Question for Vegas experts

[ew2x4]

06 and ew's attempted PI here is pretty funny.   they ended up with a self-PI. 

Wasn't attempting. This guy takes crap too seriously. Like he might snap and stab someone because they said something slightly incorrect. He's like the skinnybenny of anal retentive bettors.

[Dugout DickStone]

I have heard from a few "experts" that the lines aren't always set to ensure total parity (picks on both sides so house always wins its vig at least) but sometimes they take "public teams" like the Pats for example and try and set the line where they think the public team will get tons of action but won't cover (or something like that).

In other words, are the lines sometimes set to draw the dumb money in more heavily on one side?  Obviously, that is much riskier than getting dollar for dollar on each side but much more rewarding as well.

[Bqqkie Pimp]

I guess I don't really see your point.    Why are you so certain that the LVSC computer model mirrors the "public predictors"?

Your whole argument seems to be that you are certain that the line was manually adjusted by some guy with gigantic kahunas that is likely better at figuring spreads in his head than a wagering driven computer formula that's been proven over literally thousands of games.


amirite?

 

Because you're linking two independent wagers together and saying you can devise what the computer does with simple math. The computer sets the spread with the goal of betting parity. It sets the total with the goal of betting parity. The computer has no need to predict a spread or a total.

And my argument isn't that the line was arbitrarily set by one guy, it's that the computer, guy or chicken picking games isn't concerned with predicting a final score to provide the spread and total so trying to use "simple math" is foooocking Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

The point is NOT whether or not the books are trying to "predict a final score".  They're not.  It's pretty common knowledge that the goal is to limit overall exposure.  

However, for all practical purposes, one can easily deduct an approximation of what they model sees as a final score if everything goes exactly as the model forecasts.  Although separate, it's foolish to think that these wagers are totally "independant" as BOTH are on the SAME contest.  

Therefore, an opening total of 52 with an opening line of 10 simply implies that the model used would be approximating the score at about 31-21.  My point is not that they are trying to predict the score, but that one can easily come up with that approximate score from the two factors provided from said model.

It's even more rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) not to recognize and realize this inherent relationship in the two numbers.

[Bqqkie Pimp]

I have heard from a few "experts" that the lines aren't always set to ensure total parity (picks on both sides so house always wins its vig at least) but sometimes they take "public teams" like the Pats for example and try and set the line where they think the public team will get tons of action but won't cover (or something like that).

In other words, are the lines sometimes set to draw the dumb money in more heavily on one side?  Obviously, that is much riskier than getting dollar for dollar on each side but much more rewarding as well.

Some folks believe this theory, but I personally don't.  The book is a business, ie - broker, not a "gambler".  While there is always a certain amount of exposure (more money on one side than the other), the book managers job is to eliminate that so that they make as close to 5% of total net handle on the whole of every weekend's total games, both sides and totals.

Even small time street books will find places to lay off excess exposure they have on certain games if need be.   I suppose it's "possible" that this happens, it just doesn't seem very "probable" to me.   Big money sharps, syndicates, etc. will always do their best take advantage of bad lines anyway which will naturally balance a "bad line".

 

[pissclams]

06 and ew's attempted PI here is pretty funny.   they ended up with a self-PI. 

Wasn't attempting. This guy takes crap too seriously. Like he might snap and stab someone because they said something slightly incorrect. He's like the skinnybenny of anal retentive bettors.

I can agree with this, he is a very intense individual.

[Skipper44]

I have heard from a few "experts" that the lines aren't always set to ensure total parity (picks on both sides so house always wins its vig at least) but sometimes they take "public teams" like the Pats for example and try and set the line where they think the public team will get tons of action but won't cover (or something like that).

In other words, are the lines sometimes set to draw the dumb money in more heavily on one side?  Obviously, that is much riskier than getting dollar for dollar on each side but much more rewarding as well.

Some folks believe this theory, but I personally don't.  The book is a business, ie - broker, not a "gambler".  While there is always a certain amount of exposure (more money on one side than the other), the book managers job is to eliminate that so that they make as close to 5% of total net handle on the whole of every weekend's total games, both sides and totals.

Even small time street books will find places to lay off excess exposure they have on certain games if need be.   I suppose it's "possible" that this happens, it just doesn't seem very "probable" to me.   Big money sharps, syndicates, etc. will always do their best take advantage of bad lines anyway which will naturally balance a "bad line".

 

On a somewhat related note, don't they treat the Thurs and especially Monday night football games a little differently due to the amount of action these stand alone get?

[06wildcat]

Spread and total are independent.

The goal of the spread is even action on each side. The goal of the total is the same. Some people bet on both, some just one. The only thing your "simple math" does is ascribe the score YOU think the computer has predicted.

The computer doesn't see a 52 total with a line of 10 being a score of 31-21, it sees 52 as the point where bettors will be split down the middle with each half seeing value on opposing wagers. Same with the spread being 10.

Simply put the actual outcome of the game is irrelevant to the computer. The computer's only goal is to estimate the public's perception of the actual outcome.

[Bqqkie Pimp]

Spread and total are independent.

The goal of the spread is even action on each side. The goal of the total is the same. Some people bet on both, some just one. The only thing your "simple math" does is ascribe the score YOU think the computer has predicted.

The computer doesn't see a 52 total with a line of 10 being a score of 31-21, it sees 52 as the point where bettors will be split down the middle with each half seeing value on opposing wagers. Same with the spread being 10.

Simply put the actual outcome of the game is irrelevant to the computer. The computer's only goal is to estimate the public's perception of the actual outcome.

You just don't know when to give it a rest, huh?  You've basically re-iterated everything I've said, except for you just can't get it through your thick skull that one can ascertain an approximation of the vegas bookmaker's estimated scoring based on the two given variables...  side and total.

I agree with about 95% of what you just wrote, however there's nothing you can say to convince me that if we had an employee of LVSC to consult that they would say otherwise about the predictive models used in regards to approximate scoring.

[ew2x4]

Spread and total are independent.

The goal of the spread is even action on each side. The goal of the total is the same. Some people bet on both, some just one. The only thing your "simple math" does is ascribe the score YOU think the computer has predicted.

The computer doesn't see a 52 total with a line of 10 being a score of 31-21, it sees 52 as the point where bettors will be split down the middle with each half seeing value on opposing wagers. Same with the spread being 10.

Simply put the actual outcome of the game is irrelevant to the computer. The computer's only goal is to estimate the public's perception of the actual outcome.

You just don't know when to give it a rest, huh?  You've basically re-iterated everything I've said, except for you just can't get it through your thick skull that one can ascertain an approximation of the vegas bookmaker's estimated scoring based on the two given variables...  side and total.

I agree with about 95% of what you just wrote, however there's nothing you can say to convince me that if we had an employee of LVSC to consult that they would say otherwise about the predictive models used in regards to approximate scoring.

You realize you're being a dick about something you agree "95%" with and is pretty meaningless to begin with? Pick your battles, man.

And to say you can deduct that the score should be 31-21, you just performed simple algebra. woo hoo. You didn't talk about Vegas's motivation to come up with the numbers and their compatibility. When you chose to, you basically repeated what has been said. Congrats. You raised your heart rate for absolutely nothing.

[Bqqkie Pimp]

Spread and total are independent.

The goal of the spread is even action on each side. The goal of the total is the same. Some people bet on both, some just one. The only thing your "simple math" does is ascribe the score YOU think the computer has predicted.

The computer doesn't see a 52 total with a line of 10 being a score of 31-21, it sees 52 as the point where bettors will be split down the middle with each half seeing value on opposing wagers. Same with the spread being 10.

Simply put the actual outcome of the game is irrelevant to the computer. The computer's only goal is to estimate the public's perception of the actual outcome.

You just don't know when to give it a rest, huh?  You've basically re-iterated everything I've said, except for you just can't get it through your thick skull that one can ascertain an approximation of the vegas bookmaker's estimated scoring based on the two given variables...  side and total.

I agree with about 95% of what you just wrote, however there's nothing you can say to convince me that if we had an employee of LVSC to consult that they would say otherwise about the predictive models used in regards to approximate scoring.

You realize you're being a dick about something you agree "95%" with and is pretty meaningless to begin with? Pick your battles, man.

And to say you can deduct that the score should be 31-21, you just performed simple algebra. woo hoo. You didn't talk about Vegas's motivation to come up with the numbers and their compatibility. When you chose to, you basically repeated what has been said. Congrats. You raised your heart rate for absolutely nothing.

I don't  know why you and your little buddy are getting so worked up, but my heartate =  stable.

And, you may wish to re-read the thread unless your reading comprehension is really that poor.  Do  you and 06 always give each other reach-a-round's here or is this a one off for you two?

[ew2x4]

Spread and total are independent.

The goal of the spread is even action on each side. The goal of the total is the same. Some people bet on both, some just one. The only thing your "simple math" does is ascribe the score YOU think the computer has predicted.

The computer doesn't see a 52 total with a line of 10 being a score of 31-21, it sees 52 as the point where bettors will be split down the middle with each half seeing value on opposing wagers. Same with the spread being 10.

Simply put the actual outcome of the game is irrelevant to the computer. The computer's only goal is to estimate the public's perception of the actual outcome.

You just don't know when to give it a rest, huh?  You've basically re-iterated everything I've said, except for you just can't get it through your thick skull that one can ascertain an approximation of the vegas bookmaker's estimated scoring based on the two given variables...  side and total.

I agree with about 95% of what you just wrote, however there's nothing you can say to convince me that if we had an employee of LVSC to consult that they would say otherwise about the predictive models used in regards to approximate scoring.

You realize you're being a dick about something you agree "95%" with and is pretty meaningless to begin with? Pick your battles, man.

And to say you can deduct that the score should be 31-21, you just performed simple algebra. woo hoo. You didn't talk about Vegas's motivation to come up with the numbers and their compatibility. When you chose to, you basically repeated what has been said. Congrats. You raised your heart rate for absolutely nothing.

I don't  know why you and your little buddy are getting so worked up, but my heartate =  stable.

And, you may wish to re-read the thread unless your reading comprehension is really that poor.  Do  you and 06 always give each other reach-a-round's here or is this a one off for you two?

How do you translate my last post as "worked up" yet this is your first post- "You could've deleted this, and saved yourself quite a bit of embarrassment.  But, I quoted it to make it easier to respond to this idiocy...".  Yeah. You aren't getting worked up or anything.

As for 06, I don't even know who he is. Is he new here? Nice way to avoid your moronic behavior by implicating homosexual relations though. Classy touch.

[Bqqkie Pimp]

Spread and total are independent.

The goal of the spread is even action on each side. The goal of the total is the same. Some people bet on both, some just one. The only thing your "simple math" does is ascribe the score YOU think the computer has predicted.

The computer doesn't see a 52 total with a line of 10 being a score of 31-21, it sees 52 as the point where bettors will be split down the middle with each half seeing value on opposing wagers. Same with the spread being 10.

Simply put the actual outcome of the game is irrelevant to the computer. The computer's only goal is to estimate the public's perception of the actual outcome.

You just don't know when to give it a rest, huh?  You've basically re-iterated everything I've said, except for you just can't get it through your thick skull that one can ascertain an approximation of the vegas bookmaker's estimated scoring based on the two given variables...  side and total.

I agree with about 95% of what you just wrote, however there's nothing you can say to convince me that if we had an employee of LVSC to consult that they would say otherwise about the predictive models used in regards to approximate scoring.

You realize you're being a dick about something you agree "95%" with and is pretty meaningless to begin with? Pick your battles, man.

And to say you can deduct that the score should be 31-21, you just performed simple algebra. woo hoo. You didn't talk about Vegas's motivation to come up with the numbers and their compatibility. When you chose to, you basically repeated what has been said. Congrats. You raised your heart rate for absolutely nothing.

I don't  know why you and your little buddy are getting so worked up, but my heartate =  stable.

And, you may wish to re-read the thread unless your reading comprehension is really that poor.  Do  you and 06 always give each other reach-a-round's here or is this a one off for you two?

How do you translate my last post as "worked up" yet this is your first post- "You could've deleted this, and saved yourself quite a bit of embarrassment.  But, I quoted it to make it easier to respond to this idiocy...".  Yeah. You aren't getting worked up or anything.

As for 06, I don't even know who he is. Is he new here? Nice way to avoid your moronic behavior by implicating homosexual relations though. Classy touch.

You really should leave the bbs'ing to the veterans...  Or, sit back and take some notes.

Point is, I was rough ridin' with you on the first post, and ended up reeling in BOTH you and 06 to a pissing match over nothing really.  I never "raised my heart rate", but got  few laughs out of the two of you trying to act like you're the re-incarnate of Tony Sinisi in regards to how to interpret sides and totals and how they are inter-related.

Good luck with your wagers. 

 

[ew2x4]

After repeating the people he's arguing with, he retreats to gay insults, and now he's retreated to the "I was just rough ridin' with you guys" line. 

[Johnny Wichita]

My money is on Bookie Pimp.

[ew2x4]

My money is on Bookie Pimp.

How so? That he is basically saying the same thing everyone else, but has to do it in a shitty Husker/BMW BBS'ing way? Not even the good BMW, the shitty late 2009 BMW who tries way too hard to be significant, but comes off as needy and whiney.

[I_have_purplewood]

My money is on Bookie Pimp.

How so? That he is basically saying the same thing everyone else, but has to do it in a crapty Husker/BMW BBS'ing way? Not even the good BMW, the crapty late 2009 BMW who tries way too hard to be significant, but comes off as needy and whiney.

I'll take that bet and go with ew.  He said he was in the business of booking for 6 years for christ sakes.  Who brags about that?  You want to also bet what he does now?  I'll go with schlepping drinks at a tit joint, golf pro or he sells insurance..   But seriously Bookie, who will you bet on tomorrow?? 

[Dugout DickStone]

EMAWgeddon is less than 24 hours away and you turkeys are fighting with each other.

[Bqqkie Pimp]

My money is on Bookie Pimp.

How so? That he is basically saying the same thing everyone else, but has to do it in a crapty Husker/BMW BBS'ing way? Not even the good BMW, the crapty late 2009 BMW who tries way too hard to be significant, but comes off as needy and whiney.

I'll take that bet and go with ew.  He said he was in the business of booking for 6 years for christ sakes.  Who brags about that?  You want to also bet what he does now?  I'll go with schlepping drinks at a tit joint, golf pro or he sells insurance..   But seriously Bookie, who will you bet on tomorrow?? 

Never "booked" games, but worked in the industry...  Was a simple statemet, not a "brag". 

And, wrong, wrong, and wrong again on the career guesses.

You kids that have no idea what the eff you're talking about and make rash generalizations never cease to amaze me.

 

[Sugar Dick]

line creeping towards -11