Nebraska is a 5 point favorite vs Minnesota

BoSolich said:
ok, having looked it over again minnesota is really bad on offense. they're starting running back is out for the year and they are only scoring 21 ppg if you don't count the New mexico st game. 

we should win this game, but there's no way i'd bet on it.
Click to expand...


Explain to me why you wouldn't count a game that they played?  Because NMSU has a crummy defense?  So does Nebraska.
 

That whole "if you ignore their successes there are only failures" argument has always baffled me.  People trot it out all the time, in sports and politics and business.

 
everybody knows my name said:
Explain to me why you wouldn't count a game that they played?  Because NMSU has a crummy defense?  So does Nebraska.
 

That whole "if you ignore their successes there are only failures" argument has always baffled me.  People trot it out all the time, in sports and politics and business.
Click to expand...
It's no different than when looking at a defense and someone says...well...yeah...but, when they went against really good offenses, they allowed more points.

 
VectorVictor said:
Why this spread? 

Because Vegas, unlike some of the supposed Nebraska “fans” in other threads, have seen what most of the sane, rational fan base has witnessed—that there has been progress made, that the team is getting better, and they’re getting close to turning the corner.

And lest anyone forget...Vegas is in the business of making money. They have zero f***s to give about the feelings of Nebraska fans. They’re using their own eyeballs and making a judgement call. 
Click to expand...
I honestly believe this is the first +1 I have ever given you.

BoSolich said:
minnesota is actually decent though. even if we have improved, there's nothing to suggest we're going to win by 6 points. i feel like it should be a pick'em game at best.
Click to expand...
Idk, it sure felt like NW was a decent team too, and for a few moments on Saturday I was wondering if we were going to beat them by 20+

 
everybody knows my name said:
Explain to me why you wouldn't count a game that they played?  Because NMSU has a crummy defense?  So does Nebraska.
 

That whole "if you ignore their successes there are only failures" argument has always baffled me.  People trot it out all the time, in sports and politics and business.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you can toss out a few things.  Like garbage time stats.

 
Gambling is basically an emotional vice for the majority of gamblers. Odds makers pay just as much attention to perceptions as they do stats. Their goal is to get as much money as possible wagered on both sides and collect the juice. If they were confident in their lines, they would not change. As previously mentioned, the sports books(gambling guarantors) do not care what team wins. "Sharps" as they are called, are consistent in that they wager void of any emotion. They pay attention to trends, but are not beholden to them. 

The guys that set the points look bad if the line moves too much. Most of the line setters are independent contractors and are canned routinely for opening up the House to big losses. The odds makers that set lines that even out the wagers from first publication are basically golden gooses that are very well compensated. 

This info is gleaned from a golf game. My brother and I were paired up with a former odds maker a couple years ago. He was a trip. It's not often that a complete stranger wants to play a $50 Nassau with me. He had to be a better odds maker than he was a golfer. I bought dinner and drinks that night. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lonestar_Husker said:
Gambling is basically an emotional vice for the majority of gamblers. Odds makers pay just as much attention to perceptions as they do stats. Their goal is to get as much money as possible wagered on both sides and collect the juice. If they were confident in their lines, they would not change. As previously mentioned, the sports books(gambling guarantors) do not care what team wins. "Sharps" as they are called, are consistent in that they wager void of any emotion. They pay attention to trends, but are not beholden to them. 

The guys that set the points look bad if the line moves too much. Most of the line setters are independent contractors and are canned routinely for opening up the House to big losses. The odds makers that set lines that even out the wagers from first publication are basically golden gooses that are very well compensated. 

This info is gleaned from a golf game. My brother and I were paired up with a former odds maker a couple years ago. He was a trip. It's not often that a complete stranger wants to play a $50 Nassau with me. He had to be a better odds maker than he was a golfer. I bought dinner and drinks that night.
Click to expand...


I both agree and disagree with some points here.  On huge events like the Super Bowl you are 100% correct that the goal is to funnel as much money through the book and collect the 10% juice.  Sportsbooks are now starting to take more proactive stances on games where they think they know the right side and are willing to lay a line that draws in lopsided action and are willing to play the percentages that they'll come out ahead.  Books also know more often than not which side is going to be the public side and will skew the juice/line that way to make people pay a premium.  You are also correct that the initial linesmakers are worth their weight in gold.  I'm not sure if this is still the case as they've exited the US market but the book at Pinnacle used to be the gold standard and had the sharpest line/juice anywhere and I heard that lots of other books would simply copy Pinny's line moves. 

Here's a fun article that talks a bit about the line making process.

https://www.sportsinsights.com/betting-tools/sportsbook-profit-margins/

As for the NU line, I agree with Severe that it probably ends up around -3.  It would take a mountain of one sided money/key injury to move it past that key number.

 
Xmas32 said:
I both agree and disagree with some points here.  On huge events like the Super Bowl you are 100% correct that the goal is to funnel as much money through the book and collect the 10% juice.  Sportsbooks are now starting to take more proactive stances on games where they think they know the right side and are willing to lay a line that draws in lopsided action and are willing to play the percentages that they'll come out ahead.  Books also know more often than not which side is going to be the public side and will skew the juice/line that way to make people pay a premium.  You are also correct that the initial linesmakers are worth their weight in gold.  I'm not sure if this is still the case as they've exited the US market but the book at Pinnacle used to be the gold standard and had the sharpest line/juice anywhere and I heard that lots of other books would simply copy Pinny's line moves. 

Here's a fun article that talks a bit about the line making process.

https://www.sportsinsights.com/betting-tools/sportsbook-profit-margins/

As for the NU line, I agree with Severe that it probably ends up around -3.  It would take a mountain of one sided money/key injury to move it past that key number.
Click to expand...
I don't gamble on others potential performance, so I don't really know current sports book trends. That is news to me that sportsbooks are basically wagering themselves, now. I'll play Blackjack if my brother drags me to a casino, that's about it. I will wager on my own performance, though. I appreciate your perspective and learning something.  :cheers

 
Back
Top