Duke vs. UNC point spread

[Classof06]

Are just trying to set the odds so that there are an equal number of bets on each side. If that happens, the oddsmakers make money.

Bingo. The oddsmakers know that within reason, wherever they set the line, people are probably going to even each other out. That's exactly what they want. Duke being a 2-point favorite, while I don't agree with it, will make bookies tons o' cash...

[DukeDevilDeb]

http://sports.espn.go.com/videogames...ncb?id=3280518

This may be the best thing I've ever seen on the ESPN website!

Go to HELL, Carolina
Go to HELL

[Lotus000]

Bingo. The oddsmakers know that within reason, wherever they set the line, people are probably going to even each other out. That's exactly what they want. Duke being a 2-point favorite, while I don't agree with it, will make bookies tons o' cash...

This is sort of true, but not entirely true...

Sports books try to get the point-line and Over/Under to where 50% of the money is on each side, thus tending to ALSO represent a 50/50 chance that each side will pay out. Sports books don't make a lot of money on the point/score line, they just try not to lose money.

Where sportsbooks MAKE lots of money is with three areas: 1) parlays, 2) money lines, and 3) proposition bets.

Let's talk about money lines, which is most applicable to this game. Let's say that UNC is HEAVILY favored. Their money line might read something like -90, meaning that for every $100 bet, you get back $110 if UNC wins. The reciprocal money line for a hugely-underdog Duke would be +80, which means that for every $100 bet, you get back $180. That $10 difference |-90| - |80| = 10 is called the 'vig' which is short for 'vigorish.' So, sportsbooks make money (lots of it) off the money line when the underdog wins, because of the vig. Vegas made out LIKE A BANDIT on the SuperBowl because the Pats were such heavy favourites on the money line.

Sports books like the money line, they could usually not care tooo much about the point line, in comparison.

Now, can we please move on and talk about basketball instead of gambling?

[mph]

Are just trying to set the odds so that there are an equal number of bets on each side. If that happens, the oddsmakers make money.

Yes. I've never before heard the theory that odds-makers set the line to "'sucker' people into betting...on the losing team." An odds-maker that sets lines resulting in unbalanced bets won't keep his/her job for long. Here's a decent explanation of how odd-makers set lines and how Vegas makes money. An odds-maker isn't predicting the outcome of the game, s/he's predicting what those placing bets think about the outcome of the game.

[Truth]

This is sort of true, but not entirely true...

Sports books try to get the point-line and Over/Under to where 50% of the money is on each side, thus tending to ALSO represent a 50/50 chance that each side will pay out. Sports books don't make a lot of money on the point/score line, they just try not to lose money.

Where sportsbooks MAKE lots of money is with three areas: 1) parlays, 2) money lines, and 3) proposition bets.

Let's talk about money lines, which is most applicable to this game. Let's say that UNC is HEAVILY favored. Their money line might read something like -90, meaning that for every $100 bet, you get back $110 if UNC wins. The reciprocal money line for a hugely-underdog Duke would be +80, which means that for every $100 bet, you get back $180. That $10 difference |-90| - |80| = 10 is called the 'vig' which is short for 'vigorish.' So, sportsbooks make money (lots of it) off the money line when the underdog wins, because of the vig. Vegas made out LIKE A BANDIT on the SuperBowl because the Pats were such heavy favourites on the money line.

Sports books like the money line, they could usually not care tooo much about the point line, in comparison.

Now, can we please move on and talk about basketball instead of gambling?

How do you explain the point spread and the ML being tied to one another? (In other words, as the point spread moves in a direction, the ML will also shift a corresponding amount.)

[dukie8]

So, sportsbooks make money (lots of it) off the money line when the underdog wins, because of the vig. Vegas made out LIKE A BANDIT on the SuperBowl because the Pats were such heavy favourites on the money line.

i don't know where you are getting this from but it is 100% incorrect. vegas LOST money on the super bowl when the giants won because so much money was bet on the giants:

In Vegas, Super Bowl XLII will be referred to as Black Sunday. The city's casinos posted a $2.6 million loss on Sunday, only the second time they've lost money on the game since 1992. Some of the blame is placed on bettors who played the moneyline and bet the Giants to win outright. At more than 3.5-to-1, those bets paid off handsomely.

The point spread didn't help matters much either. Set at 14 initially, the line dipped closer to 12 before kickoff which indicates a lot of action for the Giants. That makes sense. Despite their gaudy record, the Patriots hadn't been kicking teams' heads in the way they were early in the season while the Giant defense was clearly operating at a very high level.

The upside for Vegas? The game ended around 7:30 which left plenty of time for soused, happy Giant bettors to give their winnings back on the tables.

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/...se-giants-won/

[ice-9]

In the first game at UNC, I couldn't believe Vegas had UNC at -4. Duke was ranked higher and playing well; UNC had struggled in ACC play and was missing Ty Lawson! For the first time in my life, I actually gambled on a sports game. Easiest bet I ever made.

Now it is the second game and I am surprised Vegas has Duke at -2. We have been playing OK but not consistently well and our defense has slipped significantly (see Wake, Miami, NC State). UNC gets Lawson, their second best player and a key cog in their offense, back, Thomas is much improved, and Hansblah is still playing like a demon possessed. I don't want to seem like a downer but if Duke even wins by 1 point I would be pleasantly surprised. If I was a UNC fan, I would put money on UNC for this game (can't believe I just wrote that...how about a few GTHC GTHC to exorcise the guilt).

In the Duke-UNC case, the homecourt advantage is overrated. 1) We are just 8 miles apart so players don't have to sleep in a strange hotel and eat strange food; 2) home players are under intense pressure not to disappoint their own fans, perhaps enough to make their shot a little tighter than usual; 3) champs usually want to play in an intense atmosphere anyway even when at the butting end of it and especially as an underdog.

[Uncle Drew]

Yes. I've never before heard the theory that odds-makers set the line to "'sucker' people into betting...on the losing team." An odds-maker that sets lines resulting in unbalanced bets won't keep his/her job for long. Here's a decent explanation of how odd-makers set lines and how Vegas makes money. An odds-maker isn't predicting the outcome of the game, s/he's predicting what those placing bets think about the outcome of the game.

I TRULY appreciate someone finding an article that explains the mindset of bookies and odds makers and linking it for everyone. At the same time odds makers ARE initially trying to make a logical guage as to who should win / be favored and list those odds. In doing this they DO look at all kinds of factors, things the average joe on the street wouldn't think of often times. If we suddenly found out in the morning God forbid that Zoubek hurt his foot again or Ellington got a DWI last night late betters might want to bet differently. But the article was 100% correct in saying they want almost equal amounts of cash being bet on both teams. It's the over / under and parlays they make most of their cash on.


Think back to when Mike Tyson was "Iron Mike" and killing guys in the first or second round of every fight. Not only were the promotion people getting killed for staging a short enevitable fight. But everyone was puting their money on Tyson. Nobody thought anyone was going to last three rounds with the guy and most of the time in his early days they were right. As the fights neared they tried their best to get people to bet on "the other guy". But really until Buster Douglas shocked the world hardly anyone wanted to take the chance. Vegas and bookies won't make money on people betting on UNC or Duke too much. It's when people try to pick five teams, by the spread or wager on the over and under mney is made. That being said the initial listed odds are usually what they think will happen. And given that home court advantage is were several points, their initial thought was UNC was a favorite. Those of us who don't have a dime on the game if Duke wins by one or 50. (Okay some of us would love to see Duke win by 50!) But a win, even a quote unquote upset win, even at home is what we are looking for. Go To Hell Carolina Go To Hell!!!!!!!!!!!

[dukie8]

since this thread has evolved into a duke and betting discussion, i think that many of you will find it interesting that duhon's meaningless 3 at the buzzer against uconn in 2004 has been call the most expensive meaningless shot in vegas history. the reason is because the line was uconn by either 2 or 3 (i can't remember) and uconn was up by 4 when duhon had the ball in the backcourt and the clock was winding down. he threw up a halfcourt heave that went in that cut the score to 78-79. uconn still won but with duhon's shot, duke covered. i believe that a lot more money was on uconn that game so vegas wound up losing a lot on that "meaningless" shot. i was in vegas for the game and was with a guy who had $5K on uconn. he was not a happy camper.

[throatybeard]

Just about every point spread thread we've ever have has devolved into a long argument about how point spreads work.

In other news, it's trickling back towards 1 point.

http://www.covers.com/sports/odds/li...9981&sport=ncb

[Troublemaker]

I TRULY appreciate someone finding an article that explains the mindset of bookies and odds makers and linking it for everyone. At the same time odds makers ARE initially trying to make a logical guage as to who should win / be favored and list those odds. In doing this they DO look at all kinds of factors, things the average joe on the street wouldn't think of often times. If we suddenly found out in the morning God forbid that Zoubek hurt his foot again or Ellington got a DWI last night late betters might want to bet differently. But the article was 100% correct in saying they want almost equal amounts of cash being bet on both teams. It's the over / under and parlays they make most of their cash on.

Dude, the article didn't support that kind of thinking at all. It just said what I said in my first post (not that I'm a guru or that this is uncommon, privileged information), which is that bookies try to even out the money. All this other stuff is fluff.

[Troublemaker]

i don't know where you are getting this from but it is 100% incorrect. vegas LOST money on the super bowl when the giants won because so much money was bet on the giants:



http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/...se-giants-won/

It's highly dubious that the books lost money on the Super Bowl because of the sheer amount of Patriots-win-the-Super Bowl future bets that must've been lost. I mean, at what point do you think the Patriots became the most popular team to bet on to win the Super Bowl last season? Probably during the summer after they traded for Moss, right? Certainly no later than Week 2 of the season after they crushed the the Jets and Chargers back to back. So we're talking about months and months of future bets flowing in on the Patriots.