JT,
I have been going against line movements most of the season (see my posts).
I hypothesize that when the book sets the total number, it does so to get even money on each side. Therefore, theoretically, there should be a 50/50 chance of the total going over/under.
As a result of that hypothesis, I reach two theories:
1. Whenever I can get plus money on a total, I have value. I don't need a 50% winning percentage to make money. So far this season (including last night) I am at a 51% win percentage and am up $615 on $100 flat wagers, or a 6.7% return on investment. This includes a disastrous inter-league experience (which actually goes to disprove this hypothesis....but I dismiss those results as rationalizing that the books can't handicap those games as well). My 6.7% ROI 'aint great, but I'm not looking for great (ahh, if only the S&P were to gain 6.7% this year....).
2. Secondly, when there is a huge disparity in the total, say MIL/CIN U9 -150 (as we saw last night), I theorize that the book is taking a position on the game. If there is so much money on the under, why not move the line to 8.5 to get some over money? I don't buy the "scared of middling" scenario for baseball totals. This isn't football where numbers play a key role (3, 4, 7, etc). A nine is just a number. So, if the books aren't moving the total, they're in effect taking a position. I theorize that the books aren't in the business to loose money. Therefore, I'll play on the book's side.
Overtime, will this work? Don't know. What I'm doing is letting the book handicap the game for me. Are they smarter than me. Yep.
So, that's the hypothesis. You can see my posts for tracking purposes.
