Why favorites are on a roll in NFL '05

[mrbaseball]

"I'm getting my arse handed to me this year but I'm still way up over the last 10 years."

I'm not saying that the ultimate top 1-2% of NFL bettors can't beat it long term. And by long term I mean over several seasons. But I have my doubts anyone but the cream of the cream could do it. The game is too heavily bet and teams change too much from year to year let alone week to week.

I think if you plan to bet sports that the NFL is the toughest nut to crack because it is basically random.

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm getting my arse handed to me this year but I'm still way up over the last 10 years."

I'm not saying that the ultimate top 1-2% of NFL bettors can't beat it long term. And by long term I mean over several seasons. But I have my doubts anyone but the cream of the cream could do it. The game is too heavily bet and teams change too much from year to year let alone week to week.

I think if you plan to bet sports that the NFL is the toughest nut to crack because it is basically random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though I'm having a bad year, I still hold the firm belief that it is an easier nut to crack simply because the sport is heavily bet by so many amateurs.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
heavily bet

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this sword cuts both ways. Heavily bet means that the lines are typically correct and profit in sports betting comes from finding "incorrect" lines. With only 16 games per week and per team per season there isn't a lot of opportunity to uncover real gems. I think the randomness of it when lines are applied decreases the possible oppotunities significantly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
heavily bet

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this sword cuts both ways. Heavily bet means that the lines are typically correct and profit in sports betting comes from finding "incorrect" lines. With only 16 games per week and per team per season there isn't a lot of opportunity to uncover real gems. I think the randomness of it when lines are applied decreases the possible oppotunities significantly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would make sense Mr. B except the house is such a large participant in the NFL betmaking market. They don't set up lines to collect 50/50 on each side, they often stake a position of their own and are more frequently than not correct ('05 notwithstanding). I have some doubt that this phenomenon occurs anywhere close on even a quantity basis in baseball, let alone a percentage basis. This isn't to say winning at the NFL is easier, just the fact that it's heavily bet by amateurs and frequently in the same manner plays a very big role in finding good bargains in the NFL (again '05 notwithstanding).

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
They don't set up lines to collect 50/50 on each side, they often stake a position

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this a lot and I don't believe a word of it. They make money on juice and want to do ANYTHING but gamble. I know a lot of you think they want a side but I find those arguments to be ludicrous.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They don't set up lines to collect 50/50 on each side, they often stake a position

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this a lot and I don't believe a word of it. They make money on juice and want to do ANYTHING but gamble. I know a lot of you think they want a side but I find those arguments to be ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not ludicrous and there is little doubt that this occurs. This doesn't mean the house hits at any higher than 52-53% long-term but they do in fact win by taking sides and thus are participants in the market.

Edit: note I am only talking about pointspreads, not totals or exotics.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They don't set up lines to collect 50/50 on each side, they often stake a position

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this a lot and I don't believe a word of it. They make money on juice and want to do ANYTHING but gamble. I know a lot of you think they want a side but I find those arguments to be ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Mr.Baseball. Why would a casino want a side? Granted they will make a lot mfor money when their side wins and the public is betting the other side but what if they lose? I believe casinos want exactly even money on both sides tto ensure they always collect the juice and never risk a lot of money.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They don't set up lines to collect 50/50 on each side, they often stake a position

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this a lot and I don't believe a word of it. They make money on juice and want to do ANYTHING but gamble. I know a lot of you think they want a side but I find those arguments to be ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Mr.Baseball. Why would a casino want a side? Granted they will make a lot mfor money when their side wins and the public is betting the other side but what if they lose? I believe casinos want exactly even money on both sides tto ensure they always collect the juice and never risk a lot of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I agree you would think this but that's just not the way it works. And also it's not on every game, I don't want to give that impression.

[jedinite]

Ultimately we're all just throwing darts here, because anyone short of a sportsbook exec can't speak authoritatively on this subject. But I believe what I've seen written before, by some pretty authoritiative sources:

the short of it, as has been stated many times on here before, is that the house would LOVE 50-50 action if it could guarantee that. But its never going to reliably get 50-50 action so the house has to try to take a profitable position.

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately we're all just throwing darts here, because anyone short of a sportsbook exec can't speak authoritatively on this subject. But I believe what I've seen written before, by some pretty authoritiative sources:

the short of it, as has been stated many times on here before, is that the house would LOVE 50-50 action if it could guarantee that. But its never going to reliably get 50-50 action so the house has to try to take a profitable position.

[/ QUOTE ]

here's an insightful thread.