Did anyone else pay attention to line movement for Angels vs Jays on 8/1?

[Ghenghis Kahn]

lol ravenfan don't mind fukk yourself.

books don't know the outcome.

they move lines to balance action.

sharps bet toronto and the lines moved. nothing more nothing less...

[Big Bear]

Keep in mind you are looking at a sample size of 1 here. Lines move according to sharp, well funded action, especially when it's late movement.

It's not that the books want to attract more money to one side from public bettors, it's that they want to move the number to a point where sharp bettors will stop pounding it. Bet sizing for pros with bankrolls in the millions is entirely dictated by limits, and if Pinny doesn't adjust a line that is getting hit by a known sharp, they are in an exposed position.

To be fair, sharps aren't always right, and they don't always agree with one another. But if the line moved from -120 to -104, Jays was very likely the correct play.

And yes, pretty much the entire year has been terrible if you are an originator.

So Jays were the correct play but the game is played on the field... and yeah i know the game is always played on the field but i think it just goes back to maybe the the books don't know more than us bettors.

I honestly without a doubt think the line movement is very relevant in football and basketball with the point spreads. I always think those games are fixed.

But in baseball.. i can't remember that last time a game was fixed.

Its just an interesting thing to think about for me. I'm not sure if i understand what your saying in your post it's interesting none the less.

[Metatron]

"Sharps" only win 55 to 60% of the time to grind out profit (unlike the 50% or below "public" bettors). This means even when there is heavy action by sharp bettors to steam the line, they will still lose 40% of the time. "Sharps" can also be on both sides of a bet. In this case there was probably more heavy bettors on Toronto but that does not mean no "sharps" were on LAA.
Regardless I feel that when a steam loses people just use the "I was on the right side" excuse to feel better. Bottom line it lost and it was probably not the right play. For example, if you put J.J out on the mound versus LAA in LA for a late start I bet he would lose at least 6 out of 10 times if not more which means placed TOR +100 is probably a bad bet.

[Twerp]

ive noticed that most time a line moves 30 cents are more that team its moving in favor of loses. I see the samething going on in tonights game with the Mets and Royals game. You look and you would think that sharp money came in on the Royals, but the bet that wins will probably be the Mets. But i also take into consideration why did the line originally open up at -125 for the mets after KC has won 9 in a row. Is Gee that much better than Davis? I doubt it and wondering how the oddsmakers came up with that line. Same with the marlins/indians game. I know Fernandez is awesome, but the marlins cant hit. Ubaldo has been pitching great recently and the indians are on fire, why are they underdogs to a lowly marlins team. Def will be paying attention to see how these games turn out

[matthew919]

"Sharps" only win 55 to 60% of the time to grind out profit (unlike the 50% or below "public" bettors). This means even when there is heavy action by sharp bettors to steam the line, they will still lose 40% of the time. "Sharps" can also be on both sides of a bet. In this case there was probably more heavy bettors on Toronto but that does not mean no "sharps" were on LAA.
Regardless I feel that when a steam loses people just use the "I was on the right side" excuse to feel better. Bottom line it lost and it was probably not the right play. For example, if you put J.J out on the mound versus LAA in LA for a late start I bet he would lose at least 6 out of 10 times if not more which means placed TOR +100 is probably a bad bet.

There is a big difference in calling a play the "right" play before the event takes place, versus after. Before any event takes place, the game itself is not really a game at all- it is an infinite number of possible outcomes which is best though of as a probability distribution. A play can be "right" at the time of the bet and "incorrect" in retrospect; however, all that really matters is that it's "right" at the time it's placed.

One example- consider the BCS championship game between Bama and ND. Before the game, if someone had offered you a money line of +900 on ND, you'd probably have seen huge value in it, and taken it (I would have as well). But after the game, could anyone really say that ND would win even 1 game out of 10 between those two? It was men vs boys. But at the time of the bet, no one could have possibly known the discrepancy was that huge between the teams- there was simply no existing data to support the ML being +900. So taking the hypothetically offered ML at +900 would have been the "right" bet, even if in retrospect it had no chance.

[No coincidences]

So Jays were the correct play but the game is played on the field... and yeah i know the game is always played on the field but i think it just goes back to maybe the the books don't know more than us bettors.

I honestly without a doubt think the line movement is very relevant in football and basketball with the point spreads. I always think those games are fixed.

But in baseball.. i can't remember that last time a game was fixed.

Its just an interesting thing to think about for me. I'm not sure if i understand what your saying in your post it's interesting none the less.

Wow. Just wow.

You are lost.

[RavensFan2k3]

Lol. You are over thinking this.

Haha, I dont think so. It's observations. Last season I won alot of wagers due to purely line watching, but the problem is you'd have to literally line watch all day from when the line is posted till the game starts, aswell as the % of money on a given side. Too much work.

lol ravenfan don't mind fukk yourself.

books don't know the outcome.

they move lines to balance action.

sharps bet toronto and the lines moved. nothing more nothing less...

I didnt say they know the outcome, but they are balancing the action to minimize their loss and maximize their gain. Otherwise whats the point of moving the line at all?

[RavensFan2k3]

"Sharps" only win 55 to 60% of the time to grind out profit (unlike the 50% or below "public" bettors). This means even when there is heavy action by sharp bettors to steam the line, they will still lose 40% of the time. "Sharps" can also be on both sides of a bet. In this case there was probably more heavy bettors on Toronto but that does not mean no "sharps" were on LAA.
Regardless I feel that when a steam loses people just use the "I was on the right side" excuse to feel better. Bottom line it lost and it was probably not the right play. For example, if you put J.J out on the mound versus LAA in LA for a late start I bet he would lose at least 6 out of 10 times if not more which means placed TOR +100 is probably a bad bet.

I agree.

ive noticed that most time a line moves 30 cents are more that team its moving in favor of loses. I see the samething going on in tonights game with the Mets and Royals game. You look and you would think that sharp money came in on the Royals, but the bet that wins will probably be the Mets. But i also take into consideration why did the line originally open up at -125 for the mets after KC has won 9 in a row. Is Gee that much better than Davis? I doubt it and wondering how the oddsmakers came up with that line. Same with the marlins/indians game. I know Fernandez is awesome, but the marlins cant hit. Ubaldo has been pitching great recently and the indians are on fire, why are they underdogs to a lowly marlins team. Def will be paying attention to see how these games turn out

This is also good thinking here

[Ghenghis Kahn]

I didnt say they know the outcome, but they are balancing the action to minimize their loss and maximize their gain. Otherwise whats the point of moving the line at all?

c'mon man, you don't make any sense at all.

this is what you wrote in this thread...

It's not ignoring line movement...it's understanding it. To me the line movement obviously meant LAA was the play. You just have to be able to understand it. People here seem to think that the line moves dependent on on where the money is. Wrong. The books move the line which ever way the deem necessary to either maximize their money gain or minimize their money loss.

Or did they need more money on the Blue Jays and were they trying to use reverse psychology and "mind fukk" us?

Bingo...I ofcourse, could be wrong, but I've seen it time and time again. The books like to use where the money is going to play with our emotions, sort of speak. If alot of money is coming in on a side that the books feel is the losing side, they'll move in the line in the way making us believe that its the right side, thus, causing more money to go that way. If alot of money is going on the winning side, you may see the line move the other way, reverse line movement, to make people rethink thats the right side. This typically happens right before the game starts too.

you are confusing yourself.

bottom line, when books get heavy action, the odds get worse for that side.

for example, last night, most of the sharp money was on toronto, hence the line moved in that direction.

public do not always lose, heck they've been killing in baseball lately.

even today's early game, sharps are on the cubs but they will end up losing.

it's been the trend lately...

[Jayvegas420]

30% of the action taken on a particular side are in parlays.
The books look at you like a 75% loser if you're betting parlays in the 1st place.
It just doesn't make sense for books to move line for any other reason than to balance the action on both sides.

[CanuckG]

Pretty simple.....more money came on the Jays and they lost. Nothing else.

[HappyKane]

Line movement in the MLB isn't as significant as the moves in the NFL, NBA or college football.

[matthew919]

Line movement in the MLB isn't as significant as the moves in the NFL, NBA or college football.

Really? Do you have data to support that claim? Because I have lots of data that refute it.