[JayTrotter]

ok, let's talk about a specific game... last night it was Rhode Island -1 versus the mighty tar heels of UNC...

Now watching as much basketball as a person would be expected (sportscenter and maybe 1 to 3 games a week) U would have to question how UNC was an underdog to a team that most people don't even know their mascot...

If you were more illuminated in the ways and means of basketball, you would know that this was an even game.. Even. the line was almost right.. except, and it is quite the exception. Rhode Island does not have the class of North Carolina.. They use this term in horse racing... it is basically a mixture of composure, breeding and environment. UNC would NEVER be intimidated to be playing URI, or Be uncomfortable in the NIT final four (U go to UNC to play in final fours...)

Now looking at this situation, it appears as if UNC should be slightly favored, having an even matchup, and a class advantage.. Yet they weren't...

This appeared to me, as the same line as in the NFL this year when, The colts traveled to baltimore, and it was Ravens -1. I know that game was probably even in most categories, the Home field leveling it off for the ravens.. and once again, the colts major advantage was class.. as in if these teams play 10 times, the colts win 6 close games, 2 blowouts, and lose 1 close game, and 1 blowout.

Putting these two games together, I look at it in this way. One team is a far better known and supported team, and the other is an under the radar team that is arguably as talented, and in the case of the Ravens is enjoying a home field equalizer... On paper these are even match ups. coin flips.. close games almost every time. Yet the line is going against the supported team??

My thinking is that sports books install the less known team as a favorite, in an attempt to influence people away from the known team.. Most people who bet UNC at +1 would have taken them probably all the way up to -2, and I would have taken the colts all the way to -2.5...

Another theory is that they install this WEIRD line, because they know these are the lines(opportunities) that "sharps" live for. I am reminded that this is where the bet against the public strategy can fall apart, books are in this to make money, and if there are 100 people betting 20 bucks on one side, and 1 guy betting 2000 on the other side, all the "public" money is on one side, even though the real money levels are even.

Think tankers I would question, how much is the line a true evaluation of talents/matchups/situations, and how much is it a tool to influence bettor's decisions? Are there games in which the house installs a favorite in an attempt to keep from getting crushed by one sided action on the much loved participant?

[Smurfer1]

Lines are set for even money. Period.

[sharpcat]

Lines are set for even money. Period.

This is incorrect, if a book feels they have an edge on a bet they can and will shade the line to get the public to bite on the wrong side of a line. Books can also take sides on games just like we do as long as they win enough of these gambles long term to break even or turn a profit.

[Ruifgalmeida]

Got to agree with sharpcat.

[thebestthereis]

they are without question not set for equal action some cases. one of many examples: kentucky opened -2.5 at cris vs west viginia last saturday. if anyone thinks that line was set for equal action they just won the starring role in the sequel of dumb and dumber.

[Peregrine Stoop]

haha... class... ty for the lolz

[JayTrotter]

you mean the final installment in the trilogy, There already is a dumb and dumberer! which is better Hollywood sequels or college officiating?

[BigdaddyQH]

So what happened last night? UNC wins by 1 as a 1 point dog in OT. How much closer do you want it? Rhode Island is a 3 pointer away from winning and covering. I would say that the books did a very good job with this line.

[thebestthereis]

you mean the final installment in the trilogy, There already is a dumb and dumberer! which is better Hollywood sequels or college officiating?

i didn't know that, now i gotta watch it

[THE PROFIT]

I felt the VCU/STL game 2 was a big sucker bet. It worked too, led everyone to the slaughter with STL except those of us smart enough to watch them suck the masses in

[gryfyn1]

This is incorrect, if a book feels they have an edge on a bet they can and will shade the line to get the public to bite on the wrong side of a line. Books can also take sides on games just like we do as long as they win enough of these gambles long term to break even or turn a profit.

This is true, but Generally the Books will aim for even money, but occasionally they will gamble if they feel they can get big money to bite on the wrong direction.

[arwar]

lines are not set for equal money on each event. books hate single game plays. what the book wants is a balance in the amount of action going on each play. say there are 20 games on the card and only 12 see action - they don't care if each of those 12 plays are on 12 different games - so long as they are all close to equal in total. in such a case there would be action on one side and zero on the other - but the book knows in the long run it will will win 7 and lose 5 (because the players pick more losers than winners for unknown reason) what they don't want, for example, is 600 evenly distributed $50 plays and $5000 play on a single play. that's where the layoff shows up.

[BigOrangeTitans]

no doubt about it, good post arwar

[monostereo]

yes good post! peace out