[Firefox14]

Just wondering if sportbooks would be so bold as to juice something to induce bets in order to create action. For example: Let's say I bet team A at -110 along with many other bets coming in on the same line. I perceive + EV but, next thing I know, the opposite line becomes juiced to -150, leading one to forgo their original bet, take the juiced opposite side (what they want), and ultimately lose money. Obviously, it would be foolish to do this, but knowing little about sportsbooks, I often wonder how many times this happens.

Or if a book is getting no action. -110/-110. They juice a side to -130, and an onlooker places a -110 bet at another book, thinking they have EV, when in reality, the books know exactly what they're doing. Thoughts?

[chilidog]

It's all automated. A person sits and monitors the software that auto adjusts the lines

[Maniac]

Or if a book is getting no action. -110/-110. They juice a side to -130, and an onlooker places a -110 bet at another book, thinking they have EV, when in reality, the books know exactly what they're doing. Thoughts?

Why would a book want to set a line to send player to bet at another book ?

If a book moves a -110/-110 line to -130/+110 then they would obviously be looking for money on on the side that is +110

[Firefox14]

Why would a book want to set a line to send player to bet at another book ?

If a book moves a -110/-110 line to -130/+110 then they would obviously be looking for money on on the side that is +110

They wouldn't. What I was referring to would be if a player was trying to beat the books by going off market to a rec book.

[Flight]

Not sure if I follow but if you are saying "play off market numbers at rec books" then yes this is a good strategy.

If you are saying books bait or trap bettors, yes this is also true but to a lesser degree and usually pretty obvious, and generally no more than 5% on major sports.

If you're talking about small market stuff than yah anything goes and it's not necessarily a trap, just varying opinions on pricing (and the opinion source could be either from the book or the player, usually the player closer to game time)

[Flight]

Just wondering if sportbooks would be so bold as to juice something to induce bets in order to create action.

I reread this first sentence and wanted to make one more comment. From what I've seen, they do not change odds to generate volume (although I'm sure there are exceptions). Volume comes on it's own.

A book adjusts odds to maximize profits. ie Correct line is -4, theoretical hold is 4.5% on both sides, public loves the favorite, book shades the favorite to -4.5, increases their theoretical hold to 8% or more.

Just speaking from my experience...

[louis]

If they shade the line to -4.5, they risk bettors going to another book where they can get -4. They may also attract money on the dog, which won't give them much theoretical hold at all.

[jamoc023]

Bookmakers make mistakes but they never pay out if they make em just push bets!!