QUESTION OF THE DAY: Today's question comes from Rysuki in a recent e-mail:

I have a question for you: In your recap of the Toronto/Cleveland game (Wed. night) you say "Everyone was on Toronto last night, so this was no surprise". I have always had the belief that most gamblers lose. So when there is a high consensus on a play I am more cautious of the play than being more confident. I know from reading your picks that you are more of a fundamental capper than a contrarian, so maybe a high consensus doesn't effect your confidence in a pick. How do you feel about this?

REPLY: Another great question. What Rysuki is pointing out is that there is an apparent contradiction going on here. I preach to look for opportunities to "go against" the betting public. Yet, I also give weight to the fact that when a large number of (solid) handicappers are all over one team, there are sometimes good reasons why this is so. I do admit these two statements might seem contradictory.

But, they're not. And, here's why.

Allow me to use an NFL example, if I may -- because it makes the point perfectly clear. Before the 2000 season started, the Washington Redskins were the odds-on favorite to win the Super Bowl. This was based on a lot of hype and media prognosticating (some justified, I might add based on off-season moves). However, the number on the Redskins at 6-1 (if memory serves) was no where near reality. This team had no business being the odds-on favorite to win the Super Bowl. Hence, the public was clearly wrong about their perceptions of that team. Anyone disagree with that point?

However, in the last Super Bowl game, most knowledgeable handicappers were on Baltimore -3. I do not mean to degrade those who had the NY Giants, but it appeared the smart money was on Baltimore, but the public (stupid) money was on New York. You know what happened.

When there is an event that brings in a lot of "dumb" money (such as any game involving public teams, big market teams, games that are nationally televised, Monday Night Football, big college games, etc.), there is a slew of money that goes on teams predicated by emotions (bettors betting their hometown teams, alumni betting their schools, and so forth). Teams on a winning streak also tend to get lots of extra cash at the windows. These games give us some excellent betting opportunities -- that is, when a line is off because one team is getting a lot of unjustified money (Jan. 1 -- Florida State versus Oklahoma, for example where the smart money was on OU and the public was on FSU based on reputation).

But in the case of a game like Golden State playing Vancouver (last night), how many casual sports fans are going to have money on that kind of a game? Answer: Very few. Only the true gamblers and the compulsive sickos who bet the entire board will bet on a game like that. These are the kind of games where Las Vegas and the off-shore books can (and sometimes do) lose money. Of course, they won't lose a lot, since the money is spread out across several sportsbooks -- and the handle on such a game will usually never be tilted more than $100,000 towards one side at any single sportsbook (larger books like the Mirage and MGM may vary). NOTE: Sportsbook managers can correct me on this point if they wish or post something to the main page. I'm speculating on the figures.

So, when you see a lot of money pile on a shit game like Toronto/Cleveland -- it usually means all the factors point in one direction. As you point out -- I think it's good to be careful and mistrust the public to a certain extent, but when there is a slew of smart money on one side, I also think there are times when we should go with the crowd (more so in the NBA, but less so in the NFL). The money was on Toronto in that game, not because we all suddenly believed in the Raptors, but because we knew Cleveland was going to have a tough time with their injury problems against a fresh team -- coupled with the fact the line was ridiculously low for a team that had lost 19 out of their last 24 games SU. I suspect Las Vegas took a serious hit on the Cavs and Raptors that night. Ipso facto -- Las Vegas put out a terrible line on that game.

There was a similar game Wed. night, as well. Everyone (including me) though Atlanta would be pounded by a superior Milwaukee team coming off a loss. I don't know of anyone on Atlanta in that game (obviously there were bettors on the Hawks, but I saw no reasoning which justified the wager other than the home dog trend, which has virtually no value in the NBA). Atlanta turned in a marvelous performance, while the Bucks came in flat. No one saw that coming. Such things happen.

One other point I want to make which touches on this question (but doesn't really answer it). When I analyze a game, after I make my initial choice, I go back and then try to look for logical reasons to play the other side. I know this might seem comical to some readers, but if I am contemplating a play on TEAM A, first I will note those initial thoughts. Then, for the next (time frame varies) I will try to think and research reasons why I should go the other way and bet on TEAM B. If I can uncover some logical reasons that balance out the factors, I will usually lay off the game. Sometimes, I will actually uncover enough reasons to actually switch my bet and move the other way and bet on TEAM B (it's rare, but does happen). The Miami Heat -9 vs. LA Clippers game last Tuesday was a perfect example. I initially was going to play a trend that suggested "good teams beat bad teams" after the All-Star break. Then, I started looking for reasons to play LA Clippers. I actually uncovered several good reasons, and then even found evidence to suggest the Heat might not be in the best of shape for this game. I did some late waffling at the end, but getting +10 we played the Clippers and covered easily (Heat won by 2 points in OT). My point is -- if you have time to re-think your initial instincts, you can often weed out the knee-jerk plays and capitalize on the real plays that have value. This is very difficult to do, since we only have about 18 hours between games each night. So -- the time we have for re-thinking our plays is very limited. Again, I point out that this is why I have always preferred the NFL to NBA or MLB, because it allows a built-in lag-time to go over our plays again and again. It's just like writing a report in school. Think back, kids. If you can do and re-do a dozen drafts, your final paper is going to be much better than if you sit down and write a paper from start to finish and turn it in without some kind of review. Be hard on yourself. It's good for you.

If this sound tedious to you -- it is. It's no picnic.

Another point: Let's go back to that Toronto/Cleveland game for a moment. Assuming I do NOT find a reason to play the Cavs (remember, I always try to look for reasons to go the other way), I then ask myself the following question: HOW MANY POINTS WOULD THEY HAVE TO GIVE ME BEFORE I WOULD TAKE CLEVELAND. I said to myself that I might take the Cavs if I was getting 11-12 points (which would be totally unrealistic). With the line at only -5, we clearly had a nice value. Just to hit the point again -- let's take the Super Bowl. I loved Baltimore in the game. I asked myself: HOW MANY POINTS WOULD THEY HAVE TO GIVE ME BEFORE I'D PLAY THE NY GIANTS? Don't laugh, but I said probably about 20. This is why I made Baltimore a BEST BET.

Sorry to keep using NFL examples, but they are easier to reference, since they are fresh on everyone's mind. I hope it does explain the thought process that goes into making an NBA play -- Nolan