and if its too low, there is no sharp play relative to fading the public.
In the current situation, 70% backing KC is mildly interesting.
Really cant argue with Bets2win's strategy here he is 17-7 ATS 70% so far doing it his way !!
So Crash, let me propose something to you...Just as an example, Stanford and Boise are two teams that cover just about every number that Vegas sets for them. And I think we can safely assume that these teams are getting the majority of public backing each week. According to what you've said you would be the "sharp" betting against these teams each week. And you would also be losing each week. How is that sharp? You seem like you are more worried about looking smart than winning money. Why would you continue to bet the Rams every week as they got killed ATS?
Yes, I have lost to Boise countless times. No doubt, they Broncos are covering machines and that the public loves them and Vegas hates them. For me personally, I have learned to steer clear of public favorites that are good teams. To me, at the end of the year, the Steelers will be good ATS and so will the Pats as will Boise. I would rather look at teams like the Raiders this week or the Falcons who are traditionally a bad road team asking to lay touchdown or more spreads. That is where I look.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Yanasaur:
So Crash, let me propose something to you...Just as an example, Stanford and Boise are two teams that cover just about every number that Vegas sets for them. And I think we can safely assume that these teams are getting the majority of public backing each week. According to what you've said you would be the "sharp" betting against these teams each week. And you would also be losing each week. How is that sharp? You seem like you are more worried about looking smart than winning money. Why would you continue to bet the Rams every week as they got killed ATS?
Yes, I have lost to Boise countless times. No doubt, they Broncos are covering machines and that the public loves them and Vegas hates them. For me personally, I have learned to steer clear of public favorites that are good teams. To me, at the end of the year, the Steelers will be good ATS and so will the Pats as will Boise. I would rather look at teams like the Raiders this week or the Falcons who are traditionally a bad road team asking to lay touchdown or more spreads. That is where I look.
I looked it up, the Raiders have no layed 9 points or more on the road since 2002! Maybe they cover maybe they do not but this is not the Steelers and this is still the NFL, league of parity. I do have to admit, my vision with my hometown Donkeys is not good.
0
I looked it up, the Raiders have no layed 9 points or more on the road since 2002! Maybe they cover maybe they do not but this is not the Steelers and this is still the NFL, league of parity. I do have to admit, my vision with my hometown Donkeys is not good.
I looked it up, the Raiders have no layed 9 points or more on the road since 2002! Maybe they cover maybe they do not but this is not the Steelers and this is still the NFL, league of parity. I do have to admit, my vision with my hometown Donkeys is not good.
Um the Raiders are at home!!
0
Quote Originally Posted by Crashdavis565:
I looked it up, the Raiders have no layed 9 points or more on the road since 2002! Maybe they cover maybe they do not but this is not the Steelers and this is still the NFL, league of parity. I do have to admit, my vision with my hometown Donkeys is not good.
So Crash, let me propose something to you...Just as an example, Stanford and Boise are two teams that cover just about every number that Vegas sets for them. And I think we can safely assume that these teams are getting the majority of public backing each week. According to what you've said you would be the "sharp" betting against these teams each week. And you would also be losing each week. How is that sharp? You seem like you are more worried about looking smart than winning money. Why would you continue to bet the Rams every week as they got killed ATS?
Boise
0
Quote Originally Posted by Yanasaur:
So Crash, let me propose something to you...Just as an example, Stanford and Boise are two teams that cover just about every number that Vegas sets for them. And I think we can safely assume that these teams are getting the majority of public backing each week. According to what you've said you would be the "sharp" betting against these teams each week. And you would also be losing each week. How is that sharp? You seem like you are more worried about looking smart than winning money. Why would you continue to bet the Rams every week as they got killed ATS?
Sharps bet (public plays aswell) but sharps will usually bet public favs or public teams early. So dont be mistaken square vs sharp plays because sharps do bet with the public sometimes.
0
Sharps bet (public plays aswell) but sharps will usually bet public favs or public teams early. So dont be mistaken square vs sharp plays because sharps do bet with the public sometimes.
Sharps bet (public plays aswell) but sharps will usually bet public favs or public teams early. So dont be mistaken square vs sharp plays because sharps do bet with the public sometimes.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MoneyShot:
Sharps bet (public plays aswell) but sharps will usually bet public favs or public teams early. So dont be mistaken square vs sharp plays because sharps do bet with the public sometimes.
The Broncos have been winning but not covering recently. They're 4-1
SU their last five games. However, during that stretch, they're winless
(0-5 ATS) at the betting window. Note that all four wins have still
come by double-digits. The Broncos are being asked to cover a huge
number. However, I feel they're fully capable and expect them to do just
that.
0
The Broncos have been winning but not covering recently. They're 4-1
SU their last five games. However, during that stretch, they're winless
(0-5 ATS) at the betting window. Note that all four wins have still
come by double-digits. The Broncos are being asked to cover a huge
number. However, I feel they're fully capable and expect them to do just
that.
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.