Teams that clinched

How about betting against teams that just clinched a playoff berth. Colorado +108 vs Atlanta tonight 9/28. Atlanta has got to be hung over on champagne.

[ QUOTE ]
How about betting against teams that just clinched a playoff berth. Colorado +108 vs Atlanta tonight 9/28. Atlanta has got to be hung over on champagne.

[/ QUOTE ]

Francis at +108? No thank you.

[Feltin Licter]

To me, the line is telling you to bet CO. Obviously they know that Joe Muppet will see ATL at a pick and jump all over it. They are baiting people to take ATL.

[Easy E]

Unless they clinched home field throughout, or their playing locations won't change, this may not be as strong a factor as you are guessing. Strong teams are strong for a reason.

[tshort]

I think taking Colorado would be a bad idea. Kyle Davies will be trying to prove to Cox that he is a potential post-season pitcher. He's been in the bullpen for the last month and is well-rested. He was solid as a starter before.

The other rookies the Braves play tonight will be trying to keep their postseason spot, too.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, the line is telling you to bet CO. Obviously they know that Joe Muppet will see ATL at a pick and jump all over it. They are baiting people to take ATL.

[/ QUOTE ]

This concept of "baiting" or "trapping" gets discussed a lot on here. But, I would really like a definition of this? No one can refute it or prove it without a solid definition.

craig

[20Five]

All depends how you look at the matchups and lines..

I dont think there as many 'trap' bets as people like to think.. but for a recent example I would have to say KC+3 @ DEN on monday night.. when all my friends who follow football but dont really bet on it say "oh man, thats awesome.. kc getting points? theres no way they wont beat denver"

A "trap" would be any line that looks great to your common Joe Public gambler, on a game that the oddsmakers know will attract a lot of public attention (for instance a monday night football game) but in reality really isnt very safe at all.

Thats just how Ive always looked at it, do they really set traps for the public gambler?? Thats all dependant on your perspective I guess.

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me, the line is telling you to bet CO. Obviously they know that Joe Muppet will see ATL at a pick and jump all over it. They are baiting people to take ATL.

[/ QUOTE ]

This concept of "baiting" or "trapping" gets discussed a lot on here. But, I would really like a definition of this? No one can refute it or prove it without a solid definition.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Im confused, are you asking cause you dont know or bc you think other people dont know. I could give you an answer but I'm afraid of getting slapped with the ruler.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me, the line is telling you to bet CO. Obviously they know that Joe Muppet will see ATL at a pick and jump all over it. They are baiting people to take ATL.

[/ QUOTE ]

This concept of "baiting" or "trapping" gets discussed a lot on here. But, I would really like a definition of this? No one can refute it or prove it without a solid definition.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Im confused, are you asking cause you dont know or bc you think other people dont know. I could give you an answer but I'm afraid of getting slapped with the ruler.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not usually a jerk; I don't think most people on here are jerks for the sake of being jerks. Most people on here, just want to help or discuss concepts. Especially since this board seems to be lacking "something".

I have not been shown enough proof to know whether I believe in "trap games". The linesmaker (especially in the NFL) usually knows more than the average better. So, if a line looks off by a lot (at first glance), I usually just figure that the linesmaker knows something I do not know.

Also, calling a game a "trap" game after the fact is never a good idea. A solid line is one where the fav will cover 50% of the time. For example, in the KC game, the books might not have seen an edge either way. If they set the line any higher than +3 they might be take a way bigger risk than they want to have. If they would have set it any lower, then the sharps might have hammered the line and they would have moved to 3 anyways (remember, pros bet the most money on games). So, calling this game a trap (as two people on here have) doesn't really make sense to me.

craig

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me, the line is telling you to bet CO. Obviously they know that Joe Muppet will see ATL at a pick and jump all over it. They are baiting people to take ATL.

[/ QUOTE ]

This concept of "baiting" or "trapping" gets discussed a lot on here. But, I would really like a definition of this? No one can refute it or prove it without a solid definition.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Im confused, are you asking cause you dont know or bc you think other people dont know. I could give you an answer but I'm afraid of getting slapped with the ruler.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not usually a jerk; I don't think most people on here are jerks for the sake of being jerks. Most people on here, just want to help or discuss concepts. Especially since this board seems to be lacking "something".

I have not been shown enough proof to know whether I believe in "trap games". The linesmaker (especially in the NFL) usually knows more than the average better. So, if a line looks off by a lot (at first glance), I usually just figure that the linesmaker knows something I do not know.

Also, calling a game a "trap" game after the fact is never a good idea. A solid line is one where the fav will cover 50% of the time. For example, in the KC game, the books might not have seen an edge either way. If they set the line any higher than +3 they might be take a way bigger risk than they want to have. If they would have set it any lower, then the sharps might have hammered the line and they would have moved to 3 anyways (remember, pros bet the most money on games). So, calling this game a trap (as two people on here have) doesn't really make sense to me.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fair enough. I believe the biggest myth in sports betting is that there are never trap lines, however, the term is used much to liberally.

I almost never consider traps when I handicap, otherwise I would think every strong play I had might be a trap. Basicly, they dont occur often, especially in the NFL.

Colorado 10 Atlanta 5. Cashed this one easily. I wonder what Atlanta's record is the day after they clinched a playoff berth for the last 14 years. I recall at least 3 or times times where they emptied the bench and just went through the motions.

[Bill C]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, fair enough. I believe the biggest myth in sports betting is that there are never trap lines, however, the term is used much to liberally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who sets these "traps?"
What is their motivation to do it?

Or do people who aren't as smart as they think they are just "trap" themselves? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[tshort]

Nice cash.

I did expect the Braves to empty the bench, but they have solid rookies hungry for playing time. I definitely thought the starting pitching favored Atlanta, but I didn't realize they would pitch Dan Kolb in relief. I would bet against Atlanta any game Kolb pitches.