Shady line tonight

riffraff24 · 08-15-12, 08:49 PM

Indians and Over for me...

mncosoldier · 08-15-12, 08:51 PM

Yep I love the over it just seems so so low

yisman · 08-15-12, 08:59 PM

Pujols is not in the lineup. That's why the line came down.

mncosoldier · 08-15-12, 09:03 PM

Haha you thinks its because of albert.... this line is so greased its not even funny...... give your bookies all the great free $$$$$ and hard worked money you got today

yisman · 08-15-12, 09:07 PM

It is because of Pujols.

He's a major player and when the lineup is released with him not in it, the line drops. Obviously.

Look at the line movement after the lineup was released. Anyone can see what is happening here.

2daBank · 08-15-12, 09:09 PM

there no fukkin way i would lay that much juice on that scrub pitching and that pen backing him up....not really sure how it "shady"? before i go assuming what you mean would you mind explaining?

yisman · 08-15-12, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by 2daBank

there no fukkin way i would lay that much juice on that scrub pitching and that pen backing him up....not really sure how it "shady"? before i go assuming what you mean would you mind explaining?

He must think Ervin Santana is a top pitcher and the Angels are so much better even without Pujols, that the line should be -190 or something.

Not true, of course. -160 or so was fair.

2daBank · 08-15-12, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by yisman

He must think Ervin Santana is a top pitcher and the Angels are so much better even without Pujols, that the line should be -190 or something.

Not true, of course. -160 or so was fair.

see that would have been one of my assumptions i didnt wanna make because i simply cannot bet in such a way where i think a line is "bait", if i thought halo's were undervalued (which i clearly dont) i would bet them, plain and simple...

yisman · 08-15-12, 09:24 PM

Same here. I don't believe the market does that. A book may shade a line a bit to attract more action, but if the whole market has the Angels at -160 (or within a few cents), it's not because they know Cleveland will win and are trying to sucker everyone into betting the Angels.

R.P. McMurphy · 08-15-12, 09:36 PM

Nothing shady about that line at all I didn't think. A shady line would have been Oakland tonight the way it dropped with everyone pounding them. Same thing with Nats last night books already had pretty much an even split but an hour or so before gametime it kept rising for no apparent reason. I got it at +110 and by game it was +126 I believe and I knew I was fukked!

2daBank · 08-15-12, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by R.P. McMurphy

Nothing shady about that line at all I didn't think. A shady line would have been Oakland tonight the way it dropped with everyone pounding them. Same thing with Nats last night books already had pretty much an even split but an hour or so before gametime it kept rising for no apparent reason. I got it at +110 and by game it was +126 I believe and I knew I was fukked!

far from true and something you will never know, maybe the amount of bets were split (maybe) but heavier action was obviously on sf..

R.P. McMurphy · 08-15-12, 09:45 PM

Could be wrong maybe? However I was seeing late steam coming in on the Nats the last hour or so.

2daBank · 08-15-12, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by R.P. McMurphy

Could be wrong maybe? However I was seeing late steam coming in on the Nats the last hour or so.

money dictates price bro, im sure you can find 1000 conspiracy theorist around here that wanna believe "books know something" or whatever (pick your cliche), bottom line is the line was moving cause money was moving it...

yisman · 08-15-12, 10:13 PM

yes, and the %s don't tell you the money. 75% of bets being on one side doesn't mean 75% of the money is on that side.

R.P. McMurphy · 08-15-12, 10:28 PM

Well you learn something everyday. I'm humble as I have mentioned before been doing this a little less than year and learning the ropes still on some things. I always thought the % was the $ and not the tickets rang in. Thanks for the info guys!

starfire · 08-15-12, 10:46 PM

Percentage don't matter in Mlb, unless its a National televised game

yisman · 08-15-12, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by mncosoldier

Dont take LAA and the Over this is a masonic setup play.

Take CLE and Under

Let me know how that's going for you.

2daBank · 08-16-12, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by R.P. McMurphy

Well you learn something everyday. I'm humble as I have mentioned before been doing this a little less than year and learning the ropes still on some things. I always thought the % was the $ and not the tickets rang in. Thanks for the info guys!

yea bro, there just no way books would ever give out the actual amounts of money bet on any particular gm , hell im somewhat skeptical of the % of bets they do give out....

to be perfectly honest all the line move talk, rlm, traps, ect ect is way overdone around here, if you have confidence in your capping id advise to cap the gm, set a price you feel is fair and bet based off the gms you feel are not priced correctly ie have a edge, and of coarse try and get best price you can...leave that other shit to the guys that sport tin foil hats to keep the satellites from reading their minds, lol ...

not to pile on mcsoldier as no one hits them all but this a perfect ex of what im talking about, since he never answered my question about why this line was "shady" im going to assume he meant it was underpriced yet he takes the tribe because he feels it was a trap? if he really felt the halo's were underpriced the correct action would have been to bet them regardless of outcome....