[Ernie Mccracken]

There are no sharps. There are maybe a handful of people in the world who have a true edge on the books and we have no idea which side they were on.

[CrazyCarl]

Well, I think it's fairly clear that we won't reach a conclusion in this thread. I believe there are people who are winners over time. I also believe that Vegas does gamble on shady lines (this part is almost undeniable), and fairly often, and I think they come out ahead in the long run for doing so. I think the numbers generally would agree with me. Saying that they lose these bets half the time doesn't quite seem accurate, or else Vegas would be offering these lines in order to lose money on really big discrepancies (70/30). But perhaps they are banking on people going all-in on those games and it's so it's OK if they hit those 60% of the time. I don't think so, though. I think they go for the profit every time.

You guys can choose to believe the opposite.

[BernardMadoff]

To be fair, most of the KY backers put their money where their mouth was.

To be fair none of those KY backers suited up for the game and nobody was 100% certain of what the outcome would be. Its not hard how the line comes about but people make it to be, also not hard to understand that Vegas is looking for balanced action no matter how many people dont want to believe this.

[CrazyCarl]

To be fair none of those KY backers suited up for the game and nobody was 100% certain of what the outcome would be. Its not hard how the line comes about but people make it to be, also not hard to understand that Vegas is looking for balanced action no matter how many people dont want to believe this.

Vegas doesn't always look for balanced action, or else you would see the line movements to make it happen every time. There ARE shady lines, and vegas DOES invite action on one side, and it happens fairly often. It's not uncommon in the NFL to see 70% of the action on one side and Vegas refusing to move the line. No one has ever been able to counter that fact with a "vegas wants balanced action every time" argument.

No, it's not every game, and I'm not even saying it was even this game certainly, but it happens. If you don't see that, I believe you're the one refusing to look at the facts.

[BernardMadoff]

Seems college bball went so fast.

[BernardMadoff]

Vegas doesn't always look for balanced action, or else you would see the line movements to make it happen every time. There ARE shady lines, and vegas DOES invite action on one side, and it happens fairly often. It's not uncommon in the NFL to see 70% of the action on one side and Vegas refusing to move the line. No one has ever been able to counter that fact with a "vegas wants balanced action every time" argument.

No, it's not every game, and I'm not even saying it was even this game certainly, but it happens. If you don't see that, I believe you're the one refusing to look at the facts.

The problem you have with those percentages is that you dont know how much money is bet on each side, just because a side is 70% bet upon doesnt mean it has the most money bet on it. And on top of that youre going on what they are telling you to be correct and the fact that its a so called 70% from a certain amount of books or one book in some cases.

[CrazyCarl]

The problem you have with those percentages is that you dont know how much money is bet on each side, just because a side is 70% bet upon doesnt mean it has the most money bet on it. And on top of that youre going on what they are telling you to be correct and the fact that its a so called 70% from a certain amount of books or one book in some cases.

I've seen numbers that I somewhat trusted that showed the percentage of money on each side, too.

To me, it doesn't pass the smell test. Think about it. If you are a Vegas guy, and you have access to amazing amounts of data and statistics that show a remarkable prediction on how games will turn out and how the public will bet on these games as well, are you going to simply use this to shift lines and get 50% on each side, or are you going to use the public's irrationalities and overreactions in order to win more money? This isn't even going into some of the crazy things we've seen refs do in these games.

[BernardMadoff]

I've seen numbers that I somewhat trusted that showed the percentage of money on each side, too.

To me, it doesn't pass the smell test. Think about it. If you are a Vegas guy, and you have access to amazing amounts of data and statistics that show a remarkable prediction on how games will turn out and how the public will bet on these games as well, are you going to simply use this to shift lines and get 50% on each side, or are you going to use the public's irrationalities and overreactions in order to win more money? This isn't even going into some of the crazy things we've seen refs do in these games.

I know balanced action doesnt happen alot and I know they take sides on some games. How have you seen percentage of actual money on a side unless you worked at a book? Yes I know say in the NFL they have games every week where they are taking sides, taking chances, some have different motives, some are happy with getting the vig, but knowing who and when and on which would not be worth my time trying to figure out, I really never look to see the betting percentages, I research then get down, simple as that for me. But I have seen RLM tracked over tens of thousands of plays and it always hovers around 50%. The book knows this and freely give that info to the public, but they would never release how much money was sided, they wouldnt make it that easy for us.

[shaunovery]

No such thing as sharp and squares just terms used in betting

[tony_come]

We are not perfect