Intersting Line Facts from Week 1 - Traps?

[NoChance]

There were some interesting things that happened with a few of the lines in week 1.

First of all, one of the things I look at when handicapping games is how the general public is betting. In Week 1 there were three games where, no matter where I looked on the internet, about 80% of the public was on one side. Those teams were:

Baltimore
Minnesota
Kansas City

That was even reflected in the picks we made in Easy E's thread where:

Baltimore was picked 22 times compared to 1 against
Minnesota was picked 28 times compared to 3 against
Kansas City was picked 15 times compared to 2 against

I too admit I was saying "easy money" early in the week on Baltimore and Minnesota. I had no real feel for the Kansas City/Denver game.

Anyway, here is what happened with the lines in the Minnesota/Dallas game and the Baltimore/Cleveland game from Saturday night to Sunday morning:

The Minnesota line moved 2 points
The Baltimore line stayed the same but the juice was steadily increased as the bets came in.

What happened? Minnesota easily covered their line (never in doubt) and Baltimore promtly got crushed. Was this an indication of a trap? I think so.

Anyway, as I am sitting there watching the afternoon games I notice the Kansas City/Denver line doing the same thing the Baltimore/Cleveland line did. The opinions and bets kept coing in for Kansas City but the line refused to move. Instead the juice was going up. Even though I had no opinion on the game I loaded up on Denver (figuring Kansas City was a trap) and it was an easy win.

...and even though I had picked Baltimore here at 2+2 earlier in the week, I ended up betting on Cleveland and cashing in on that as well.

Anyone else notice anything like this before?

[Oski]

Great observation. Your conclusion seems reasonable enough. Not to nitpick, however, you seem to indicate by your chronology that you based your Denver bet on how the Baltimore/Minnesota lines moved (juice v. spread) and the actual results. This leads me to believe you did not bet Cleveland as you had not formulated your conclusion until the afternoon.

By the way, your theory of traps would have worked for last night's game as well. Only the juice on Carolina made a steady move.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
The opinions and bets kept coing in for Kansas City but the line refused to move. Instead the juice was going up. Even though I had no opinion on the game I loaded up on Denver (figuring Kansas City was a trap) and it was an easy win.


[/ QUOTE ]

One reason the line refused to move was because it was on 3. The books know that if they would have moved it from -3 to -2.5 they were going to be setting up middles. Just like what happened in the IND/NE game. The books did not come out ahead at all on that game (at least not with the spread). So why would they do the exact same thing with another highly public game? Instead of moving the line they move the juice. If this game would have opened at 5, you would have seen line movement instead of juice movenment. There was no "trap" on this game.



[ QUOTE ]
The Minnesota line moved 2 points
The Baltimore line stayed the same but the juice was steadily increased as the bets came in.


[/ QUOTE ]

The MIN line could easily move a couple of points because it wasn't on a key number. But, if the spread would have opened at 7 or 3 with this one, you would not have seen to much movement passed these numbers. Just juice movement.

And as far as the BAL game, that was on the key number 3 (a lot of places had 3.5) But, if you were laying -3.5, well good luck the rest of the season, because the books are going to make some good money off of you.

Books are less likely to move off of key numbers. So, I would not be so willing to call them "trap" games. A "trap" game to me is something else: When the line looks like it should be higher, but it is not.

[NoChance]

I had made the bet on Cleveland based on the fact that the line had not moved which puzzled me (where the Minnesota line did in fact move). The win is what convinced me I needed to make a bet on Denver.

I did look at last night's game in the same way but it didn't meet the criteria. The "juice" was moving instead of the line like you indicated but the public was almost split on this one when I did the research. It wasn't a lopsided 80% like the other 3 games I mentioned. Therefore I stayed off it.

[NoChance]

[ QUOTE ]
Books are less likely to move off of key numbers. So, I would not be so willing to call them "trap" games. A "trap" game to me is something else: When the line looks like it should be higher, but it is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that is exactly what I was describing here. The public (and myself included) thought that the line should have been higher and even though most were betting on it, it did not move.

I agree with you on there being key numbers but that only makes sense to a certain point. The juice for the Baltimore game got as high as -138 on Baltimore. I think there is a point where the line still needs to move even though it's on a key number. Otherwise, why do we see lines at -2.5 and -7.5 sometimes? Heck, even the Minnesota/Philadelphia game next Monday currently sits at -3.5.

Anyway, it was just an observation and it worked out well for me. I will continue to keep an eye on these situations.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
The public (and myself included) thought that the line should have been higher and even though most were betting on it, it did not move.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which game are you talking about where the line should have been higher. The BAl game or the KC game?

Also, at what site did the juice for the BAL game go to -138?

craig

[NoChance]

I was referring to the Baltimore game. I felt the line was too low and Baltimore should have been favored by more. Apparently the rest of the public felt the same way as most were betting Baltimore. Because the line didn't move I felt it was a trap and went with Cleveland at the last minute.

At Canbet the line was Baltimore -3 (-138) Cleveland +3 (+113)

As I stated earlier, I really had no oppinion on the Kansas City/Denver game. But when I reasearched the game and saw about 80% of the public picking Kansas City and the line not moving, I figured it looked very similar to what happened in the Baltimore game.

I ended up getting Denver -3 (+109) at Pinnacle. Canbet had them at -3 (+103).

Look, it was just an obsevation. I agree with you that it takes more to move a number off 3 or 7 but there is a point where that move must occur. Last night's game had similar action in that the juice is the only thing that moved but I felt that was "normal" adjustments because the research I did had the general public split in which team they liked. It wasn't the 80% one-sided view I mentioned in the 3 games on Sunday.

[natedogg]

9ers line wouldn't budge from 3.5 but the juice kept climbing. Seems to belie the trend you noticed. I'm not sure I'd place a lot of faith in it.

natedogg

[NoChance]

At another sports gambling site I post at, one of the "books" posted this information about 90 minutes prior to the start of the noon games (CT) on Sunday:

OAK 42% PIT 58%
TAM 27% WAS 73%
BAL 88% CLE 12%
JAX 40% BUF 60%
CIN 36% NYJ 64%
DET 68% CHI 32%
ARI 30% STL 70%
SEA 68% NOR 32%
SDO 24% HOU 76%
NYG 42% PHI 58%
DAL 17% MIN 83%
ATL 57% SFO 43%
KAN 63% DEN 37%

As you can see, at that time Minnesota and Baltimore were getting pounded. The Minnesota line moved. The Baltimore line did not. Therefore, I took Minnesota and Cleveland.

At this point in time, there was not a lot of action on the KC/Den game yet. As the day passed, more action started on the KC/Den game that pushed KC closer to 80%. The line didn't move and it looked alot like the Bal/Cle game.

Notice that the San Francisco game is almost split. It also does not fit the what I have been trying to explain. Let's just let this die. I have explained what I saw and what I used to determine what I perceived as "Traps". On this day I was right and I will continue to look for these situations going forward.

...just let this die. I just thought it was an interesting observation. You all keep bringing up other games but they didn't fit the criteria.