This tread has really gotten off the topic of the OP... lol...
Everyone here seems to be theorizing, guessing whatever. Sorry G-Man, but those long posts, I didn't even bother to read. I will say, from a book I read by a ex-bookie, he claimed that most people believe that bookie's are able to keep even money on both sides, however he claimed most of time they are on one side of the line.
I might add as an observation, if books could manage keeping money even, then they wouldn't care about "sharps". We could all be professionals and they wouldn't care. However, nearly all do, accept the really big books. Perhaps, the really big books have more of a market business model for line moments.
Also, what is interesting I find is, since we have limits per game and some places have really low limits, then obviously squares are putting down more money. I mean, even if I am a pro, the most I could put down is $250 at a particular book. Since, in theory, sharps only represent, what, 2% maybe. Whatever the percent, you can see, even if I bet $250 for the game and there are only 100 of us betting, that would mean 98 peeps were on the other side. Now of course, sometimes the squares would be on the sharps side and the sharps on the square side, but you get what I am saying.
Anyway, both sides of this argument seem to just be guessing and I am not sure which side I just backed
BoL,