Why favorites are on a roll in NFL '05

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you here

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disagreeing with you neccessarily either. They can't always get even action. They will get exposure at times. It is my belief they will try to minimize that exposure. It is also my belief they will try to manipulate that exposure to their best benefit.

But unlike others I do not believe they seek out this exposure and would be much happier with dead even action on every game. But that isn't likely to happen but I still believe that is their desire and goal and lines are set to get as close to equal action as possible and never set to give big books exposure to one side or the other. But when exposure is inevitable they are set so the book will get the exposure they want.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you here

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disagreeing with you neccessarily either. They can't always get even action. They will get exposure at times. It is my belief they will try to minimize that exposure. It is also my belief they will try to manipulate that exposure to their best benefit.

But unlike others I do not believe they seek out this exposure and would be much happier with dead even action on every game. But that isn't likely to happen but I still believe that is their desire and goal and lines are set to get as close to equal action as possible and never set to give big books exposure to one side or the other. But when exposure is inevitable they are set so the book will get the exposure they want.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember correctly, this conversation started because you said the NFL couldn't be beaten in large part due to the fact that so much action was coming in on these 256 games yearly. So while I'm not saying the NFL is easy pickins per se, it is easier than your average sport simply because there is so much predictable amateur action. I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with this point or not as a result of this large action. The sportsbook side-taking issue I believe was a tangent.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
predictable amateur action

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I think the only way to beat NFL is by fading the public. But... I don't think that's all that reliable. I think the market is so efficient with so much money involved that it is basically a coinflip and that the public will likely correct as often as they are wrong.

Those "predictable" amateurs have been winning for the past few weeks even though they started slowly this season.

I'm glad you like NFL capping and are successful at it. I know I never could be. I just think there is too much money making the lines "correct" and too much parity in the league with no way to predict the funny bounces and no way for those funny bounces to ever equal out.

In a sport like baseball you have a zillion games to equal out the fluke plays and a real history and track record for each team. Plus it is much more thinly bet making for many "incorrect" lines. I think the way I think about and approach baseball wagering makes the NFL betting look impossible to me.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
predictable amateur action

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I think the only way to beat NFL is by fading the public. But... I don't think that's all that reliable. I think the market is so efficient with so much money involved that it is basically a coinflip and that the public will likely correct as often as they are wrong.

Those "predictable" amateurs have been winning for the past few weeks even though they started slowly this season.

I'm glad you like NFL capping and are successful at it. I know I never could be. I just think there is too much money making the lines "correct" and too much parity in the league with no way to predict the funny bounces and no way for those funny bounces to ever equal out.

In a sport like baseball you have a zillion games to equal out the fluke plays and a real history and track record for each team. Plus it is much more thinly bet making for many "incorrect" lines. I think the way I think about and approach baseball wagering makes the NFL betting look impossible to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I assume you don't consider the sportsbook itself a participant, even a small one, in the NFL pointspread market. I think that's the major point on which you and I differ and I feel pretty confident that I'm right on this.

Btw baseball is my favorite sport to follow and I know pretty much every player on every team and their stats/strengths/weaknesses etc. and tons of prospects too. I just don't dare try to wager on it because it would take me weeks of research of so many games before I felt comfortable laying even a dime on my first game.

[NoChance]

I would just like to say that I think the odds makers HAVE adjusted. Its just that I think the difference bewteen the good teams and the bad teams is greater this year. It's just an aboration. I mean, look how many double digit favorites there are each week. I don't recall there being that many week in and week out in the past. It's just that these good teams are taking care of business this year.

[ QUOTE ]
I would just like to say that I think the odds makers HAVE adjusted. Its just that I think the difference bewteen the good teams and the bad teams is greater this year. It's just an aboration. I mean, look how many double digit favorites there are each week. I don't recall there being that many week in and week out in the past. It's just that these good teams are taking care of business this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that's where I'm at too, NoChance. Turnovers by favorites may be down this year but the teams that were considered good 2+ months ago are still playing great football and I'm not sure more turnovers by favorities would tilt the advantage significantly toward dogs.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Casinos aren't in the business of gambling, they are in the business of getting mathematical edges.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely my point. If they always sought balanced action, they would be passing up on some mathematical edges. Taking a +EV side isn't really "gambling" for an entity with an effectively infinite bankroll.

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
I determined that among the home dog subset which is 19-39 ATS, adding 3 points to the dog would still only generate a record of 26-31 ATS. I believe there are two explanations for this:

1) The linesmakers, more or less, have done a very bad job evaluating teams this year.



[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is correct. If you compare the preseason over/under wins totals lines to today's standings most teams are pretty close to projections(with the Bears and Texans the most obvious exceptions). And if this statement were correct, don't you think any half decent capper would be crushing the season?

[ QUOTE ]
2) While the talent differences always exist even between high-mid tier and low-mid tier teams, the biggest anecdotal difference I've noticed is how rarely favorites are turning the ball over relative to years past. I watch an awful lot of games and I've seen this pattern hold all season. This is the single largest reason to bet underdogs and the well seems totally dry in this regard in '05.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has potential. We all know that turnovers help dog bettors but it's not just the fact that they happen, it's where on the field and when in the game that they happen that's crucial. The better teams could even have the same amount of turnovers as past seasons but if a higher percentage were coming at, say, the 45 yard line this year as opposed to the 25 yard line in previous seasons there would be an impact. Certainly not a big enough impact by itself for this years numbers but it could be one factor.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I determined that among the home dog subset which is 19-39 ATS, adding 3 points to the dog would still only generate a record of 26-31 ATS. I believe there are two explanations for this:

1) The linesmakers, more or less, have done a very bad job evaluating teams this year.



[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is correct. If you compare the preseason over/under wins totals lines to today's standings most teams are pretty close to projections(with the Bears and Texans the most obvious exceptions). And if this statement were correct, don't you think any half decent capper would be crushing the season?

[ QUOTE ]
2) While the talent differences always exist even between high-mid tier and low-mid tier teams, the biggest anecdotal difference I've noticed is how rarely favorites are turning the ball over relative to years past. I watch an awful lot of games and I've seen this pattern hold all season. This is the single largest reason to bet underdogs and the well seems totally dry in this regard in '05.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has potential. We all know that turnovers help dog bettors but it's not just the fact that they happen, it's where on the field and when in the game that they happen that's crucial. The better teams could even have the same amount of turnovers as past seasons but if a higher percentage were coming at, say, the 45 yard line this year as opposed to the 25 yard line in previous seasons there would be an impact. Certainly not a big enough impact by itself for this years numbers but it could be one factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lean heavily toward #2 kdog.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
If they always sought balanced action, they would be passing up on some mathematical edges.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally disagree with this statement. The mathematical edge of sports juice or slot machines or craps etc is virtually guaranteed. Once you start taking sides in sports wagers you are gambling. They don't want to gamble when they have a sure thing with balanced action. As I have stated the nature of the business occassionally forces them into a side and when that happens they try to make it the side they wantbut that isn't their desire.