Concept of "traps"

[judgesmails]

I reviewd a thread here where the poster hypothesized that certain lines were "traps". I reject that entire concept. For this to be true, bookmakers would have to have the following attributes:

1. They need to be very confident in their position.
2. They must be willing and able to gamble on that position.
3. They must have information that the sharps and general public do not have.

I do not think they posess any of these attributes, particularily when it comes to the NFL. Lines and juice are where they are simply because of supply and demand. Books set and move a line to balance action because they do not have to take a position on the game. Most bettors are so undisciplined, they bet way over their heads and eventually lose everything.

Information about major college and NFL football is so easy to obtain if you really want it, the books do not have access to more of it than the average, recreational sports bettor. But the average bettor does not know how to use it or analyze it.

The reason some bettors can beat the juice is because the public opinion is so often wrong and drives the line/price to a favorable position. It is not the book that sets traps, it is the public buying into overhyped teams or situations that makes certain lines seem like traps.

[craig r]

I would agree with some of what you said, but where you say:


[ QUOTE ]
2. They must be willing and able to gamble on that position.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of shops online that are willing to gamble on a position. There is one shop that I use that always puts the hook on the 3 and 7. Now, they know that the sharp bettors are not going to take 3.5 on a favorite when almost every other place has 3. But, they know that the public loves betting favorites, and "hey what is an extra half-point?" asks the square. And some of the guys that work at some of these books are very sharp. And even if they are wrong sometimes, we are still having to lay -110 (and sometimes -120). In fact, this same sportsbook that I use deals two lines. I called them one time and asked if they did this. They put me on the phone with the manager. He told me that they did deal two different lines. He then told me that if I stay under the radar, I will contnue to get the square line (i knew for a fact that they dealt two lines, i just wanted to see if he would tell me). Why would a book do this if they are not willing to take a strong position?

[RunDownHouse]

Wow... I was going through old posts on here - trying to figure out what this weekly NFL 3+1 Challenge was, actually; can we sticky that post at the top or something? - and just had to bump this thread.

There absolutely are traps, the books absolutely do have information not available to the public, and they will take stands.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason some bettors can beat the juice is because the public opinion is so often wrong and drives the line/price to a favorable position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what about the time when, contrary to where the money is flowing, the line does NOT move, or even moves the "opposite" way? How do you reconcile your refusal to believe there are traps with line moves like that?

I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say about this... I thought everyone motivated enough to post on a gambling message board would be educated enough to simply accept that traps exist.

EDIT: Reading this I saw that that last sentence could be seen as insulting or condescending, which was not my intent at all.

[Easy E]

Next time, just search on my name to find those posts. I bumped the official rules up for you anyway.

As to your firm insistance on the existance of traps, what are you offering as proof of this? Because I, for one, almost never "simply accept that traps exist" (traps, or anything else).

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
As to your firm insistance on the existance of traps, what are you offering as proof of this?

[/ QUOTE ]


Okey Dokey.

Here's a more concrete example of traps. This is actually partially paraphrased from elsewhere, but it is a more perfect example of a trap than I could think of offhand: last year's Oregon v. Washington NCAA game. The line was set Oregon -5 (or thereabouts), even though Oregon had a big win over Michigan, a high ranking, and looked unbelievable on paper. Wazzu was a relatively unknown and certainly disrespected quantity, and just about everyone slammed Oregon like they were playing Eastern Washington St. instead of Wazzu. All 7 of [the] contacts that day were taking over 80% action on Oregon and just before kickoff the squares really began hitting the Ducks hard. These books were heavily exposed on this game, but all liked their chances going in.

Essentially, the majority of the time the books set lines designed to get even action, and, with that goal in mind, adjust the lines as they get bets. There are several reasons a book wouldn't adjust the lines. These include a single or few large bets on one side, in which case moving the line likely would not rebalance. This isn't a trap. It is the somewhat rare time when a book deliberately sets a line to get unbalanced action and then stays firm that there may be a trap. Not all books will do this, and it isn't a common occurence, but when it does come along, it is hugely profitable.

That example aside, the original poster based his disbelief in the existence of traps on line movements. How then does he reconcile the times when line movements are directly contrary to what one would expect?

I'm honestly surprised that people are skeptical about this.

[judgesmails]

You make an interesting arguement, and since I have never managed a book I can't say for certain you are wrong.

But I would like to hear from someone who has. I just can't fathom the logic of hundreds of books conspiring to set a trap with a line (include line moves or non-moves) and to take unbalanced action when they don't have to do that to make a profit.

[tubbyspencer]

[ QUOTE ]

Then what about the time when, contrary to where the money is flowing, the line does NOT move, or even moves the "opposite" way? How do you reconcile your refusal to believe there are traps with line moves like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do I know that this happens? I don't have any way of verifying apocryphal tales that "80% of the public bet this side of the line, but it never moved".

I'm not saying it doesn't happen; and I'm new to sports betting at that.

I'm just asking how I'm supposed to believe/know that it happens - other than someone telling me it does.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I just can't fathom the logic of hundreds of books conspiring to set a trap with a line

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all books will set traps. Some are more prone to do it than others. Some may do it in one situation and not another. Its all highly variable, but there's no doubt it does happen.

[ QUOTE ]
How do I know that this happens? I don't have any way of verifying apocryphal tales that "80% of the public bet this side of the line, but it never moved"...

I'm just asking how I'm supposed to believe/know that it happens - other than someone telling me it does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, the best way to get that info is to go straight to the source: bookies themselves. If you've got a local bookie - and you should really have several if you're serious about sports betting - ask them what kind of action they are getting. Online concensus sites exist that will tell you how many bets are being placed on which team, but don't have info on the size of the bets, which is important information a local may give you. And finally, message boards like this one can be a great source of info. If there are a couple boards that you know (from past experience, reputation, whatever) are populated by squares, and they are all unanimous in backing one side, that'd be a good fade. This last bit starts down the path towards feel, and away from concrete numbers, but sports betting is a good deal more subjective than poker in any case.

To directly answer your question, doing all of that background is "how [you're] supposed to believe/know that it happens." If you can't or won't do the research, then you'll just have to find someone who does, and trust them. No way around it.

In the case of my specific example, the 7 contacts were all locals he has relationships with, and he simply called them, asked what the action was like, and they told him.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
But I would like to hear from someone who has. I just can't fathom the logic of hundreds of books conspiring to set a trap with a line (include line moves or non-moves) and to take unbalanced action when they don't have to do that to make a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

A book doesn't need unbalanced action to "make a profit", but by setting trap lines on some games they can make a much greater profit overall than if they just always balanced the line. A book would only set a trap if they were sure that the public money was going to come down hard on the wrong side of a line, and the book will win many more of those trap games than it loses. Books don't conspire to set traps, individual books set trap lines. Example: A certain favorite is -3 on most of the major books, but your book realizes that the underdog is much stronger than most people think. You can set a line of -3 and get a small amount of roughly evenly divided action. Or you let people have it at -2.5 and you'll get loads of action on the favorite, which will give your book a much higher EV on average. That's an example of a trap. As long as a sportsbook is adequately bankrolled and knows when the consensus lines are incorrect, they will make a much higher profit in the long run by trapping than by just collecting 10/11 on a small amount of balanced action.