September 25th, 2015 at 7:01 PM ^
You have been blowing BYU all week. I don't see what you see in them really. I got Michigan by 2 touchdowns tomorrow.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:14 PM ^
(and therefore some heavy "smart money") are favoring Michigan pretty heavily. What say you Mathlete?
September 25th, 2015 at 1:20 PM ^
This seems right to me. I can't imagine that any normal number of $100-$1,000 bets will move the line by 2 points in an important college football game. So it must be some big money that caused this.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:44 PM ^
Bill Connely's team advanced stats say Michigan has been very unlucky so far (-6 points per game turnover luck) while BYU has been very lucky (+7 ppg turnover luck) thusfar. By S&P and FEI ranks combined (and therefore presumably other models Vegas uses), BYU and Michigan rank out about even. Homefield is generally worth about 3 points.
The computer algorithms try to ignore luck. They all seem to think Michigan is a substantial (though far from overwhelming) favorite at home. Factor in injuries to BYU and circumstances (early game time, travel, and almost a full day less of prep for BYU) and Michigan is going to get a bump by the data-heads out there who tend to ignore W-L record. Harbaugh's had 2 weeks or so to gameplan for BYU while BYU has been through the ringer.
Consider that BYU was a 16 point dog at UCLA a week ago, despite coming off wins vs Boise State and Nebraska. That line may have been right if Rosen hadn't thrown so many INTs. Consider further that this was a team that played Nebraska to a virtual tie in all the advanced stats (or even total yardage). If Nebraska came to the big house would you blink at -6 Michigan? Probably not.
In other words, despite their impressive resume, they've been very lucky. Set the scoreboard aside and BYU is a team that is probably closer to being Nebraska than it is a presumed top 10-15 team like UCLA or Boise State.
I had the same reaction many of you had initially, based on the W-L record and high profile resume. But almost all of the advanced numbers say that this game is about a toss-up on a neutral field. Basically, you should stick to your preseason conceptions on this one and ignore the outcomes from previous games...and then consider that 3 of BYUs best players are out. That's how you get Michigan to be such sizeable favorites.
September 25th, 2015 at 2:52 PM ^
September 25th, 2015 at 6:37 PM ^
September 25th, 2015 at 1:15 PM ^
Michigan has always had a large betting following where people bet with their hearts rather than heads. So I felt the line was set to try and even the bets... but they failed to do that.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^
It was bet down to 4.5 and even 4 some places earlier in the week. This late action is a bunch of sharps (big money bets) jumping on what their stat models says is the smart money. It's not about volume of casual fans betting (number of bets), it's about volume of big cash professionals (number of dollars) getting in late in the week on a favorable line.
It guarantees nothing, but Michigan fans should be pleased by this.
September 25th, 2015 at 8:05 PM ^
Work in sportsbook in Las Vegas and therefore see the action go one way or the other, usually against Michigan.
Last week 2 out 3. Illinois only loss.
This week South Alabama plus 17
Texas San Antonio plus 9.5
Hawaii plus 25
E. Carolina plus 8
September 26th, 2015 at 3:07 AM ^
Yup... just like ND..
Both teams have 3-4 games a year in which the lines make absolutely no sense. Pretty much free money...
September 25th, 2015 at 1:17 PM ^
BYU overrated -
I expect a 24-10 type score.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:31 PM ^
The game starts out at #B00M, just not sure how long it's going to stay there.
HERE COMES THE
B00M!
September 25th, 2015 at 1:42 PM ^
Thing of beauty.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:44 PM ^
It will be Y00M actually with their logo.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:48 PM ^
+1 Insightful.
September 25th, 2015 at 4:27 PM ^
but sounds.....Y00My.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:34 PM ^
Ah yes that 1 pt loss in a game they led for most of the game on the road against a better team than Michigan clearly would lead you to believe this. Sure if Jake Rudock wasn't a turd then you could argue that without the 3 picks the game woulnd't have been close. But since Josh Rosen has looked better than Rudock this year I'm not sure why you would think he would outplay that line against the same defense.
Then you have the fact that UCLA has better receivers, a better rb, and probably a better o-line than michigan and the fact that myles jack is better than anyone on our defense and I'm not really sure where that overwhelming confidence comes from. We might win, but its way closer to toss up than it is to Michigan winning in dominant fashion.
September 25th, 2015 at 2:00 PM ^
September 25th, 2015 at 2:09 PM ^
That "turd" Rudock and Rosen have a common opponent, UNLV. While Rudock looked very underwhelming, his QBR beats out Rosen's. Rosen was a very underwhelming 22/42.
September 25th, 2015 at 2:44 PM ^
I'd love to make a wager on this game w/you.
September 25th, 2015 at 2:52 PM ^
September 25th, 2015 at 5:04 PM ^
Lol didn't realize pointing out the UCLA is a better team than Michigan this year and that BYU played them to a virtual draw a week ago while our offesne sputtered in the second half against UNLV isn't inspiring me to jump to BYU is over rated and we are going to stomp them meant I didn't root for Michigan.
Michigan should win this game but I don't think BYU is over rated and Rudock has been actually bad this year. Not just a dissapointing average but a poor qb. Hope he turns it around gets back to the average he should be but since he hasn't shown it yet I'm not expecting it to suddenly happen against the best defense we've played in the last three weeks.
September 25th, 2015 at 7:35 PM ^
September 25th, 2015 at 1:17 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 25th, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^
This should be a great game.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:20 PM ^
Vegas is rarely wrong except for early, non-conference NCAA football games. As others have mentioned, the current line doesn't represent the oddsmaker's view on who will win by how much, rather, it's there to mitigate or balance the incoming monies. As a big sportsbook player, Las Vegas bettors have always had a major bias against BYU. Probably has something to do with all of the LDS CPA and law firms out there and their reluctancy to "wash" a cash player's winnings. Fuck the Patriot Act. I know, no politics...
September 25th, 2015 at 1:52 PM ^
The data do not substantiate any bias against BYU. The data actually come close to disproving it.
Furthermore, Vegas does not always try to balance money on both sides. They will take the stupid publics money if the stupid public is being extra stupid.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:58 PM ^
The Vegas sportsbook premise is built on balancng the betting public's money and taking in the vig. They want risk aversion as much as possible,hence adjusting the lines when money flow is skewed. Pretty simple. They aren't in business to gamble and place bets. From time to time they get taken to the cleaners but they are profitable in the long run. If they weren't they wouldn't exist.
September 25th, 2015 at 2:09 PM ^
Vegas typically sets lines to take significantly more action on the favorite because the public generally has a larger line in mind than what the science says. That way they can bump the number higher than what would be reasonable. While the juice still usually allows profits when the favorite wins, casinos kill it when the dog wins. Instead of making an average of 5%/bet, they can make 6 or 7%.
September 25th, 2015 at 2:22 PM ^
That was the traditional model used in the past. It has changed over the past 8-10 years to a more risk averse stance. The ease of accessing statistical information, whether by professional players or plebians, has caused this shift. Sportsbook revenues have suffered because of it. They are still profitable but not with the same margins they used to be.
I'm sure we all have our sources for our info. Mine is John A at the Wynn. Aside from my ardent sports betting hobby, I've been working with him and his wife for 15 years. Their oldest daughter went to M, btw...
September 25th, 2015 at 2:34 PM ^
My knowledge on the subject is, in fact, over 10 years old. I would ask... you meant "profit" rather than "revenue" correct?
September 25th, 2015 at 2:37 PM ^
Since sportsbook expenses have basically been unchanged, profits and revs have been down.
September 25th, 2015 at 4:53 PM ^
September 25th, 2015 at 5:12 PM ^
Other than speaking to someone directly involved in the business, I don't know if casinos publicize how and why they make odds on games they offer. The sportsbook concept is simple. Over time, like most things, it's had to change with the times and adjust to new technology, (accessibilty of statistical information). There was a story I read that touched on this a few years ago, after the Denver-Seattle Superbowl. The gist was that, although Vegas made record profits from that game, the model has changed because of availabilty of information.
September 25th, 2015 at 3:32 PM ^
This guy lays out why that's not always true. The short version is that sharp big dollar bettors can make it impossible to get equal money on both sides, so they have to anticipate and put in the line they think is most right. There are other reasons. The point is that while, yes, Vegas likes to have sure profit that comes from 50/50 bets, sometimes they know that the public is wrong and let the action get unbalanced.
The assumption of equl money on both sides is so common that it's hard to google search but there have been other sources/articles to disprove it. (I mean, it's GENERALLY true, but not a universal rule that many think.)
Anyway, your patently false take on BYU-related betting makes anything else you say about gambling hard to take at face value.
On to the show:
"There’s a perception that Vegas sets lines solely to get 50/50 action on each side of the bet. And to some degree they probably want that in many situations since they’ll guarantee themselves profit just from the juice (the commission they charge to play). But what happens is people will sometimes use that as a reason that Vegas shouldn’t be used in projections, saying something like “Oh, they just care about whatever popular opinion might be and just getting in the middle of that.”
The problem with that is that there are a lot of sharp bettors out there with a lot of money, so if Vegas indeed produces a line to equalize bets but it’s weak, those sharps are just going to pound that bet and Vegas will be in a really poor situation in terms of expected value."
Vegas doesn’t want to put themselves in that position where they can be arbitraged, so it’s really important for them to create an accurate line from the start. Even if they don’t guarantee a profit by getting equal money on each side, they can limit their downside—their risk of ruin—by making the line accurate. They really don’t want to be in a situation where they set a bad line that moves a whole lot and they could potentially lose their share on both sides of a bet.
So to be clear, Vegas needs to set accurate lines to not only ensure that they get equal money on both sides, which they will, but so that actual results fall on both sides of the bet 50 percent of the time over the long run as well. It’s okay if they get 70 percent of action on one side of a bet and 30 percent on the other if, over time, the actual results are falling half over and half under—meaning Vegas is setting accurate lines.
Ultimately, making accurate lines is just a safer way for Vegas to make money than trying to predict public opinion, especially when there are sharks out there who might not agree with public opinion. Vegas has a very clear financial incentive to make accurate lines, and they do. So that’s my little rant on why we can trust the lines and why the idea that all Vegas wants is to balance bets is false."
https://dailyfantasybootcamp.com/daily-fantasy-pros-reveal-money-making…
September 25th, 2015 at 3:43 PM ^
Vegas posts what it THINKS the line will be, opening at -6 (which matches what the publicly available models say the line should be around -7).
Casual betters who tend to emphasize W-L records, headlines, and ignore luck put a bunch of action on BYU to get it down to 4 or 4.5 ...but Vegas doesn't budge that much. Then late in the week, the sharps hammer the line, taking M, and in response Vegas bumps the line back to the orignal 6 or even 7, essentially begging for casual fans to put money on BYU.
In other words, they want equal bets on both sides, but they can't just set the line equal to how many people are betting each side. They have to trust their guts (or more accurately, their models.)
September 25th, 2015 at 5:02 PM ^
There's nothing patently false on my BYU betting/sentiment take amongst professional sportsbook players in Vegas. I don't have physical data or taped interactions with colleagues to share, so you'll either take my word for it or not. Don't care. But, when it comes to how lines are set and moved, I'll trust my contact over "dailyfantasybootcamp" any day. He's been making lines in Vegas for over thirty years and has run one of the largest books for the last 15. He has seen and knows it all.
September 25th, 2015 at 5:12 PM ^
The data says quite clearly that there is no bias for or against BYU. See my earlier post on ATS data over the last 11 years. If bettors (or oddsmakers for that matter) had a bias it would show up in the ATS results.
I just grabbed the first source I found who could explain the (logically reasonable) point. I'll take logically reasonable over a guy who is throwing out demonstrably false assertions about gambling and then unironically claiming he gets his knowledge from a know-it-all.
September 25th, 2015 at 5:23 PM ^
http://deadspin.com/5972637/the-betting-public-killed-las-vegas-sportsb…
Occasionally sportsbooks will shift lines based on lopsided action, but they do their damnedest to avoid it. So when the public bets favorites, as it does, the books wind up rooting for the underdogs.
http://www.mlive.com/mayweather/2015/04/mayweather-pacquiao_betting_ho…
"Everybody thinks that we just balance it out," Kornegay said. "It's rarely ever balanced out on any particular event. You're always going to be on one side or the other. And it's the same with this particular event."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/31/sports/la-sp-nfl-betting-201301…
all it takes is one sharp to say, 'Here's $50,000 on the Vikings,' to counteract making a [quick] line simply for the public," Kornegay said.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:22 PM ^
I am guess the movement is over those rumors I heard on twitter about Lane Kiffin being announced as BYU's HC tomorrow.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:31 PM ^
Vegas read Brian's defensive UFR.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:35 PM ^
Take your pick.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:42 PM ^
The spread is making me extremely confident. Vegas is begging people to take BYU and whenever a line looks too good to be true.. it usually is.
September 25th, 2015 at 1:43 PM ^
September 25th, 2015 at 9:11 PM ^
September 25th, 2015 at 1:43 PM ^
September 25th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^
but I think Michigan wins by 10. Go Blue
September 25th, 2015 at 1:56 PM ^
I'd take BYU and the points. We will have to play much, much better offensively than we did last week to win this game, and establishing the run will not be easy against BYU's confusing defensive formations and good LBs. BYU is a good road team...their offense will score 20+ points on us, the question is can we?
September 25th, 2015 at 2:20 PM ^
BYU is two plays from being 0-3 with a freshman gun slinging QB. I do not think UCLA has a better D than us...at all and BYU is traveling across the country to play at 9AM. And they lost there LB (I think) too. MIchigan will roll to make their debute in the top 25.
