Opposite Movement of Consensus

[BigPete]

Got a few games that despite are heavy favorites, the line is moving the opposite way or not budging.

Lasts week beauty was FSU, with 70% on Colorado starting at +19 and ending around +21.

This weeks notables:

Cal +13 from 13.5 with 70% on USC
Miss St. +13 from 13.5 with 71% on LSU
Troy St. +13 from +14.5 with 70% on Marshall
Temple +14.5 steady with 72% on UL
Stanford +13.5 with 65% on Washington
Indiana +33.5 from +34.5 with 63% on Mich
Tennesee -16.5 from -14.5 with 63% on South Carolina

BrokeN, correct me where I am wrong or if you see something different.

Opening lines may be off, if so please add.

 

[mt]

Any insight as to why this would happen? More money on the favorites?

I often find myself overthinking linemovement.

 

[DanTanna]

MT
Exactly. People get too hung up on trying to outguess the books, or playing the contrary view, or traps, etc....
Sometimes you can out-think yourself out of a good play. Keep it simple.

 

[silver7]

Couldn`t agree more! And it`s not just line moves. W/todays technology, an increase in Sports Betting, more "outs" & touts, (poet u no), anyway there`s a deluge of info to digest. I sometimes find myself overwhelmed w/the minutiae. This is really a relatively simple pastime and we (I) tend to complicate it. Many yrs ago an old Jewish guy who had been in on the ground floor when Mpls/St Paul was the epicenter of the "line", told me "don`t make t tougher than it already is". Still good advice.

 

[BigPete]

I just find it interesting that the consensus in these above are being encouraged more.

 

[jimmymo]

Not sure I am following the logic here....If 70% of the public is betting USC, shouldn't we expect the line to move in California's favor to attract bettors to Cal??

 

[mt]

Found this thread on another site, thought those of you who followed Neb/SoMiss last night and this thread might be interested. He makes some good points.

http://www.talksport.com/messageview.cfm?catid=3&threadid=47361

 

[rscl31]

the theory goes taht if the public money is going on Team A but the line has moved towards team B, then something must be going on. This would be the 'big money' or smart money is going on Team B.

Ny Sports makes his plays based VERY LOOSELU on something like this idea

 

[jimmymo]

OK, got it...my bad, I read the line movements as happening in the opposite direction. I thought the "from" was "to"

Where does the info on where the public money is going come from?

 

[BigPete]

Thanks rscl31. Thats exactly my thoughts.

We'll see how it does this weekend. Last weekend the favorites did very well and the public made out nicely.

Will Colorado=South Carolina this weekend? Same pattern, worth a look.

 

[BigGamesOnly]

mt:

You're starting to impress me with your knowledge. That's a good link. I asked this same question in my thread "Nebraska at Southern Miss. - analysis and pick". Any ideas how we can recognize that in the future?

I would also be interested in finding out how many favorites that start out -13.5 or -6.5 actually end up beating the line. Are the books trying to bait us into buying into the favorite or are they putting up a smokescreen???

 

[BigGamesOnly]

silver7:

Those old Jewish guys oftentimes know something. They have thousands of years of wisdom to learn from.

 

[NASDAQ]

I don't agree with the concept behind the early line being so low, because the knew if they opened at -10 the Cornhuskers would get tons of cash. If they were afraid of tons of Nebraska money at -10, and they knew this game was SOOO lopsided, they would have opened it at -13 or -14 in Nebraska's favor and really made the public think about this game. The line was set at -7.5 early for a reason, and if So Miss doesnt turn the ball over on their own 22 the first drive and get scored on immediately, the entire ball game changes. Just not a believer in the first guys theory (in the link posted).

 

[BigGamesOnly]

I have to disagree with you here NASDAQ regarding the game being much different because of one early turnover. The So. Miss. team was outmanned the whole game. Sure, momentum changed at that point. However, the backup QB made a ton of mistakes and it would not be accurate to blame that just on an early turnover.

Nebraska also picked two interceptions and was able to trick So. Miss. into biting on the option so they could throw the long ball (twice). So. Miss. was only down by 10 at the half. Nebraska was still able to dominate the second half as well, being on the road, in front of the lights, etc.

 

[LUCKYLINZ]

Three early turn overs gave Nebraska a nice lead. It changed the play in the second half where Miss could have kicked a field goal, but tried unsuccessfully for a touchdown. If it had been closer, if it had been closer there probably wouldn't have been a late on side kick giving Nebraska good field position and a quick score.

I think the line was right and Miss just played badly.

The books are smart, but I wouldn't give them too much credit.

 

[BigPete]

Nebraska wasnt a win by the books. Most were on Nebraska till the end. No one was outsmarted. With the starting So Miss QB in and no stupid turnovers that game would have been closer with a possible So Miss upset and books would have made out nicely, but they didn't. Public is ahead right now and I expect it to change soon.

The lines above I am showing because they are doing the opposite of what they should be doing.
If 70% of the money is on Marshall at -13.5, then why would they move it to -13.

My theory is that 'sharps' pounded Troy State early and they are chasing. Or they are very confident that Troy State will cover and they make out like Bandits. Either way it would be nice to be on the Sharp side or Vegas side. Just a theory.

 

[mt]

BigGame - thanks for the compliment.

NAS - I don't agree with everything in the link I posted, but I think there are a few good points.

1) If this was on my Saturday card, up until -10, I wouldn't have blinked. But given that it was a Thursday, I overanalyzed it.

2) I damn near talked myself out of this several times. I was sitting there, looking over some numbers, stats, etc, when I finally said this is silly. Nebraska has a great D, good run and SoMiss is sending out a HORRIBLE second stringer. If that freshman QB had been in the whole game, this might be a different thread.

I've said this in an earlier post: I have numbers, stats and analysis under control - as most here do. It's the market concept that I am working on.

So what gets me is this - why hang a weak opening line out there? It doesn't make sense to me. Vegas doesn't make mistakes anymore. Especially on a night that's bound to attract heavy play. Why the spread games: -7.5 -8.5 all the way to -12 at some places? I was actually late doing my capping this week and by the time I came around, it was already over -10.

If this thing opens at -10 or -11, it appears to be a pretty standard play. I think the intial money goes on Neb, until that line creep closer to -13 and -14, then flows back to SoMiss.

But -7!!!! I just don't get it. I can tell you this, it looks to me like a lot of sharp guys talked themselves out of this altogether or onto SoMiss. I saw that on boards and in person.

An interesting study nonetheless. And it won't be the first or last time I overanalyze something!

 

[ATX]

I havent read the link and might not have time.

Big Pete, dont let anyone talk you out of what you are watching, most people dont get it which is why the market behavior you are paying attention to holds value, it is overlooked or thrown out b/c of a handful of games.

You cant use one game to base anything on. You want to try to find subsets that win about 55% of the time over many, many games. The books will get that NEB money back on Sat and Sunday. A lot of the numbers are hung with a set movement in mind. This is all about perception, without creating it no one would bet. Bad numbers are numbers that no one finds interesting enough to bet on. Sometimes the numbers move b/c of action, sometimes b/c of lack of action, and sometimes to get more action on one side. It takes a while to recognize each scenario and it's difficult to know for sure at times. But fading the money is a profitable long term strategy, it's the same principle the books are built on.

 

[slvrgbln]

i believe in line reading. i also study the public. the lines are very decieving. made that way. the "true" line is the stardust. these guys know their teams and most importantly the public. the offshore books study their players and player patterns within and set the lines accordingly after the dust sharps set the lines. everything stems off the dust. most books market within a region and know their players and adjust off the dust to increase value for their lines based on patterns. with all the knowledge on the net one can look at the offshore lines and think they are getting value locally (stardust included). lets take an example. gtech & vandy. line opens at 7.5. i believe the raw line prior to the public getting it was 7. dust lets the sharps play before the public and it becomes 7.5 to johnny pub. johnny pub sees the line and bets vandy. pow its 7. the magic # (3 in nfl). who makes the money if who wins. kind of confusing. i set my own lines when i have the time and compare. then i look at the public patterns. my hobby. but when the end result is in, it doesn't matter they want you to play and play and play. they want you to win so you will play more. confusing shit, and reading between the lines is as well. otherwise there would be no sports books. i try to figure where the sharps are each game with respect to my #'s. if everything don't jive i fade or play less. it has worked for me and i have made money. but the pro's who set the lines spend countless hours a week trying to beat you. they have the tech and info that we don't. and most of them have never stepped foot on a gym or football field. so when you get that gut instinct, think why you have it. just my opinion.

silver goblin

 

[slvrgbln]

btw pete. great thread. always up for sharing my opinion. hope all does well this weekend. baby needs shoes.

silver goblin