[aggieshawn]

A line that splits the public money evenly?
A line that splits the sharp money evenly?
A line that splits public vs sharp money evenly?

Or a line that is in ACTION on the final play / drive of the game?

[BettingWizard]

a line that is close to 50/50 if the teams played 1000 times

[CarpeDime]

a line taking a lot of one-way action and not moving much

[iifold]

A line that makes a book money relatively risk free...

[FourLengthsClear]

A line that 95% of 'sharps' don't bet either side.

[aggieshawn]

A line that 95% of 'sharps' don't bet either side.

This is a true definition.....
Thanks'

[Avenger]

A line that 95% of 'sharps' don't bet either side.

So true.

A line that makes sense, therefore, there's no edge to the game and the books know it. so they'll try to get the money to go 50/50.

In other words, the oddsmakers, who are the best cappers in the world, will give a spread based on stats, athleticism, coaching, etc... and usually that spread hits right on the nose, or very close to it.

If the line is soft, the oddsmakers made a mistake... or they're trying to lure bettors onto one side.

[aggieshawn]

or they're trying to lure bettors onto one side.

If so, why don't the linemakers, hedge out there action vs instead of trying to lure it in?

If the linemakers are the greatest cappers then they should be able to make more money betting vs working making lines?

[seaborneq]

[QUOTE=aggieshawn;13117911]A line that splits the public money evenly?
A line that splits the sharp money evenly?
A line that splits public vs sharp money evenly?

Or a line that is in ACTION on the final play / drive of the game?[/QUOT

All of the above.

[seaborneq]

[QUOTE=seaborneq;13123865]

A line that splits the public money evenly?
A line that splits the sharp money evenly?
A line that splits public vs sharp money evenly?

Or a line that is in ACTION on the final play / drive of the game?

All of the above.

[Avenger]

or they're trying to lure bettors onto one side. If so, why don't the linemakers, hedge out there action vs instead of trying to lure it in? If the linemakers are the greatest cappers then they should be able to make more money betting vs working making lines? <!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->

Because there's a lot of squares, so, no... the best way to make money is via the squares.

Example: They know Lakers will lose to a bad team, say the Wizards (for whatever reason, Kobe got caught having sex with minor, whatever.....) Oddsmaker know this but the public doesn't.

So they'll make up a tasty Lakers ML that every Lakers fan will jump on (say 90% of the betting public). Let's say -150 is a great line for Lakers v. Wizards.
BUT to make up for the juice, people will lay $150 instead of their normal $100, as they think to themselves, "It's ok, there's no way I'll lose."
So, 90% of the betting public will be betting 1.5 units instead of 1 unit. Get it? And of course they'll lose.

If oddsmakers were good people, they'd just put a +120 ML for the Lakers, because that's what the true odds are. And they know there's a 120% chance Lakers will lose.
But oddsmakers are not good people.

AND they know if they put out +120, people will only bet 1 unit. So Lakers still lose, but they only lost 1 unit instead of 1.5.

They gotta find a sweet point where the make a line believable and they still milk the squares.

That's where sharps come in. They recognize bogus lines and research the game farther. Or they automatically bet Wizards, siding with the books.
As for me, I only research bogus lines, if I don't like the dog, I don't play them. That's just a preference. I like winning with favs.

Hope that helps.

[The Kraken]

They realize they can't predict the outcome of a game, therefore betting the games would be -ev. They're not into gambling, they're running a business.