[Peep]

How much do you guys think setting a number that will get bought back enters into it?

I am thinking of the ND/Wash 2nd half number, which got set at +4, which I thought was low, given that ND was ahead by 17 as a -10 road favorite.

Then I started thinking of those bettors who had bet ND for the game, and were ahead already at the half.

Some of them would love to bet Wash 2nd half, have what they call a "nice middle" and maybe even lock up a small profit since they have to win either the side or the game.

BTW, I HATE that betback (they even call it a "middle"), I think each bet should stand on its own merit. But some gamblers like it....

Thoughts?

[Frank]

How much do you guys think setting a number that will get bought back enters into it?

I am thinking of the ND/Wash 2nd half number, which got set at +4, which I thought was low, given that ND was ahead by 17 as a -10 road favorite.

Then I started thinking of those bettors who had bet ND for the game, and were ahead already at the half.

Some of them would love to bet Wash 2nd half, have what they call a "nice middle" and maybe even lock up a small profit since they have to win either the side or the game.

BTW, I HATE that betback (they even call it a "middle"), I think each bet should stand on its own merit. But some gamblers like it....

Thoughts?

Almost none.

Sharps bet 2H lines more than squares.

A book that shades 2H lines like that would get beat up badly by sharps

[dwaechte]

Yeah, the book really has to treat them seperately and each line needs to stand up on its own. They can't try to get out of a position on a game with 2H lines or they'll get killed again.

[Peep]

Thanks guys.

I was always of the opinion that squares did bet backs with second half lines, but maybe they don't too much.

I really don't know. Maybe it is all (or almost all) sharp money on second halves that causes line moves (and hence line setting).

I am going to post the question in the other forum, see if I can get some clerks or bookies to answer.

[Peep]

Is it mostly sharps?

Or squares?

Large bettors or small bettors?

Or the same group of usual suspects who bet the full game?

Inquiring minds want to know......

[dwaechte]

I'm just guessing at this point, but I'd say that while public bettors probably like betting 2nd halfs for entertainment, a larger proportion of the actual money would be sharp. Most casual bettors tend to bet smaller on 2nd half of quarter plays because there's less action for them to enjoy, and because they feel that the outcomes may be more volatile than a full game that they've capped. With sharps the opposite could be true, since there is generally a better chance for a good edge on 2nd half bets.

[pizza man]

sharps dont bet middles once the are in favorable position, unless its a huge middle opportunity, middleing could also be considered a way to cut losses if your playing with scared money like most small squares. your laying juice with both bets so hedging back isnt the way to go, especially if you ahead. now on the other hand if you are a book and you are in favorable position at the half, you could bet back or hedge the second half, but again why would you when you have the advantage. unless your a scared book that sat on too much in the first place and have a chance to dump money and take a free shot at a middle. jmo

[pimike]

Good question, however Notre Dame was never 10 points Fav, 4 not 10.

As for a good bet, it is a great bet, a lot of times it is a better bet then the game. It does allow u to salvage money or double up.

Love half time bets

[pats3peat]

agree with it being dumb to middle a 2nd half bet whne you already have the advantage. Youd have to be scared