Hopefully this game will fire us up for the ASU game (ASU going down to the wire with Stanford as of now)

Johnfox said:

---

Hopefully this game will fire us up for the ASU game (ASU going down to the wire with Stanford as of now)

---

Asu big man out with cut on face. Has not come back.

Game wrap-up: Our lousy offense was a bit less concerning than our lousy defense.

Telecast wrap-up: A rumor I heard, which I am just now making up, is that Madsen had called a few key recruits during the week, to say. hey, we're on a roll now... watch our game at McHale! Then, a little bit into the 2nd half, he heard what they were saying on social media and had one of his guys slice a few key cables. (Smart move.)

You guys all in on the Bears got what you deserved!
Nice learning curve, dummies

hbear777 said:

---

FOr the 1 millionth time-vegas doesn't know anything, don't care to know anything except gauge what a spread needs to be at inorder to have 1/2 money on each side...or else they would be gamblers

---

Ha ha. People have a rough time with that concept, don't they? See, if there's the same amount of money on each side of the bet, then the book has to make money since it pays less than even money to the winners. Usually odds of 10-11. Let's say there's $110 bet on team A and $110 bet on team B. Team A covers the spread. The book pays team A bettors at odds of 10-11. They get $100 profit, plus their $110 back. $210 total. But the book took in $220. Same if team B covers. $220 in, $210 out. Ten dollars profit for the book no matter what the score. (Unless there's a push. Team A favored by 19 points, say, and wins by 19 points. Then the book gives everyone their money back and neither makes nor loses money.)

SO Vegas tries to set a line that will attract exactly the same amount of money on both teams. If more money comes in on one team than the other, then the line gets adjusted to attract more money on the other side. Tonight, for instance, the original line was Arizona by 17 1/2. Money started coming in on Arizona, so the line got adjusted up, eventually reaching 19 1/2, attracting Cal suckers, er I mean Cal bettors, to even things up.
And there you have it. Bottom line, sheesh did we get beat! The only good news, I myself did not bet.

JimSox said:

---

hbear777 said:

---

FOr the 1 millionth time-vegas doesn't know anything, don't care to know anything except gauge what a spread needs to be at inorder to have 1/2 money on each side...or else they would be gamblers

---

Ha ha. People have a rough time with that concept, don't they? See, if there's the same amount of money on each side of the bet, then the book has to make money since it pays less than even money to the winners. Usually odds of 10-11. Let's say there's $110 bet on team A and $110 bet on team B. Team A covers the spread. The book pays team A bettors at odds of 10-11. They get $100 profit, plus their $110 back. $210 total. But the book took in $220. Same if team B covers. $220 in, $210 out. Ten dollars profit for the book no matter what the score. (Unless there's a push. Team A favored by 19 points, say, and wins by 19 points. Then the book gives everyone their money back and neither makes nor loses money.)

SO Vegas tries to set a line that will attract exactly the same amount of money on both teams. If more money comes in on one team than the other, then the line gets adjusted to attract more money on the other side. Tonight, for instance, the original line was Arizona by 17 1/2. Money started coming in on Arizona, so the line got adjusted up, eventually reaching 19 1/2, attracting Cal suckers, er I mean Cal bettors, to even things up.
And there you have it. Bottom line, sheesh did we get beat! The only good news, I myself did not bet.

---

Oh my god! This nugget again. I swear this has to be the biggest myth in the sports world. I don't know how many times over the years I've had to write this on this site. I feel like a sticky needs to be made

But once again, the goal of sports books is not always to have the money equal on both sides. There are a million reasons that some books don't want this, or why it's just impossible.

One of the biggest reasons is that books don't want to be stuck in a position where all the smart money is on one side and all the public money on the other. Which is why the goal for opening lines is to be as ACCURATE as possible so it doesn't get slammed by the smart money. Again accuracy is the goal and not necessarily a line that gets even money on both sides. Because not all money coming in is equal!!!!!!

But there are a million other reasons why having money equal on both sides is not reality. So please! Stop just reciting these myths as if they are accepted fact.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/sports-columns/todd-dewey/fact-or-fiction-do-sportsbooks-balance-bets-to-lock-in-profit-2538940/amp/

https://establishtherun.com/disproving-popular-sports-gambling-fallacies/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CA%20popular%20misconception%20is%20that,factor%20to%20move%20the%20odds.

https://www.onlyplayers.com/myth-conceptions-do-sportsbooks-need-equal-money-on-each-side-of-a-game

All this exciting talk of gambling is just so exciting!

Well that sucked.

Tyson didn't look 100% but managed a double-double

Celestine came to play and scored 13 points on 5-10 shooting including 3-5 from three, but AZ scouted us well and stopped the play he scored on 3x vs stanford

Brown continues to flash, scoring 12 on 50% shooting and 33% from deep, although he still doesn't have a tight enough handle to play the 1

Tyson only had 10 points, but also had 10 rebounds for a double-double

Kennedy had his patented steal and slam

Cone had 3 assists but again shot poorly from 3 (1-6) despite getting a few open looks. Most of his shots recently have been on line, but short

Ballo and AZ is just a poor matchup for Aimaq and Johnson loves playing against Cal

at 6-9 Newell needs to get some rebounds

First Bowser sighting in a while, but recorded no box score stats. Roberson and McCloskey made the best of their minute scoring 2 points each, and together with Curtis and Brown outscored the wildcats

JimSox said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

JimSox said:

---

hbear777 said:

---

FOr the 1 millionth time-vegas doesn't know anything, don't care to know anything except gauge what a spread needs to be at inorder to have 1/2 money on each side...or else they would be gamblers

---

Ha ha. People have a rough time with that concept, don't they? See, if there's the same amount of money on each side of the bet, then the book has to make money since it pays less than even money to the winners. Usually odds of 10-11. Let's say there's $110 bet on team A and $110 bet on team B. Team A covers the spread. The book pays team A bettors at odds of 10-11. They get $100 profit, plus their $110 back. $210 total. But the book took in $220. Same if team B covers. $220 in, $210 out. Ten dollars profit for the book no matter what the score. (Unless there's a push. Team A favored by 19 points, say, and wins by 19 points. Then the book gives everyone their money back and neither makes nor loses money.)

SO Vegas tries to set a line that will attract exactly the same amount of money on both teams. If more money comes in on one team than the other, then the line gets adjusted to attract more money on the other side. Tonight, for instance, the original line was Arizona by 17 1/2. Money started coming in on Arizona, so the line got adjusted up, eventually reaching 19 1/2, attracting Cal suckers, er I mean Cal bettors, to even things up.
And there you have it. Bottom line, sheesh did we get beat! The only good news, I myself did not bet.

---

Oh my god! This nugget again. I swear this has to be the biggest myth in the sports world. I don't know how many times over the years I've had to write this on this site. I feel like a sticky needs to be made

But once again, the goal of sports books is not always to have the money equal on both sides. There are a million reasons that some books don't want this, or why it's just impossible.

One of the biggest reasons is that books don't want to be stuck in a position where all the smart money is on one side and all the public money on the other. Which is why the goal for opening lines is to be as ACCURATE as possible so it doesn't get slammed by the smart money. Again accuracy is the goal and not necessarily a line that gets even money on both sides. Because not all money coming in is equal!!!!!!

But there are a million other reasons why having money equal on both sides is not reality. So please! Stop just reciting these myths as if they are accepted fact.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/sports-columns/todd-dewey/fact-or-fiction-do-sportsbooks-balance-bets-to-lock-in-profit-2538940/amp/

https://establishtherun.com/disproving-popular-sports-gambling-fallacies/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CA%20popular%20misconception%20is%20that,factor%20to%20move%20the%20odds.

https://www.onlyplayers.com/myth-conceptions-do-sportsbooks-need-equal-money-on-each-side-of-a-game

---

Thanks for that Ducky. What I get from that is that they're trying to get equal money on both sides but it's very difficult and complicated by complex bets so they have to do some gambling and try to side with the "smart money." Makes sense. But the theory still holds. They're better off when they get equal money. And they do move the line often, as they did tonight on the Cal game.
So we're both right. Equal money is the goal, but not often attainable so they employ other strategies. Thanks for the education on this.

---

I wouldn't say that's entirely correct. Every situation is different. In some cases the goal is to be balanced. But in most cases, the overriding goal is to be accurate. Many books would rather be accurate than balanced.

So fallacy #1 is that lines are set to create balance. Lines are set to be as accurate as possible so sharks don't get an edge

Fallacy #2 is that lines moves to create balance. Again, sometimes this is true. But lines will also move to where the smart money is going and away from the majority of public money.

Books are not completely risk averse. They believe that over the long haul, betting on the smart money rather than the public money is the most efficient way to build more casinos.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Ducky, I have been gambling for 45 years. I understand your smart money vs. public money concept, but the bottom line is from a quantitative standpoint, there is no difference between a "smart" dollar and a "public" dollar.

The reality is, the books always hope their opening line is going to attract an equal amount of the aggregate total of both smart and public money. When they don't get it right and have to move the spread, they run the risk of a game hitting a "middle" in which case they can get burnt on both ends. If yesterday's line started at 18, ended up at 19 1/2, and Zona ends up winning by exactly 19, it's a bad day for the books.

---

Very nice write up, explanation. And speaking of "from a quantitative standpoint" here are the sports dollars wagered in December ALONE:

1. New York: $2.05B
2. New Jersey: $1.28B
3. Pennsylvania: $925.6M
4. Nevada: $843M
5. Ohio: $830M
6. MA: $658.7M
7. VA: $633M
8. Michigan: $613.4M
9. Maryland: $560M
10. Indiana: $503M

When it wasn't legal, sure there were some big dollars involved...but, to me, this pretty amazing.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

The reality is, the books always hope their opening line is going to attract an equal amount of the aggregate total of both smart and public money. When they don't get it right and have to move the spread, they run the risk of a game hitting a "middle" in which case they can get burnt on both ends. If yesterday's line started at 18, ended up at 19 1/2, and Zona ends up winning by exactly 19, it's a bad day for the books.

---

I'm pretty sure you just said what I said, but just using fancier terms. Like I said, the goal is to be accurate with the opening line. If the opening line starts inaccurately and gets hammered by smart money, then they are forced to move it.

The "accuracy" a book seeks is not to nail the final score. It's simply to keep the line from moving at all, from the moment it's released until the game begins.

If a line is introduced and doesn't move at all, the oddsmakers nailed it. It means the money on both sides is perfectly balanced, and the book will make 10% on half of the bets.

bearsandgiants said:

---

The "accuracy" a book seeks is not to nail the final score. It's simply to keep the line from moving at all, from the moment it's released until the game begins.

If a line is introduced and doesn't move at all, the oddsmakers nailed it. It means the money on both sides is perfectly balanced, and the book will make 10% on half of the bets.

---

In this rare instance, you, Ducky, myself, and everyone else on this board can all finally agree on something.

mbBear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Ducky, I have been gambling for 45 years. I understand your smart money vs. public money concept, but the bottom line is from a quantitative standpoint, there is no difference between a "smart" dollar and a "public" dollar.

The reality is, the books always hope their opening line is going to attract an equal amount of the aggregate total of both smart and public money. When they don't get it right and have to move the spread, they run the risk of a game hitting a "middle" in which case they can get burnt on both ends. If yesterday's line started at 18, ended up at 19 1/2, and Zona ends up winning by exactly 19, it's a bad day for the books.

---

Very nice write up, explanation. And speaking of "from a quantitative standpoint" here are the sports dollars wagered in December ALONE:

1. New York: $2.05B
2. New Jersey: $1.28B
3. Pennsylvania: $925.6M
4. Nevada: $843M
5. Ohio: $830M
6. MA: $658.7M
7. VA: $633M
8. Michigan: $613.4M
9. Maryland: $560M
10. Indiana: $503M

When it wasn't legal, sure there were some big dollars involved...but, to me, this pretty amazing.

---

I believe the dollars in off-shore betting are even larger!

bearsandgiants said:

---

The "accuracy" a book seeks is not to nail the final score. It's simply to keep the line from moving at all, from the moment it's released until the game begins.

If a line is introduced and doesn't move at all, the oddsmakers nailed it. It means the money on both sides is perfectly balanced, and the book will make 10% on half of the bets.

---

I think we're getting very close to a consensus, but we're not quite there yet.

Yes, we can all agree the books want to make an opening line that hopefully doesn't have a lot of movement. But even if the line doesn't move, it DOES NOT necessarily mean the money is perfectly balanced on both sides.

Yes, generally books like to have money equal on both sides, in an absolute perfect world. But that's typically not the goal in setting opening lines. And its also true that in some instances, books will take an actual position if the books believe that they have an edge on the public.

Former Jeopardy! champion and professional sports bettor James Holzhauer summed it up well in an article for The Athletic:

Quote:

---

"A popular misconception is that sportsbooks set their lines in order to get an equal amount of money on each side. Aside from rare exceptions like the Super Bowl or 2017's Mayweather-McGregor fight, public money is generally not enough of a factor to move the odds. The book typically prefers to keep the line close to the 'correct' number and gamble on the result, rather than move to an off-market number and attract a flood of action from advantage players."

---

"There's almost always more money on one side than the other, either naturally OR BY DESIGN.

"When it's the latter, it's because the book has decided to 'take a position' on a game based on what it thinks will happen. The book is still getting its -110 juice, but it's also gambling a bit."

"I like to have some balance, but it's not my primary goal," Andrews said. "If I have the wiseguys on one side and the public on the other, I'll do my best to go in needing the wiseguy's side to win. We wouldn't call them wiseguys if they weren't good.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/sports-columns/todd-dewey/fact-or-fiction-do-sportsbooks-balance-bets-to-lock-in-profit-2538940/amp/


"While this was likely true at one time and still true to the extent that sportsbooks don't want to be too overexposed (massive amounts of bets on one side where a loss would put the book in financial trouble) the focus of sportsbook managers is not to shoot for 50/50 action, collect their vigorish (10 percent), and move on. Of course, it's fine it works out that way, but that's not their goal. For the sportsbooks, the goal is not to get hit hard with sharp betting action."

https://www.safestbettingsites.com/blog/sports-betting-is-legal-5-myths-about-sports-betting-that-need-to-die


Many bettors believe that oddsmakers are looking to balance their book by attracting 50% of the action on each side and thereby mitigating any risk. That is pure fiction. Sportsbooks shade their opening line to capitalize on public perception, and allow their most-respected clients to move the lines.

https://establishtherun.com/disproving-popular-sports-gambling-fallacies/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CA%20popular%20misconception%20is%20that,factor%20to%20move%20the%20odds.


As mentioned earlier, balanced books are an industry myth. Sportsbooks are willing to create liabilities for the house as long as they believe that they're on the right side.

https://www.sportsinsights.com/blog/nfl-sharp-money-explained/

The most-commonly believed lie in sports gambling is that bookmakers try to create equal action on both sides of a line. Doing so allows them to make a guaranteed profit off the juice, which is the small commission they take from the losing side. However, the problem is that balancing action on both sides is Impossible to do over the long run. Even when considering that bookmakers can move lines at any point, they're hard-pressed to maintain total balance. A bookmaker's main goal is to ensure that they're not on the opposite side of too much sharp money. The last thing they want to do is cover a huge imbalance while facing off against the best bettors.
Most line moves aren't made because one side has more action than the other. Instead, they're usually made to keep sharps from overloading a specific side.

https://www.bettingsite.org/blog/7-most-outrageous-falsehoods-about-betting-on-sports-15302/

barsad said:

---

I think it would be hard to find a more soporific sports topic than the technical elements of betting lines. Someone please stab me in the eye so I can stop reading this.

---

I think it's kind of interesting, and it's not like this has been discussed in detail that often before.

The one key issue WRT betting on sports is that you can't get ahead by betting on sports because your winnings are taxed as income, while your losses aren't deducted. This means that whatever slight edge you might have from your superior knowledge of a sports team you follow closely, that edge is not going to be large enough to overcome the aftertax upside.

Cal88 said:

---

barsad said:

---

I think it would be hard to find a more soporific sports topic than the technical elements of betting lines. Someone please stab me in the eye so I can stop reading this.

---

I think it's kind of interesting, and it's not like this has been discussed in detail that often before.

The one key issue WRT betting on sports is that you can't get ahead by betting on sports because your winnings are taxed as income, while your losses aren't deducted. This means that whatever slight edge you might have from your superior knowledge of a sports team you follow closely, that edge is not going to be large enough to overcome the aftertax upside.

---

You can deduct gambling losses from your gambling winnings. but you cannot deduct net losses, so yes, it is asymmetric in that regard. It is not like a side business where you can deduct losses from your other income.

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc419

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

barsad said:

---

I think it would be hard to find a more soporific sports topic than the technical elements of betting lines. Someone please stab me in the eye so I can stop reading this.

---

I think it's kind of interesting, and it's not like this has been discussed in detail that often before.

The one key issue WRT betting on sports is that you can't get ahead by betting on sports because your winnings are taxed as income, while your losses aren't deducted. This means that whatever slight edge you might have from your superior knowledge of a sports team you follow closely, that edge is not going to be large enough to overcome the aftertax upside.

---

You can deduct gambling losses from your gambling winnings. but you cannot deduct net losses, so yes, it is asymmetric in that regard. It is not like a side business where you can deduct losses from your other income.

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc419

---

Yeah, after 10% juice on every winning bet, you have to be amazing to make it make any sense. I still found it fun to take the $200 free bet these places offer, and play around with that for the year. Having a couple bucks in a game makes it a little more fun. I really miss sitting in a Vegas sports book with a $25 ticket in hand and getting hammered for free tho. Those days are LONG gone.