SBR doesn't know "what a point spread is, how it's set, or what it's purpose is"

[VegasDave]

Please enlighten me durito.

Not being sarcastic.

[rm18]

the purpose is to generate income for the book rather than to balance, but other than that have no idea what he is talking about

[flyingillini]

I really want to see all the responses from this thread. I bet it gets a lot of action.

[InTheHole]

One aspect of betting the spread is to take advantage of errors made on the part of the public(player)...the other is to generate action on a lopsided event (book).

[pavyracer]

Without posting any of his bets before the games start his analysis worths the same as ice cubes on North Pole.

[VegasDave]

durito please don't wait until there are like 10 - 15 posts in this thread and then come in and quote everybody and point out why they are wrong.

Just share with me your analysis of point spreads so I can understand what is eluding me.

[BeatTheJerk]

Isn't Durito the guy who always use to suck "Dodif"'s cock on a postly basis ? I Know crazyL use to get alittle loose while in "Dodif" presence .............

[InTheHole]

Isn't Durito the guy who always use to suck "Dodif"'s cock on a postly basis ? I Know crazyL use to get alittle loose while in "Dodif" presence .............

Actually, those two had a major blow-out (no pun intended). Didn't Dodif wish cancer on somebody?

[HedgeHog]

Your thread says SBR doesn't know anything about the line. If you want Durito's opinion about this subject ask him...he has PM access. Durito is smart, but he doesn't speak/post for all of SBR.

[SBR Lou]

Durito is smart enough to win a Nobel prize IMO.

[durito]

Durito is smart enough to win a Nobel prize IMO.

no

[HedgeHog]

I'd like to win a "Piece Prize".

[SBR_John]

SBR doesn't know "what a point spread is, how it's set, or what it's purpose is"

1. thats easy, its a line.
2. That I dont know. Hire some expierenced bookmakers I reckon.
3. another easy one, to attract balanced betting.

[donjuan]

1. thats easy, its a line.

I think Durito was talking more along the lines of a point spread not being a bookmaker's prediction of the final margin of victory. Nowhere is this more apparent than in NFL betting.

3. another easy one, to attract balanced betting.

Depends on the book and its risk preferences, but the correct answer is to maximize value while managing risk.

[pavyracer]

"what a point spread is, how it's set, or what it's purpose is"

1. -3.5 in football means you have to beat it my 4 points to win. This is the point spread.

2. It's set by a committee of the 15 best linesmakers in the world.

3. The purpose is to beat it so you can cash.

[donjuan]

"what a point spread is, how it's set, or what it's purpose is"

1. -3.5 in football means you have to beat it my 4 points to win. This is the point spread.

2. It's set by a committee of the 15 best linesmakers in the world.

3. The purpose is to beat it so you can cash.

Genius.

[VegasDave]

Durito, I'm not being sarcastic at all, I seriously wanted your input on this...

Why won't you give it?

[VegasDave]

HUGE to durito here.

Makes a comment like this and points out how wrong everyone is, then won't even take the time to share his knowledge. Obviously saw the thread too since he posted in it. Had all day to respond.

[durito]

1) The thread title is misleading, thus I didn't care to respond.
2) donjuan answers your question in the original thread (and this one)
3) read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution

[VegasDave]

^ Was that so hard?

[VegasDave]

So I'm not supposed to be impressed with lines because they are easy to beat when they are first posted?

[durito]

The point is that a 30 pt favorite winning by 31 pts is no more representative of an oddsmakers ability than a a 3pt favorite winning by 31pts. It's just another point on the distribution.

The other is that sportsbooks set lines in an attempt to maximize profits and minimize risk. This is not the same thing as attracting balanced action.

[Data]

The point is that a 30 pt favorite winning by 31 pts is no more representative of an oddsmakers ability than a a 3pt favorite winning by 31pts. It's just another point on the distribution.

I disagree.

Interestingly, I had an argument with Donjuan on a very same subject a couple of months ago that he decided not to pursuit. So, for mutual benefit, let's try to get this straight.

I think that you disregard Bayesian Inference here. In basketball, if the line set close to the "true" line than due to the scoring distribution it is more likely for the line to match the point difference. So, as per BI, the closer the line to the final point difference, the more likely it was set right.

[donjuan]

I disagree.

Interestingly, I had an argument with Donjuan on a very same subject a couple of months ago that he decided not to pursuit. So, for mutual benefit, let's try to get this straight.

I think that you disregard Bayesian Inference here. In basketball, if the line set close to the "true" line than due to the scoring distribution it is more likely for the line to match the point difference. So, as per BI, the closer the line to the final point difference, the more likely it was set right.

It makes it more likely but it doesn't unequivocally make it "right on the money" or impressive. And of course, there are spreads in basketball for which this doesn't hold true, like 1.

[pavyracer]

Line opened at 28.5 then went to 33.5 and finished at 30. Actual game score was 31.

The books lost their shirts on this game. The sharps pounded the 28.5 line relentlessly. Then when the line went to +33.5 they pounded it with twice as much force to drop it at -30. Then all the squares bet the -30 line.

99% of the bets cashed yesterday. Anyone that says books know what they are doing when they set lines should be shot.

[Data]

It makes it more likely but it doesn't unequivocally make it "right on the money" or impressive

Great, it seems we are on the same page here, "likely but not necessarily" that is what I am saying. I am glad to see the change in your take on this matter. Previously, you were saying that

this has nothing to do with how sharp (efficient) the lines are.

and Durito expressed pretty much the same sentiment and that is what I disagree with.

If the line was close to the final point difference then that does not necessarily mean that the line was set right. However, saying that this outcome tells us nothing about the line is wrong too. This does tell us that more likely than not the line was set right.

[durito]

i agree, i perhaps was not clear earlier. it's not a subject i've really given a lot of thought.

[donjuan]

Data,

That is true for basketball, excluding spreads of 1, but I assume you would agree this is not true for football.

[HedgeHog]

Let's say a 9.5 Fav loses outright. However, the Book took slightly more action on the Fav, thereby winning the vig and then some. An argument can be made that this line was set right too as it served its purpose.

[Data]

Data,

That is true for basketball, excluding spreads of 1, but I assume you would agree this is not true for football.

Donjuan,

I disagree with excluding spreads of 1. While I know next to nothing about football I would guess that my statement remains true for football as well.

You see, I was NOT talking about pushes, I was saying "the line was close to the final point difference" specifically to account for distributions deviations from normality caused by scores, for the lack of a better word, "granularity".