Stanford vs USC. If they had a rematch now USC would beat them by 40 points or more, the original line. Also, if the Trojans would have held on and just barely won that earlier game, then they would be in the Title game instead of LSU.
-
Comment -
I agree that it's App. St. by far... Look at App. St.'s record... Hellooooo??? They lost this year and NOT to a D 1 school... They are good but we are not talking about beating Toledo... THEY BEAT MICHIGAN IN MICHIGAN PERIOD!!!
They didn't come back to win, they kicked their a*s and if they didn't turn the ball over so much in the second half it would have been UGLY...
The others don't even rank with this because first of all they are in the same conference... Notice all the others are within the conference... Teams in the same conference know each other and upsets within the conference happen all the time in all the major sports...
Van. I don't believe there was a line on App.St./Mich...
BB the Big Ten does SUCK and getting a BCS game isn't all that hard... Notre Dame hasn't been sh*t since Holtz was there and they got one...
Comment -
Listen it is defintely Pitt over WVU and this why. This was the most important upset of the season, it had a ton of BCS implications. You guys are all missing this. Who cares about the other upsets, i mean yea it was great to see D 1AA team upseting one of D 1's most historic programs. But they are a championship team in D 1AA year in and out.
The Cuse beating Louisville was a shocker at the time but Louisville played like sh*t all year.
Colorado is great at home, and they are a very solid team.
Notre Dame over UCLA who cares both of these teams are trash.
Stanford over USC has a solid argument in this convo, because it was in USC when they were ranked #1.Comment -
Well I'm starting to understand the arguement for App St a lot more now considering that Michigan put them on the schedule for a cupcake win.Comment -
there WAS a line on michigan/app st at pinny and it was 25.5
so unless my math is off, a 40.5 point underdog (stanford/usc) would have to be more shocking than a 25.5 point underdog no matter how much b.s. you guys can spit out about 1-aa.
yes, michigan had been to the bcs blah blah blah. last time i checked usc has been pretty damn good the last 5 years too and stanford was pretty bad.
numbers don't lie, stanford beating usc was probably the biggest upset in the history of football (no bigger line ever won outright), pro OR college.Comment -
Standford beating Usc is the bigger upset of all time.Comment -
I still have to disagree with MMike on this.... I didn't see the App.st. line so I'll take your word for it.. Point spreads are not right even half the time...either they have the wrong team is favored or the favored covers by a mile... I wouldn't go off of something so inaccurate...
Standford is NOT a D-1AA team and has played USC year in and year out... App. St. has never seen Michigan and has never played them.. How many guys on this Standford team has had a shot at USC in their career..? If you have more shots you are more likely to hit regardless of what some smuck in Vegas "THINKS"!!!!
POINT SPREADS ARE OPINIONS!!! I would highly doubt you would have taken App. St. +25... You and most would have been MORE LIKELY to take Stanford +40 over App. St. +25...
Comment -
blister says stanford. blister is out.Comment -
No milwaukee mike, App State closed at 30.5 at 5 Dimes after opening at 32.
In hindsight, the fact that the line dropped should have been a clue, but I digress.
The fact is, Stanford was still a bigger underdog by more than a touchdown, so I think you still have to rate them ahead of App St.Comment -
Whats funny is I was talking with my brother before year started and we talked about ml's. I meantioned how the big ml's were not really worth it on college football b/c so many underdogs get so close to beating a big fav but usually fall short.
Obviously times are changing in college football b/c upsets like these use to never happen, and esp so many in a single season. That all being said glad I changed my mind and made big ml wins of nd vs ucla and Pitt vs WVUComment -
Do you always attempt to spread misinformation or is this an isolated instance?The line is just an arbitrary number designed to draw equal action on both sidesComment -
stanford uscComment -
It's not, but if you want to continue with your square thinking that's your problem.he is right. the line is created to draw equal actions on both sidesComment -
This is close to the stupidest thing I've ever heard and if anyone is spreading misinformation it is you.
Let me get this straight, books prefer to gamble on every game more than they would to secure a profit as would be the case if they drew equal action on both sides????
Sure, some bookmakers are aggressive with certain games and sometimes books have to take positions for a game but most books are not aggressive and most prefer to simply balance their books.
Can you imagine if a bookmaker purposely put up a line for the Super Bowl or a game 7 that drew unequal action....how long do you think it would take before they were fired????Comment -
it was all on a silver platter for wvu, just had to do was beat a pitt team they were favored by 4td's and make the title game but they didnt, that was the biggest shock to meComment -
A combination of sharp action, risk management and new information such as injuries or weather. You do understand the difference between risk management on +EV bets and "guaranteeing a profit" surely?why would the line move then?
Again, it's called risk management. Do you think it's actually realistic to perfectly balance action on every game?Let me get this straight, books prefer to gamble on every game more than they would to secure a profit as would be the case if they drew equal action on both sides????
I shouldn't bother with you guys since you're basically all a bunch of degenerates and long-term losers, Ganch, Durito and Thremp excepted, but I thought I'd be benevolent tonight. Carry on giving your money to the books so I can take it.Comment -
Ummm yeah. And how many days have you been managing at a sportsbook in Vegas or on some Carribean island to know all this? Wow, that's news to me that books can't balance every single game. What a great observation...maybe you should write a book on this.
Guess what, if you had continued to read my explanation further you would have seen quite clearly that I acknowledged that there are (1) agressive books out there that do take positions but they are few and far in between and (2) realistically few games are ever going to draw even amount of action. Therefore books do end up in high risk positions where they are forced to "gamble."
However, the goal for nearly all books (especially those on the mainland) are universal. Books looks to secure a guaranteed profit by attracting equal betting action. Guess what...that's why it is called "bookmaking".......there is an art to bookmaking as there is to gambling.
Don't try to be so dogmatic.......you make yourself seem stupid.
Comment -
Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it so. SB managers have gone on record multiple times saying otherwise. It's only logical if you have any idea what the term "expected value" means.*Books looks to secure a guaranteed profit by attracting equal betting action.
Indeed there is an art to bookmaking. It's just that you don't have a clue about it. Stick to stuff you know, although by the looks of things that might make you stop posting completely.there is an art to bookmaking as there is to gambling.
*I also understand the concept of expected growth (risk management) and that books would never want 100% of action on one side, particularly on a game like the Super Bowl. However, to suggest they want perfectly balanced action is naive in the extreme.Comment -
Just because you keep saying what you are saying doesn't make it so. SB managers have gone on record multiple times saying that they look to attract an even amount of action on both sides to secure a guaranteed profit. It's only logical if you have any idea what the term "risk" and "handle" and "juice" means.
Okay if I don't have an idea about bookmaking, then what makes you so confident that you do? Can you tell us which Vegas sportsbook you were the manager at? Or which off shore gaming book you ran? What exactly are your credentials that make you unbelievably qualified to speak so dogmatically about such an issue? Again, it's like you did not even read my posts. I said, by and large books look to secure a profit (Is there a dispute to that?). However, there are instnaces where they are forced to gamble and take positions or they are intentionally aggressive in trying to attract unequal betting action. I believe you, trust me. However, given the nature of sportsbooks (they are in the business of booking bets and given the vast amount of empirical literature that exists on frame gains/losses your reasoning requires some revision.
And yes, the line is an arbitrary number......
Comment -
It's not logical if your goal is to make money.It's only logical if you have any idea what the term "risk" and "handle" and "juice" means.
Why would I want to manage a sportsbook when I can make more betting my own?Okay if I don't have an idea about bookmaking, then what makes you so confident that you do? Can you tell us which Vegas sportsbook you were the manager at? Or which off shore gaming book you ran? What exactly are your credentials that make you unbelievably qualified to speak so dogmatically about such an issue?
Yes, there is a dispute. Ask someone who has a clue about winning sports betting other than me.I said, by and large books look to secure a profit (Is there a dispute to that?).
You just don't get it. Maybe some day you will.And yes, the line is an arbitrary numberComment -
lol, you are starting to make a major fool of yourself
Make more money betting sports than running a sportsbook Let me guess, another guy who is a "pro gambler" on here who just beats the book silly week in and week out
Right, securing a guaranteed profit by trying to attract equal betting action the a 10% vig is highly illogical if you want to make money as all sportsbooks are in the business of doing
. However, gambling is highly preferable for sportsbooks to securing a profit because sportsbooks like to take positions on games 
Thanks for posting here at SBR Romeo...why don't you post your plays here for a month and let's see how you do
Okay, let me get this straight and I want a straight answer. This is a hypothetical situation. You are a sportsbook manager in Vegas at the largest sportsbook in town. You have the largest handle in town. Your sportsbook is controlled by a large corporation who is only interested in profits. You have 16 games on the NFL card. Now which scenario would you choose as the sportsbook manager.
A) You have balanced action on all 16 games thus securing a large profit without ever breaking a sweat.
B) You have 6 games that have balanced action and the other 10 games have attracted unequal action thus forcing the book to take positions on games thus shifting from booking to now gambling on the games.
As a sportsbook manager, which one would you honestly prefer???Last edited by BuddyBear; 12-07-07, 02:53 PM.Comment -
And don't give me any of this b.s that "Vegas knows who is going to win the games ahead of time" and this sharp/square dichtomy that sharp players are always winners and squares are always losers nonsense.Comment -
Buddy,
Question. Do you know the amount of money made by linesmakers or consultants or books?Comment -
Linesmakers, depending on expereince can make good money. I had heard that the guy who use to run LVSC before Kenny White (Michael "Roxy" Roxborough) was making millions of dollars. Obviously salaries will vary based on experience and what not.
Sportsbook consultants/managers aren't poor or rich. Their salaries vary based on book and experience. A friend i have in Reno tells me that most sportsbook managers are taking in $60,00-$80,000 a year.
Sportsbook employees such as ticket writers make next to nothing.
Sportsbooks: lots of money but again varies on a number of factors.....it's also important to note that most sportsbooks in casinos in Vegas account for very little percent of their overall annual profit.Comment -
I think the point that ASU wins National Titles at their level can be "double think"... I am not saying you posters specifically but just as an example I was having this conversation with my uncle... He used the same point about App. St. winning titles in D1-AA but... he is against Hi. being in the National Title game because they ddin't play anybody...
See how inconsistant people are...
Comment -
How much do you think a sportsbook manager makes per year?lol, you are starting to make a major fool of yourself Make more money betting sports than running a sportsbook Let me guess, another guy who is a "pro gambler" on here who just beats the book silly week in and week out
With proper risk management it is most definitely preferable if the majority of the action is on the square side.Right, securing a guaranteed profit by trying to attract equal betting action the a 10% vig is highly illogical if you want to make money as all sportsbooks are in the business of doing . However, gambling is highly preferable for sportsbooks to securing a profit because sportsbooks like to take positions on games
Why would I want to do that? I post a few plays on another sports betting forum occaisionally, but line shopping is the key.Thanks for posting here at SBR Romeo...why don't you post your plays here for a month and let's see how you do
I'd take the latter, given the unequal action is on the square side, as I said earlier.Okay, let me get this straight and I want a straight answer. This is a hypothetical situation. You are a sportsbook manager in Vegas at the largest sportsbook in town. You have the largest handle in town. Your sportsbook is controlled by a large corporation who is only interested in profits. You have 16 games on the NFL card. Now which scenario would you choose as the sportsbook manager.
A) You have balanced action on all 16 games thus securing a large profit without ever breaking a sweat.
B) You have 6 games that have balanced action and the other 10 games have attracted unequal action thus forcing the book to take positions on games thus shifting from booking to now gambling on the games.
As a sportsbook manager, which one would you honestly prefer???
Of course Vegas doesn't know who is going to win ahead of time and of course sharps don't win every bet and squares don't lose every bet. However, sharps win in the long run, whereas squares don't. For each game that is a certain exact probability of any outcome. That's why if a line of -7.5 is perfectly efficient and that game is played infinitely many times under the exact same conditions, each side will win ATS exactly 50% of the time. Sports betting has fairly small edges, especially compared to poker. It's a grind, not a lock-fest.And don't give me any of this b.s that "Vegas knows who is going to win the games ahead of time" and this sharp/square dichtomy that sharp players are always winners and squares are always losers nonsense.Comment -
sorry but we are going to agree to disagree and that's where I'll leave it.
However, there are some major lapses in your rationale. First the most glaring mistake/belief is that there is no such thing as a "sharp" or a "square" to begin with. I strongly disagree with this terminology. This is strictly an arbitrary term that has found momentum on gaming forum sites. There is no "right side" or "sharp side" to a game...only a "right price." Second "squares" do win at the same rate as "sharps"....however, their deficienies can be found in other areas such as poor money management skills, taking bad numbers, chasing, etc....if you give a "square" and a "sharp" 1000 bets with the same exact spreads to choose from, they'll hit approximately the same rate. But because other factors counfound the relationship beween betting on sports and winning, a simple designation of "square" and "sharp" is not very accurate.
Third, if you did select option B you would certainly be very aggressive. As you are well aware, most sportsbooks in Vegas these days are very conservative. Recently the Shrink remarked that if anyone is betting big these days they aren't doing it in Vegas. Given the scenario I presented to you, I have a very difficult time believing that you would select such an option given the current state of Vegas sports betting. That's not to say you wouldn't select it because you truly believe it or are simply recalcitrant but quite frankly if the goal of a sportsbook is to make money (which it surely is), Option A is certainly superior by any objective measure. One only needs to refer to the 2005 NFL season to see how great the "sharps" did and how poorly the books fared compared to other years.....
Your sports betting paradigm is guided by the notion that there are "squares" and "sharps." I don't subscribe to such a belief. I've been watching these "sharps" for years and most of them are 50/50 just like the squares. Listening to Leroy's Money Talk Invitational every week that features the "sharpest of the sharps" you can see that "sharp" is simply social construct, a figment of our imagination. These "sharps" are hitting around 48% collectively....If you want to continue to believe in such things then by all means go for it......
Good luck.....Comment -
A-There is no "right side" or "sharp side" to a game...only a "right price."
FSecond "squares" do win at the same rate as "sharps"....however, their deficienies can be found in other areas such as poor money management skills, taking bad numbers, chasing, etc....if you give a "square" and a "sharp" 1000 bets with the same exact spreads to choose from, they'll hit approximately the same rate. But because other factors counfound the relationship beween betting on sports and winning, a simple designation of "square" and "sharp" is not very accurate.
Apparently expected growth is not an objective measure.Option A is certainly superior by any objective measure.
LOL. Are you seriously using one 4 month stretch as "proof"?One only needs to refer to the 2005 NFL season to see how great the "sharps" did and how poorly the books fared compared to other years....
I'm guessing these are touts, who are almost certainly not sharps.Listening to Leroy's Money Talk Invitational every week that features the "sharpest of the sharps" you can see that "sharp" is simply social construct, a figment of our imagination.
If books are balancing their action as you say, squares are hitting 52%?These "sharps" are hitting around 48% collectively
You should do mankind a favor and top yourself.Comment -
Well yeah, did not you say that sharps win and that squares lose? So let me get this straight, i offer evidence that "sharps" lose and that "squares" win yet this evdiene over a 4 month stetch is not sufficient. However, if I tell you that sharps are cleaning up this year in the NFL, then that is major proof
They are introduced as "sharp" gamblers. Whether they work in the sports advisory business is largely irrelevant. There are a lot of "sharps" out there who have real jobs. It would be like saying, he is a plumber so he can't be a "sharp"
Did not you say squares don't win?
Why don't you post 1000 plays on here.....or however many you want. What percentage do you think you could hit Mr. Sharp?Comment -
Surely no one can possibly be this stupid? Ever heard of variance? 1 season is not proof either way.Well yeah, did not you say that sharps win and that squares lose? So let me get this straight, i offer evidence that "sharps" lose and that "squares" win yet this evdiene over a 4 month stetch is not sufficient. However, if I tell you that sharps are cleaning up this year in the NFL, then that is major proof
You can call yourself a sharp all you like but if you hit 50% against -110 or -105 lines you simply aren't sharp.They are introduced as "sharp" gamblers. Whether they work in the sports advisory business is largely irrelevant. There are a lot of "sharps" out there who have real jobs. It would be like saying, he is a plumber so he can't be a "sharp"
Not in the long run.Did not you say squares don't win?
I already answered this earlier. But if you like, I will post plays here for rugby in the spring. Prop bet?Why don't you post 1000 plays on here.....or however many you want. What percentage do you think you could hit Mr. Sharp?Comment
