Heat -13, is this a type of trap?
Do you think linesmakers/books operate like this:
Heat -13
Celtics -14
Do you think they want people to compare these two lines and think to themselves "The Heat are much better than the Celtics and the line is a whole point lower, so I'll take the Heat."
It's possible that a type of trap, what do you think?
i think the bobcats being a whole lot worse then cleveland has something to do with that.
I don't think there are traps. I don't think that an industry like book making would risk so much dime on something that is basically pop psychology. When you use math, solid game scouting and sharp line makers, why would they risk money against a process that already is proven to work for them (I'm certain that they're a, 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it' operation).
The Celtics are playing the Bobcats tomorrow and the Heat are playing the Cavaliers. The Cavaliers are better than the Bobcats. This doesn't mean the Cavs are good, or something, it means that the Bobcats are really, really bad. Also, the Heat have had some difficulty closing in the fourth.
The line makers are hypothesizing on the score of the game. They think the Heat win by 13, and the closer they get to that, the better for them. They don't want to "trap" or "trick" you into thinking one way or another. They want to be as close to correct as possible, because that is how they make the most money.
Bobcats is a worse team on the NBA, I think Clev +13 kindda too much?
accuall;y i think miami has more potential to blowout cleveland, dont forget the last time cleveland came to miami the game was close till the end and im sure the heat arent forgetting that. i see miami getting much seperation here this could get outta hand. im saying miami 102-85
Take a sample size of 20 Vegas trap spreads.Originally Posted by CertainValor
I don't think there are traps. I don't think that an industry like book making would risk so much dime on something that is basically pop psychology. When you use math, solid game scouting and sharp line makers, why would they risk money against a process that already is proven to work for them (I'm certain that they're a, 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it' operation).
The Celtics are playing the Bobcats tomorrow and the Heat are playing the Cavaliers. The Cavaliers are better than the Bobcats. This doesn't mean the Cavs are good, or something, it means that the Bobcats are really, really bad. Also, the Heat have had some difficulty closing in the fourth.
The line makers are hypothesizing on the score of the game. They think the Heat win by 13, and the closer they get to that, the better for them. They don't want to "trap" or "trick" you into thinking one way or another. They want to be as close to correct as possible, because that is how they make the most money.
To keep things simple, let's say each game has 1million on it.
14x trap works, majority of pub loses. Let's say on avg, 80% of $ was on pub in those games. Vegas profits $800,000 on each game. 14 x 8 = 112. ($11.2 million gained)
6x pub wins. 80% of bettors get paid. Vegas loses 800,000 per game. (4.8 million lost)
11.2 - 4.8= 6.4 million net profit.
In 20 games.
Juice hasn't been factored in, but you get it.
Vegas sets traps. They are bookies for one reason. To get paid.
If you are a multi-million dollar company, would you be satisfied netting $360 mil a year, when the company has potential to net $570 mil a year?
Last edited by illAdelph; 02-07-12 at 02:32 AM.
Take a sample size of 20 Vegas trap spreads.
To keep things simple, let's say each bet has 1million on it.
14x trap works, majority of pub loses. Let's say on avg, 80% of $ was on pub in those games. Vegas profits $800,000 on each game. 14 x 8 = 112. ($11.2 million gained)
6x pub wins. 80% of bettors get paid. Vegas loses 800,000 per game. (4.8 million lost)
11.2 - 4.8= 6.4 million net profit.
In 14 games.
Juice hasn't been factored in, but you get it.
Vegas sets traps. They are bookies for one reason. To get paid.
If you are a multi-million dollar company, would you be satisfied netting $360 mil a year, when the company has potential to net $570 mil a year?
That is only the mathematical explanation on how it works. If you place wagers on the NBA, you will eventually just learn through common sense when your "lock of the year" and "easiest bet ever" wagers leave you
There's no such thing as a lock or a trap. Ideally Vegas wants an equal amount of people on either side. You people are crazy if you think otherwise. Make an educated guess and go with it. One side has to win.
There's no such thing as a lock or a trap. Ideally Vegas wants an equal amount of people on either side. You people are crazy if you think otherwise. Make an educated guess and go with it. One side has to win.
You're crazy dude ....Vegas makes peanuts on just the juice and there's no way in hell they get equal side betting on any every game other than the superbowl. The majority of book income comes from heavy lean on one side and the public calling the wrong side. If you think otherwise , you're a noobie to the game.
One word = Greed.
You're crazy dude ....Vegas makes peanuts on just the juice and there's no way in hell they get equal side betting on any every game other than the superbowl. The majority of book income comes from heavy lean on one side and the public calling the wrong side. If you think otherwise , you're a noobie to the game.
9/10 games, Vegas does not get equal action. It is ideal, but rare.
"Books always shoot for equal action and make their money off juice" is the biggest myth in sportsbetting.
Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the fact that trap lines exist is a fool.
One word = Greed.
9/10 games, Vegas does not get equal action. It is ideal, but rare.
"Books always shoot for equal action and make their money off juice" is the biggest myth in sportsbetting.
Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the fact that trap lines exist is a fool.
Thank you.....I echo this sentiment.
I understand what you're saying, but I would need to see some sort of evidence to suggest that setting a trap works 70% of the time. I think the number is high, and there is a level at which the risk exceeds the potential. I think the actual number is somewhere closer to that risk/potential ratio than 70%.Take a sample size of 20 Vegas trap spreads.
To keep things simple, let's say each game has 1million on it.
14x trap works, majority of pub loses. Let's say on avg, 80% of $ was on pub in those games. Vegas profits $800,000 on each game. 14 x 8 = 112. ($11.2 million gained)
6x pub wins. 80% of bettors get paid. Vegas loses 800,000 per game. (4.8 million lost)
11.2 - 4.8= 6.4 million net profit.
In 20 games.
Juice hasn't been factored in, but you get it.
Vegas sets traps. They are bookies for one reason. To get paid.
If you are a multi-million dollar company, would you be satisfied netting $360 mil a year, when the company has potential to net $570 mil a year?
But I could be wrong. I just need to some sort of evidence. Obviously, if someone tells you "you're going to make money on this 70% of the time", you'll take it.
so if they shoot for equal action how would it be a trap line ???????????????????????????????????????? ?
