forums

So vegas was right

Advertisement
It was originally set at 5.5, there's a reason the lights never go out in Vegas
 
Vegas doesnt handicap coaches... The coaches obviously have to do with not bringing in talent though
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
No, Vegas was wrong, as they so often are. The Clemson v Miami game open at Miami +2 1/2. The betting public jumped on that mistake in a hurry.
 
Advertisement
DapperSlapper said:
Vegas doesn't give a **** about results. Vegas wants even money on both sides.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong. Las Vegas sportsbook managers whine and cry in those backroom offices while rooting in games the house needs. Too bad there's never been an internal video released. It would quickly become famous and destroy stereotypes and myths.

When I worked at the Horseshoe sportsbook we had a filing cabinet in that sportsbook office that had dents all over the place, particularly at foot level. It got kicked and battered by the manager whenever we lost a bad beat. That sportsbook manager literally cried over my shoulder while rooting in New Year's bowl games outcomes one year. Jack Binion had allowed famous poker player Doyle Brunson to bet $55,000 apiece on more than a dozen bowl games. Those results would dictate our bottom line for the bowl games. When one game was coming down to the wire, the sportsbook manager was crying while saying he'd never complain about another outcome again, as long as we could pull that one out. We did, thanks to a fluke finish that included a 2 point conversion followed by an onside kick recovery and another last minute touchdown. Brunson lost by a half point.

Las Vegas doesn't go out of its way to generate balanced money on both sides. It uses power ratings because power ratings are the convenient vehicle that accomplishes that goal, to split the action. Close enough, without too much subjective thought. There's no way to do it minus those power ratings. For example, let's say we are on a Saturday in mid January. There will be 80+ college basketball games, a full slate of NBA and hockey, a full weekend of NFL playoffs, assorted games in other sports plus halftime wagers on virtually everything. There's absolutely no way a sportsbook can afford to go over all those games and make a decision on what the line should be, incorporating all the related variables. Hence they default to power ratings plus the home field adjustment, shielded by 11/10 odds in their favor. Sure they'll butcher some games in which ultra sharp guys will recognize a vulnerability in the power rating consensus. Who cares? It's a grind small profit in the long run.

Jack Binion didn't understand that a sportsbook inevitably had up and down swings, so he ranted and overreacted whenever we had a substantial losing day. He thought it should be like slot machines, always a win. That's why the sportsbook managers at the Horseshoe felt so much pressure. Binion fired two sportsbook managers in the first three months the book was open. He'd literally cut hockey limits in half if we had a losing day in hockey, then do the same if we lost in college basketball. It was daily hilarity. From what I've heard from friends who still work behind the counter, there are modern day casino owners who operate the same way. That's why less and less floor space is devoted to those race and sportsbooks, compared to decades ago.
 
I attended the game and didn't check the final betting line but I know it reached as high as -9.5 at one point. The power rating consensus gap was 12 points so that 9.5 made a lot more sense than the early numbers. As I pointed out a few days ago, the game never opened -2.5. That was merely the Las Vegas Sports Consultants early "send" number, a recommendation. I only saw one spot open the game as low as -3. That lasted 4 minutes before bumping to -4, which lasted 2 more minutes before rising to -5.

Las Vegas makes plenty of mistakes. That's what drew me to town, when I detected absurd pointspreads on the USFL and also women's basketball. In those days prior to the internet the sportsbooks didn't have reliable power ratings on every sport. They had to make their own internal numbers, which often were comically poor. When Jeff Sagarin became prominent at USA Today, he provided power ratings on many sports that Las Vegas unabashedly stole. You would see one oddsmaker after another carrying around the Tuesday edition of USA Today, which included Sagarin's updated weekly numbers. Then the internet exploded, with power ratings available all over the place. That meant fewer sportsbook mistakes, prompting many of my friends to leave town, and making me a part time resident. My systems are a good source of a slight edge but it's not as much fun without those dependable errors, like every year when at least one major sportsbook would forget that college basketball first halves are considerably lower scoring than the second half. For example, they would make a 144 total 72 in the first half when it should be more like 66.5. You could pounce on those gaffes for a full week until they wised up. It was like a Christmas bonus many times per year.
 
Advertisement
Awsi Dooger said:
I attended the game and didn't check the final betting line but I know it reached as high as -9.5 at one point. The power rating consensus gap was 12 points so that 9.5 made a lot more sense than the early numbers. As I pointed out a few days ago, the game never opened -2.5. That was merely the Las Vegas Sports Consultants early "send" number, a recommendation. I only saw one spot open the game as low as -3. That lasted 4 minutes before bumping to -4, which lasted 2 more minutes before rising to -5.

Las Vegas makes plenty of mistakes. That's what drew me to town, when I detected absurd pointspreads on the USFL and also women's basketball. In those days prior to the internet the sportsbooks didn't have reliable power ratings on every sport. They had to make their own internal numbers, which often were comically poor. When Jeff Sagarin became prominent at USA Today, he provided power ratings on many sports that Las Vegas unabashedly stole. You would see one oddsmaker after another carrying around the Tuesday edition of USA Today, which included Sagarin's updated weekly numbers. Then the internet exploded, with power ratings available all over the place. That meant fewer sportsbook mistakes, prompting many of my friends to leave town, and making me a part time resident. My systems are a good source of a slight edge but it's not as much fun without those dependable errors, like every year when at least one major sportsbook would forget that college basketball first halves are considerably lower scoring than the second half. For example, they would make a 144 total 72 in the first half when it should be more like 66.5. You could pounce on those gaffes for a full week until they wised up. It was like a Christmas bonus many times per year.
Click to expand...


When's the last time you gave us a pick on a game, before the game was played? I mean after all, with all your decades of "Vegas Insider" experience surely you could provide us plebes with a pick now and again right?


You ******* gas bag.

You are one of those guys who's always right......after the fact. Check my sig readers.
 
Funny thing about talent OP. Our last 3 recruiting classes on average is #13 Clemsons last 3 recruiting classes on is also #13 . Yet today we got beat by 58 points.... it's not the "talent". Unless you mean coaching talent.
 
Dabo is and idiot with good assitants just like jimbo

All is and idiot with pathetic assitants....


Head coach is not the problem
 
Regress it is a problem when you cant fire and assistant like coach d so that is obviously a problem

But the spreads and win totals dont factor coaching in at all

Based on talent, returning starters at key postions and power rankings

Example usc is favored by 6 today with or without sark
 
Advertisement
Back
Top