[Tomato]

Another book Tomato has essentially been banned at (off retard lineset, $100 limits), Tomato has a theory he'd like to introduce.

Betting on sides that Bodog moves for sharps.

The numbers Tomato sees under his account and he sees not logged in are different for many games. Bodog will entice squares to bet certain sides, but not allow those with a clue to bet that number.

Logging in today Tomato sees:

NY Giants +8 -110 (log in it's +8 -115)
Oakland +11 -110 (log in it's +10.5 -110)
Washington +3.5 -120 (log in it's +3.5 -125)

Do these numbers indicate winning sides as books are telling you "we don't want you to bet this number"? Generally speaking, when books don't want you to do something, it's usually profitable.

[Dunder]

The Pinny lean is well known, I canīt see the "Bodog lean" gaining much traction TBH.

Given that, as you mention, Bodog puts anyone with half a clue on to -115 lines it is probably fair to say that the exposure they have, and thus any lean, results primarily from recreational money, no?

[cigarbutts]

Use bo dog only for underdogs use another bk for favs

[Reload]

Bodog's limits are too low for any lean to indicate something. They do get mostly bets on favorites and overs. Last I heard they still dealt dual lines to those profiled as dog players - so the line you see on SBRodds.com is not available to all.

[Tomato]

The Pinny lean is well known, I canīt see the "Bodog lean" gaining much traction TBH.

Given that, as you mention, Bodog puts anyone with half a clue on to -115 lines it is probably fair to say that the exposure they have, and thus any lean, results primarily from recreational money, no?

This is Tomato's hypothesis.

He has heard about the "Pinnacle lean" (you can probably add MATCHBOOK to this lean) but also believes that these SQUARE BOOKS - with the majority of their clients being idiots who happened to find the site through Google - send out signals that certain sharp sides are winners.

SIA is another site like this. They'll put up a ridiculous number on one side of a game (the square side) giving you a big time +EV bet on the other side.

The rates that these bets are hitting far outpace expected growth, indicating that +EV bets are even more profitable when it's square money that you're fading.

[Grux]

Took Michigan State last night at Bodog at +9.0 -105. Worst beat of the New Year. I do think looking at Bodog and Sia's lines will tell you which side the books need to win.

[Sidetracked]

bodog has KC Chiefs +10 -140 today lmao

[dimon]

GB vs ARIZONA was not offered at anybook till later in the day, and over/under was set at 43 -115 at MB and noone has that game there were about 15,000 offered on this under...I took it only for 500 and saw 2-3 hour leter the line at 41 on most of the books...is it the indication? smart money were on the Over aparently...and then it was gone...I still try to understand how that happened on MB such a large availability on wrong side?

[Dunder]

This is Tomato's hypothesis.

He has heard about the "Pinnacle lean" (you can probably add MATCHBOOK to this lean) but also believes that these SQUARE BOOKS - with the majority of their clients being idiots who happened to find the site through Google - send out signals that certain sharp sides are winners.

SIA is another site like this. They'll put up a ridiculous number on one side of a game (the square side) giving you a big time +EV bet on the other side.

The rates that these bets are hitting far outpace expected growth, indicating that +EV bets are even more profitable when it's square money that you're fading.

OK. I get that.
But if you have been booted (or severely limited) from Bodog, how do you play this? Is it the case that this is such a reliable indicator that you can take a less good number at another book?

If I have some time (not likely in the next week or so, unfortunately), I might backtest the hypothesis.

[Peregrine Stoop]

OP, you are right

[S.K.M.]

Did anyone look any further into this theory? I just got put onto the sharp lines only list at Bodog. Today in the NBA there were two winning bets that Bodog would not offer me. Boston +1.5 and NYK/Minnesota under 211. The T-wolves game safely went under the offered number of 210 but this could be viewed as Tomato suggested that the books were in essence tipping their hand by offering 211 to the general bettors but only offering 210 to people on their "list". I realize Bodog has low limits so we can't look to much into it but I'm curious as to the percentages on this......

[Patrick McIrish]

Do these numbers indicate winning sides as books are telling you "we don't want you to bet this number"? Generally speaking, when books don't want you to do something, it's usually profitable.

There's nothing to it IMO. BoDog has no opinion on the games, they are trying to protect themselves. They are simply using a player's betting patterns against them. If they feel you're not a total clown and play a lot of dogs they are going to give you the "sharp" lines where they don't favor the dog. Don't read too much into it, these books aim for a high hold %. For example you will get booted if you win too much and they open late to give the openers time to shake out. Less risk that way. Books like CRIS, Greek hang their numbers first and though there is more risk they make up for potential decrease in hold % with volume. Books like players have different philisophies, they don't all try to hit the same market. BoDog is on the conservative side, they have an impressive hold because that's how they run the place.

[skrtelfan]

Don't think too hard about it--as Patrick said, they're basically just trying to take advantage of squares who just want to bet a certain team, usually the favorite, regardless of the price. The Bodog "sharp" feed is quite vanilla, and really, calling it a "sharp" feed is kind of a misnomer. It would be more accurate to call it the "feed for anyone who isn't an idiot."

[Dunder]

Did anyone look any further into this theory?

I did yes. There is something to it as there is with SIA. With that said there is an almost direct correlation between those games/markets where these books shade their lines and those where there is a heavy public lean.

This would indicate that these books are basically begging people to take the other side, they can do this because they limit or boot winning/sharp players.

In essence playing Tomatoīs SIA/Bodog lean is the same as fading the public.

I ran some numbers over a three month period for NFL, NBA, NFL, NCAAF and NCAAB.

When certain criteria (not fitted) were met, playing the īBodog leanī at Pinnacle one hour before game time (obviously not always the best line available) would have resulted in 55% win rate and a 2.2% ROI (at flat stakes). The figures for SIA are very similar.

[Tomato]

I did yes. There is something to it as there is with SIA. With that said there is an almost direct correlation between those games/markets where these books shade their lines and those where there is a heavy public lean.

This would indicate that these books are basically begging people to take the other side, they can do this because they limit or boot winning/sharp players.

In essence playing Tomatoīs SIA/Bodog lean is the same as fading the public.

I ran some numbers over a three month period for NFL, NBA, NFL, NCAAF and NCAAB.

When certain criteria (not fitted) were met, playing the īBodog leanī at Pinnacle one hour before game time (obviously not always the best line available) would have resulted in 55% win rate and a 2.2% ROI (at flat stakes). The figures for SIA are very similar.

YES!

Tomato is so happy to see that his thread was bumped!

SIA lean >>>> Bodog lean

Tomato has illustrated this here!

Keep in mind that ONE HOUR BEFORE is not nearly as profitable as AT GAMETIME.

[konck]

Bodogs has more movement on the favs than any site going.
Mostly the public teams move on Bodog ....Do you see the public winning a lot?

[daydrinkn]

I agree with some of the above posters, I think more of what the line movment is telling you is what side they are seeing the money on. All the time you'll see games -130 or other rediculous numbers because they don't want to move the line.

[ewrestling4c]

I have found they definantly lean hard to people who tend to bet on favorites.

[Patrick McIrish]

I ran some numbers over a three month period......

No offense but I quit reading there.

[Dunder]

No offense but I quit reading there.

Obviously it is my no means a large enough sample, but I have discarded most of the data that would be needed to do this type of thing without having to plough through it manually.

When I drill down there are subsets that are, unquestionably, worthy of further study.

[BigdaddyQH]

This is the #1 problem with wagering at off shore books. They know who you are. They have your user name, your IP address, etc... They can flag you for anything they want. If they know that you do well on a certain wager, you can rest assured that they will try and screw you big time. The beauty of Vegas is that no one knows who you are, nor do they care. You can send anyone up to the wagering window and place a wager, just as long as they are 21 or older. Vegas does not flag accounts, because it would be nearly impossible to do this. If they were to make life miserable for large bettors, they would just send other people in to do their wagering. Besides, Vegas has other ways to make money off of high rollers. Off shore books do not. Tomato, your theory is spot on. Get used to it. You will see more and more of this at off shore books. Off shore books are out to screw the wagering public. This is why they make it so difficult for people. They know if you are a winner or not. They know who you are because you have to prove who you are to collect your winnings. That is why no high roller in his right mind would do business with an off shore book.