Purdue vs NC State.... PU favored by 9.5 points
UCONN vs Alabama.... UCONN favored by 11.5
Take the points!
UCONN vs Alabama.... UCONN favored by 11.5
Take the points!
NCAA FINAL FOUR: Championship Game Thread
- Thread starter RUinPinehurst
- Start date
Not with UConn that wins every game by double digits.
Awfully large point spreads for teams in the Final 4 no ?
I can’t wait to see Burns go against Edey. I was hoping for this matchup since the ACC tourney semifinals .
Some of us saw the Purdue-UConn matchup coming a long time ago.
I gotta root for the NC State kids though.
My initial reaction is to bet NC State and UConn based on these spreads. It will be interesting to see in which direction they drift.
Betting lines pretty much holding steady with UCONN inching up slightly to a 12-point favorite. Purdue remains a 9.5-point favorite.
The objective of sportsbooks is to establish a betting line that attracts equal $ bet on each team. So they want an equal number of bettors who take the points and give the points.
Slight wobble in the Final Four lines. UCONN now back up to an 11.5-point favorite, while Purdue dropped a bit and is now a 9-point favorite.
In what would be an interesting game and very profitable to have the final four winner to play the NIT winner. Especially if it is Indiana State, I would love to see ISU play the dance winner.
There is ZERO upside for the NCAA champ to play the NIT "champ." Never going to happen.
What if it was Seton Hall ?
Would you want that game played ?
Personally I wouldn't----it proves nothing.
I really hate that this narrative is generally accepted as truth by the public. The books absolutely look for spots where they can fool the public and win. They do not simply want to win the juice on most bets. This simply isn't true.
Separately, advanced data shows Alabama and Purdue to be the plays. Not saying they'll hit (because variance is very real), but that's what the model I use shows.
Nah..... Corporate sports books seek to maximize profits by minimizing risk. Their goal is to secure a balance on both sides of a wager, hence a line is smartly established for this purpose, but that initial line "moves" to rebalance both sides of the bet. Their commission is a percentage of what comes in and what goes out. They don't gamble. You do.
That said smaller, private, unlicensed books, may waver on the "minimizing risk" approach.
I know that people believe this. It's simply not true. I can't convince you, and it really doesn't matter. But I watched an interview with the head of a major LV sportsbook and he actually laughed at the notion. He said there are several times when the books look to win. There are often times when tons of money come in on one side and the line never moves. The data is readily available.
This is interesting and against what I always believed. . Where is this interview and data ? I am interested
Ok, I don't want to overstate. It's not every market. Sure, Vegas looks to get even money on the majority of bets. But the executive said there are multiple bets per day where they see an advantage and take it. I can only tell you that I saw the interview so long ago that sports betting was only legal in Nevada. I have looked for it many times since and never found it.
As far as data, you can follow many on Twitter who track line movements. They also track total bets on each market. Sometimes they'll point out that a ton of money came in and the line didn't budge.
Unfortunately, most of them are now charging for this info via Patreon, Discord, or other paid services. One I like is Ducky Bets. If you follow this stuff, you may know him as the guy who developed an algorithm to beat the books on niche markets like NFL kicker FGs, NHL goalie saves, and NBA 3s.
@mikebal9 is correct
The “balance at all costs” thing really only applies to markets where the risk is going to be outside their tolerance if it gets unbalanced i.e. the Super Bowl or some huge event like that.
Otherwise, the book doesn’t really care if the market is unbalanced on some smaller random game or something. It’s the volume and liquidity that have that makes it “not gambling” for them. Similar to blackjack or any other game, they can absolutely book a loss in the short run.
The “balance at all costs” thing really only applies to markets where the risk is going to be outside their tolerance if it gets unbalanced i.e. the Super Bowl or some huge event like that.
Otherwise, the book doesn’t really care if the market is unbalanced on some smaller random game or something. It’s the volume and liquidity that have that makes it “not gambling” for them. Similar to blackjack or any other game, they can absolutely book a loss in the short run.
Def takes away something for me, playing these games in NFL stadiums. All of a sudden for most important 3 games of the season you have this weird camera angle.
Long stretch of play without a whistle. Skipped right past the under-12 timeout and now finally a whistle for the under-8.
You have replays of the foul calls missed..? Don't remember anything egregious
Pretty sure they're all drunk....
How is NC State "right where they want to be"? They're down 6 and the other point guard has 5 turnovers and two back courts!