I read BB's article and came across another good read. Sorry if this info was pasted before.
DIRECT FROM NEVADA
With Linesmaker Nick Bogdanovich
THE MYTH OF "SPLITTING THE ACTION"
You've probably heard for years, even decades, that the goal of the oddsmaker is to "split the action" on each game.
That means he wants half the money on one side of the betting line, and half on the other side. Since losing bets are charged a 10 percent "vigorish," sportsbooks are guaranteed a profit whenever the money breaks out evenly. The losers pay the winners, and the sportsbooks put 10% in their pockets thank you very much.
It doesn't actually work out that way.
Sure, there are some games where the money comes in close to 50/50. Often you'll see the public (referred to as "squares" in Nevada) betting on one side, while professional wagerers (called "sharps") are on the other. What's more common these days is for the sportsbooks to take a position on a game while giving bettors "the worst of it."
What do I mean by that?
If oddsmakers are confident the public is going to be betting one side very strongly, which is fairly common when you're talking about big name college football teams or the most hyped pro squads, they'll inflate the line a couple of points in that direction. The public isn't betting the "true" line that reflects the actual difference between the teams on the field. They're paying a tax of a couple of points because their betting is so predictable. As a result, squares who still make that bet are laying 11/10 AND a bad number. It's tough enough to beat the 11/10 over time. Doing that against bad numbers will make money for the sportsbooks even if the money doesn't split out evenly.
In some sports though, it's mostly sharp action that's hitting the board. Oddsmakers will try to do the same thing here by studying sharp betting patterns. If they notice that the sharps are hitting an off-the-radar team in college basketball, or maybe Unders with certain NBA teams, they'll adjust that line a couple of points as well. Now the sharps have to decide whether or not they want to lay 11/10 at a line not particularly to their liking. If they do, the sportsbooks figure they're okay because they've charged the tax and have the 11/10 working for them.
Let me give you an example that will help you see how powerful this is. I've heard often through the years about "offers" that certain illegal bookies around the country will make to their square clientele. They're so confident the squares will lose with a lot of action, they tell the mark that he can move the line one point in his favor in every game...but he has to bet EVERY game. Now, this ONLY works against real squares! Most guys can win with that kind of edge. Sharps would make a killing. Squares find a way to lose no matter what the proposition is.
Now, imagine a book told you that HE would get to move each game a point in whatever direction HE wanted, you still had to lay 11/10, and you had to play every game on the board. That would be horrible for a player. You'd never take that offer in a million years. Imagine it was two points instead of one. Nobody in their right mind would take that offer.
Well, that's what's going on here to a degree. Sportsbooks realize how the public bets, they're charging them 11/10 on each play, and they're making them lay 1-3 points the worst of it depending on the game. I'm not saying the public plays the board. But, oddsmakers know which games the public will be focused on. That universe is tilted very strongly against the squares. The "squares' board" is a stacked deck.
Oddsmakers haven't quite yet realized how to beat the sharps. But, they have slowed down the sharps with this type of approach. That 11/10 vig AND "penalty" points create quite a hurdle for players to clear even if you're talking about an obscure college basketball game or an NBA total.
In baseball, the same thing happens on the moneyline. You saw high prices on the Cubs in their first round National League playoff series against the Dodgers because the public loves betting the Cubs. Squares had to pay a surcharge for the right to bet on Chicago. This past season, when the sharps pounded a young up-and-coming pitcher in his first couple of starts, the line dropped immensely the next time he took the mound. There were several young arms this past summer who were priced like veterans by their third appearance.
As you can see, there's no need for an oddsmaker to sweat how the action breaks down in each game as long as he's put the house in a good position. He knows that things will work out for the sportsbook over a large sampling of games.
"Splitting the action" is a myth. That's not the way it happens in the real world.
If you want to win when betting college and pro football, you have to be aware of this phenomenon and put it to your advantage. Go against the public teams so you can put the free points in your favor. Don't bet any side or total where you believe the line has been shaded against you. Make your own calculated assessment of what the "true" line should be. Then try to find edges you can exploit. You'll still be dealing with the 11/10. But, you'll have a fighting chance to be on the right side more often than not.
Then the squares will be paying YOU instead of the house!
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
DIRECT FROM NEVADA
With Linesmaker Nick Bogdanovich
THE MYTH OF "SPLITTING THE ACTION"
You've probably heard for years, even decades, that the goal of the oddsmaker is to "split the action" on each game.
That means he wants half the money on one side of the betting line, and half on the other side. Since losing bets are charged a 10 percent "vigorish," sportsbooks are guaranteed a profit whenever the money breaks out evenly. The losers pay the winners, and the sportsbooks put 10% in their pockets thank you very much.
It doesn't actually work out that way.
Sure, there are some games where the money comes in close to 50/50. Often you'll see the public (referred to as "squares" in Nevada) betting on one side, while professional wagerers (called "sharps") are on the other. What's more common these days is for the sportsbooks to take a position on a game while giving bettors "the worst of it."
What do I mean by that?
If oddsmakers are confident the public is going to be betting one side very strongly, which is fairly common when you're talking about big name college football teams or the most hyped pro squads, they'll inflate the line a couple of points in that direction. The public isn't betting the "true" line that reflects the actual difference between the teams on the field. They're paying a tax of a couple of points because their betting is so predictable. As a result, squares who still make that bet are laying 11/10 AND a bad number. It's tough enough to beat the 11/10 over time. Doing that against bad numbers will make money for the sportsbooks even if the money doesn't split out evenly.
In some sports though, it's mostly sharp action that's hitting the board. Oddsmakers will try to do the same thing here by studying sharp betting patterns. If they notice that the sharps are hitting an off-the-radar team in college basketball, or maybe Unders with certain NBA teams, they'll adjust that line a couple of points as well. Now the sharps have to decide whether or not they want to lay 11/10 at a line not particularly to their liking. If they do, the sportsbooks figure they're okay because they've charged the tax and have the 11/10 working for them.
Let me give you an example that will help you see how powerful this is. I've heard often through the years about "offers" that certain illegal bookies around the country will make to their square clientele. They're so confident the squares will lose with a lot of action, they tell the mark that he can move the line one point in his favor in every game...but he has to bet EVERY game. Now, this ONLY works against real squares! Most guys can win with that kind of edge. Sharps would make a killing. Squares find a way to lose no matter what the proposition is.
Now, imagine a book told you that HE would get to move each game a point in whatever direction HE wanted, you still had to lay 11/10, and you had to play every game on the board. That would be horrible for a player. You'd never take that offer in a million years. Imagine it was two points instead of one. Nobody in their right mind would take that offer.
Well, that's what's going on here to a degree. Sportsbooks realize how the public bets, they're charging them 11/10 on each play, and they're making them lay 1-3 points the worst of it depending on the game. I'm not saying the public plays the board. But, oddsmakers know which games the public will be focused on. That universe is tilted very strongly against the squares. The "squares' board" is a stacked deck.
Oddsmakers haven't quite yet realized how to beat the sharps. But, they have slowed down the sharps with this type of approach. That 11/10 vig AND "penalty" points create quite a hurdle for players to clear even if you're talking about an obscure college basketball game or an NBA total.
In baseball, the same thing happens on the moneyline. You saw high prices on the Cubs in their first round National League playoff series against the Dodgers because the public loves betting the Cubs. Squares had to pay a surcharge for the right to bet on Chicago. This past season, when the sharps pounded a young up-and-coming pitcher in his first couple of starts, the line dropped immensely the next time he took the mound. There were several young arms this past summer who were priced like veterans by their third appearance.
As you can see, there's no need for an oddsmaker to sweat how the action breaks down in each game as long as he's put the house in a good position. He knows that things will work out for the sportsbook over a large sampling of games.
"Splitting the action" is a myth. That's not the way it happens in the real world.
If you want to win when betting college and pro football, you have to be aware of this phenomenon and put it to your advantage. Go against the public teams so you can put the free points in your favor. Don't bet any side or total where you believe the line has been shaded against you. Make your own calculated assessment of what the "true" line should be. Then try to find edges you can exploit. You'll still be dealing with the 11/10. But, you'll have a fighting chance to be on the right side more often than not.
Then the squares will be paying YOU instead of the house!
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
