Money wagered on one side during any particular game

[Enfuego]

I started this in the Super Bowl thread and had plenty of disagreement. It's a good discussion and I'd like to continue it here now that the big one is over.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions in sports gambling is people believing because one side is heavily wagered on and is considered a "public play" that all the money must be on the "public play" side.

My assertion is we simply have no way of knowing exactly how much actual money is wagered on either side of any given play. If someone can provide the "how" you know. I'd love to see it.

For example...

Denver is favored by 2.5 with 75% of the public on them against Seattle.

How do we know for certain that the 75% makes up the majority of the money wagered on the side? Of course, when they come up with numbers after the fact, you can tell where the money went but how about before?

How do we know the sharps didn't put a majority of the money on the 25% and the small timers didn't put a majority on the 75%?

The books will never release this information to the public before the game begins. The information simply isn't out there. If it is, I'd love to see it.

Thoughts?

 

[akphidelt]

Books releasing their dollar figures pregame would be insane. Other than having local bookies on the site sharing their money figures, that info will never be available, UNLESS someone wants it available like a Billy Walters who likes to middle and drive lines. But for books, not a chance.

 

[Bettin]

I don't think that this information will ever be available. The people who are betting big bucks know what they are doing, and wouldn't share with the general public.

 

[Enfuego]

Books releasing their dollar figures pregame would be insane. Other than having local bookies on the site sharing their money figures, that info will never be available, UNLESS someone wants it available like a Billy Walters who likes to middle and drive lines. But for books, not a chance.

It's funny you say this AK. I said the same thing and I was called an idiot and a moron for stating this.

 

[TopShelf11]

It's funny you say this AK. I said the same thing and I was called an idiot and a moron for stating this.

In all fairness...you could've been called such for pretty much anything you post. In all my years on forums, I have never seen such an attention seeker as yourself. You often make insane posts, then deny posting such, someone posts link to your insane quote...and you reply with shit like 'oh I guess I did say that'...I seriously believe you're mentally ill. Whether it's Alzheimer's it self or a combination of things, I don't know. I am not a doctor.

 

[tatehill2000]

I have a friend that works with a book.. A LG one.. and he will tell me when one side is just loaded..

People think books don't take a side on a game.. The truth is they do... and for those that can see.. (my friend not me.) U have a huge edge..
Cheers

 

[TopShelf11]

I have a friend that works with a book.. A LG one.. and he will tell me when one side is just loaded..

People think books don't take a side on a game.. The truth is they do... and for those that can see.. (my friend not me.) U have a huge edge..
Cheers

Truth.

 

[Acebb]

It's funny you say this AK. I said the same thing and I was called an idiot and a moron for stating this.

Actually, you did no such thing.

You comically asked: "How do you know the money was on Denver?"

When it was pointed out to you that multiple lines-makers and Vegas types publicly acknowledged that they were getting flooded with Denver money in Vegas, you did what you always do: moved the goal posts.

But going back to the (silly) question: I guess it never occurred to you to wonder why a line moved 3 full points if we "don't know" where the money is going. Added to the fact that it was widely know that money was pouring in on the Broncos.

And to top it off, after the game we get articles by ABC and the NYT stating respectively:

Unaudited tallies showed sportsbooks made an unprecedented profit of $19.7 million on the action, the Gaming Control Board announced Monday. That's millions more than the past three Super Bowl wins combined.

===========

Two in three bettors put money on Denver, which closed as a 2 ½-point favorite

============

So this was not all a big mystery here.

 

[Enfuego]

What a shock, two posters I have zero interaction with, have both on ignore and could care less what they post to/about me, are in this thread posting god knows what.

I don't respond to these guys, don't talk to these guys and want nothing to do with them whatsoever, yet they post in every thread I start. Again, for the 10th time, if you're posting to me, I can't read it, you're wasting your time.

 

[Enfuego]

Fact of the matter is this...

No actual dollar amounts on either side will be divulged by any book. They'd be a fool to do this. Amounts after the game like what just happened in the Super Bowl? Well sure, but only after the game is over.

It was pointed out in the other thread that you can tell by line movement and that's probably true but the point still remains, you can have a line movement all you want, you still do not know exactly what money is where. You still don't know what size of bets are where. It is what it is.

 

[Illini]

All I know is that whoever bet Denver had the wrong side.

 

[TopShelf11]

What a shock, two posters I have zero interaction with, have both on ignore and could care less what they post to/about me, are in this thread posting god knows what.

I don't respond to these guys, don't talk to these guys and want nothing to do with them whatsoever, yet they post in every thread I start. Again, for the 10th time, if you're posting to me, I can't read it, you're wasting your time.

This guy is deranged.

 

[Enfuego]

All I know is that whoever bet Denver had the wrong side.

:toast:

 

[BAGIANT]

Actually, we all should have realized something was up when the line originally had Seattle as the fave and money poured in on Denver. Caribsports kept the line at Den -1.5 all week before the SB. Carib is a sharp shot and was looking to attract Denver money.

 

[ivyconniver]

I think it's all "mosaic" theory. Sites like SportsInsights give you some of this legit data from the books. Sure, they only show you the number of bets rather than dollar value, but that's pretty valuable. Then you factor in how lines were set, and if/when/where they moved. Then you factor in all the square forum posts, ESPN commentator picks, and what every Joe you talk to says, and you have a pretty good compilation of where the square money is going.

I don't think that every game has a square and sharp side to it. Most probably are even. But I do think Denver was a huge square side. It was a perfect ESPN Films script for Peyton to have his best statistical year, win the league MVP, lead Denver to a championship, get his second ring, while his brother watched, winning SB MVP, and riding directly off into the sunset towards the hall of fame on a Budweiser Clydesdale. Everyone ate it up. I'll admit, I thought he was going to win the game, in a close one.... But I took the points with Seattle. Not saying I'm sharp, but I think it's clear THAT was the correct side to be on because it felt so wrong.

Another example in bball. I think ND +12.5 against Syracuse was a sharp side on Monday. Cuse was playing at home, where they just won a thriller against Duke, in overtime, in front of the biggest crowd ever. But it was only 2 days after that game, one day after the Super Bowl and you know these kids were all watching it relaxing, MAYBE with a walkthrough to prepare for ND nothing more. You know ND coaches and kids had this game circled on the calendar back in October. 12.5 is a lot of points in any college bball game, and ND had already beaten Duke, lost to OSU by 3, lost to Iowa by 5, and have only lost one game by double digits all year. Everyone was and still is ALL OVER Cuse because they're undefeated, at home. Hard to win with those publicly loved teams. (Even Duke covered the spread in that game)

 

[slapshot]

Actually, you did no such thing.

You comically asked: "How do you know the money was on Denver?"

When it was pointed out to you that multiple lines-makers and Vegas types publicly acknowledged that they were getting flooded with Denver money in Vegas, you did what you always do: moved the goal posts.

But going back to the (silly) question: I guess it never occurred to you to wonder why a line moved 3 full points if we "don't know" where the money is going. Added to the fact that it was widely know that money was pouring in on the Broncos.

And to top it off, after the game we get articles by ABC and the NYT stating respectively:

Unaudited tallies showed sportsbooks made an unprecedented profit of $19.7 million on the action, the Gaming Control Board announced Monday. That's millions more than the past three Super Bowl wins combined.

===========

Two in three bettors put money on Denver, which closed as a 2 ½-point favorite

============

So this was not all a big mystery here.

See it now

 

[Enfuego]

See it now

See what?

 

[Enfuego]

I think it's all "mosaic" theory. Sites like SportsInsights give you some of this legit data from the books. Sure, they only show you the number of bets rather than dollar value, but that's pretty valuable. Then you factor in how lines were set, and if/when/where they moved. Then you factor in all the square forum posts, ESPN commentator picks, and what every Joe you talk to says, and you have a pretty good compilation of where the square money is going.

I don't think that every game has a square and sharp side to it. Most probably are even. But I do think Denver was a huge square side. It was a perfect ESPN Films script for Peyton to have his best statistical year, win the league MVP, lead Denver to a championship, get his second ring, while his brother watched, winning SB MVP, and riding directly off into the sunset towards the hall of fame on a Budweiser Clydesdale. Everyone ate it up. I'll admit, I thought he was going to win the game, in a close one.... But I took the points with Seattle. Not saying I'm sharp, but I think it's clear THAT was the correct side to be on because it felt so wrong.

Another example in bball. I think ND +12.5 against Syracuse was a sharp side on Monday. Cuse was playing at home, where they just won a thriller against Duke, in overtime, in front of the biggest crowd ever. But it was only 2 days after that game, one day after the Super Bowl and you know these kids were all watching it relaxing, MAYBE with a walkthrough to prepare for ND nothing more. You know ND coaches and kids had this game circled on the calendar back in October. 12.5 is a lot of points in any college bball game, and ND had already beaten Duke, lost to OSU by 3, lost to Iowa by 5, and have only lost one game by double digits all year. Everyone was and still is ALL OVER Cuse because they're undefeated, at home. Hard to win with those publicly loved teams. (Even Duke covered the spread in that game)

A very sharp post. Thanks.

 

[REDEYE]

I have done this for quite some time now successfully and have never paid any attention to posters who post info about public, square plays, and all of that nonsense... Its useless info as far as I'm concerned..All I do is look for line value, don't care how the line got to where it landed.. I was very surprised line moved to Denver being the favorite.. Loved the Seahawks as a dog even though it ended up as a pretty good sized gamble for me because I had more on Seattle to win SB then I had on Denver

 

[Acebb]

See what?

That your posts are mock-worthy.