the thread about the mamphis/UAB game on the NCAA forum got me thinking about this. . .
I have seen and heard several times over the past year (most notably in the book "The Odds") that it is a MYTH that Sportsbooks try to get equal action and just profit on the Vig. This might also be stated in one of the articles at madjack's home page, though I am not sure of this.
I have also seen and heard the exact opposite (that they want balanced action, so they can just skim the vig), notably from several members of this forum, and also recently on the HBO special about setting lines.
Now, if it is a myth that the books make their money from the Vig, that implies that they must make their money from "tricking" the money onto the wrong side of games.
For instance, SIA had STL at 13.5 for a lot of SB week. Those who support the theory that they just want the Vig would say they were trying to balance their action because they had too much coming in on the Pats. This would mean that a bet on the Rams at 13.5 was the value-bet.
Those who claim the Vig-theory is a myth would say SIA was trying to "trick" people into putting money on the Rams by lowering the line, knowing that even 13.5 was too high. This would mean that a bet on the Pat's was a value bet.
Do any of you more knowledgable people have any thoughts/facts on whether the Vig-theory is a myth or not? What does this say about betting with or against line moves? If a sportsbook consistently makes more money than just skimming the vig would dictate, this would indicate the "trap" theory is correct, but I don't know how to get these facts and figures.
For the memph/uab game tonight, the big line move would indicate that memph is a good value at -4.5 (should be about 6.5). However, if the book doesn't really want equal action (because they know something we don't know) then a bet on UAB would be a good bet, even with only 4.5.
My question concisely: is the equal-action-vig-theory correct or is the trap-line theory correct? Your answer should indicate how you bet a line move.
Thanks,
TheShrimp
I have seen and heard several times over the past year (most notably in the book "The Odds") that it is a MYTH that Sportsbooks try to get equal action and just profit on the Vig. This might also be stated in one of the articles at madjack's home page, though I am not sure of this.
I have also seen and heard the exact opposite (that they want balanced action, so they can just skim the vig), notably from several members of this forum, and also recently on the HBO special about setting lines.
Now, if it is a myth that the books make their money from the Vig, that implies that they must make their money from "tricking" the money onto the wrong side of games.
For instance, SIA had STL at 13.5 for a lot of SB week. Those who support the theory that they just want the Vig would say they were trying to balance their action because they had too much coming in on the Pats. This would mean that a bet on the Rams at 13.5 was the value-bet.
Those who claim the Vig-theory is a myth would say SIA was trying to "trick" people into putting money on the Rams by lowering the line, knowing that even 13.5 was too high. This would mean that a bet on the Pat's was a value bet.
Do any of you more knowledgable people have any thoughts/facts on whether the Vig-theory is a myth or not? What does this say about betting with or against line moves? If a sportsbook consistently makes more money than just skimming the vig would dictate, this would indicate the "trap" theory is correct, but I don't know how to get these facts and figures.
For the memph/uab game tonight, the big line move would indicate that memph is a good value at -4.5 (should be about 6.5). However, if the book doesn't really want equal action (because they know something we don't know) then a bet on UAB would be a good bet, even with only 4.5.
My question concisely: is the equal-action-vig-theory correct or is the trap-line theory correct? Your answer should indicate how you bet a line move.
Thanks,
TheShrimp
