Ah, but you can't fool the algorithms!

[ctchamps]

I like any index that has Duke below Seton Hall but I'm not buying Fruit at #25.

I’d love to see Duke as a 10 seed. Surprised ESPN listed them there. Makes me question the Boneyard collective.

 

[HuskyHawk]

You might ask the same question about wall street traders, or reinsurance underwriters. Lots of reasons, here are the main two:

1. The individual on the beach in the Bahamas has a limited bankroll; not nearly enough capital to ensure a win in the long run, unless he is happy making $20 bets everywhere. The books don't win every bet; they make their money in the long run by having the best of it on most bets. No different than the blackjack table. But the book needs a lot of capital to sustain the losses that will inevitably happen.

2. The casino is taking the bets, so they have the advantage of the vig on every bet. The genius on the beach is making the bets, and has to overcome the vig before he can make a profit.

I'm not sure what "directional players" are, but if you mean the average gambler then yes they lose in the long run because of 1) the vig, and 2) a deficit of analysis/information/discipline. To be a long-term winner, you need a hell of a lot of 2) in order to overcome 1).

It is possible, by the way. The books call those bettors "sharps", and they try to avoid taking bets from them because they prefer to take bets from people who are at an information disadvantage. The sharps' research is as good or better than the books', which is a problem.

If the business were simply a matter of getting a 50/50 handle, then why the hell should the books care about the sharps?

Still, it's not surprising you find this hard to believe. The myth of the 50/50 vig-earning sportsbook has been ingrained in the gambling public for years. I think the books like it that way.

My theory on this is similar to picking stocks. The "experts" know more about the overall range of teams than you do. There's no doubt that Vegas has a better handle on how good Wisconsin is than I do. But Vegas does not know UConn like we know UConn. They just don't. Nobody who is looking at everything can have the inside knowledge we who live and breathe this team have. So we knew Alex's hand was about to heal and he'd start hitting shots. I knew I wanted nothing to do with -12.5 vs Georgetown. Hell no.

There are gaps out there in what Vegas or the metrics can really measure. It's a game played by young, emotional men, and coached by an emotional man in our case. Fans, noise, building, time of year, how guys are feeling, rest, motivation, it's too much for anybody taking a wide view of all teams to measure properly in a predictive model.

 

[The Yakk]

My theory on this is similar to picking stocks. The "experts" know more about the overall range of teams than you do. There's no doubt that Vegas has a better handle on how good Wisconsin is than I do. But Vegas does not know UConn like we know UConn. They just don't. Nobody who is looking at everything can have the inside knowledge we who live and breathe this team have. So we knew Alex's hand was about to heal and he'd start hitting shots. I knew I wanted nothing to do with -12.5 vs Georgetown. Hell no.

There are gaps out there in what Vegas or the metrics can really measure. It's a game played by young, emotional men, and coached by an emotional man in our case. Fans, noise, building, time of year, how guys are feeling, rest, motivation, it's too much for anybody taking a wide view of all teams to measure properly in a predictive model.

I agree with most of that, and I also agree that someone focused on a single team or conference or sector could out-analyze the sportsbooks. There are limits to every company's analytics team.

But that person would have to be ice-cold, merciless, and completely unaffected by rooting interest. I don't see a lot of that from the bettors on this board (lol). Personally, I doubt I could ever place a bet against UConn.

 

[freescooter]

Why? Our metrics are setting us up just fine for the post season and will likely improve as other top teams take losses. The net matters for tourney seeding the rest are there to feed our trash talk (or betting for those inclined). You don't get trophies for January kenpom rankings.

Duke got a banner for being the 1999 Nation Champion on one of the ranking services. I forget which one.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The total Vegas handle on most games can be found, and it is often quite different than 50/50.

For example, close to 80% of the public money was on UConn to roll Arkansas in the sweet 16 last year. That's one that Vegas got way wrong, which was beautiful.

Let's say you are running a sports book. If your goal is to have a 50/50 spread on each game so that you can just earn the vig risk-free, then you have two problems:

1. Ensuring a 50/50 handle is not as easy as it sounds. There is a lot of guesswork in that, and if you get it wrong you are exposed to a potential loss. And once you have that exposure, then you need capital to back it up.

2. The vig alone is simply not enough profit for the sports books. Since they are putting capital at risk (because of 1.) then they want to earn a hell of a lot more profit than just the vig.

All the sports books' research and analytics are not for the purpose of setting a line with a 50/50 handle. Rather, it is for predicting a range of outcomes for the game--something like a mean result with a variance in either direction. The book then tries to set the line to entice the public to bet on the losing side of that range.

They don't get it right every time, but they do often enough to make a nice return on the risk they are taking.

I think stuff like Ken Pom is a great help to bettors, and is reducing a lot of the information advantage that the books have always enjoyed. But the bettor has to use that information correctly.

Edit: As far as "sliding the line":

Yes, the books do that if they misjudged the public and they have too big a position on one side of the bet. But they are not necessarily trying to slide their position back to 50/50.

And there are limits to how much and how fast they can move the line, because they might create "middles" that can be exploited.

I don't agree with you on this. A single game's betting may get out of balance, but across the entire book of games for a night or a week or a month, Vegas is definitely trying to balance it out statistically so that one bad game does not take down the sports book. Insurance is very similar in this way.

The sports book is not trying to take positions on games against its bettors. That would make the sports book just like the bettors, just with slightly better odds. Also, the sports book would have a huge negative selection problem if it was trying to take positions against bettors. The only games bettors would pile onto one side of would be games that the sports book was taking a contrarian position to the market by moving the spread against itself. How else would you get a meaningful number of people to take the other side of the bet?

 

[RedStickHusky]

Duke got a banner for being the 1999 Nation Champion on one of the ranking services. I forget which one.

and they kept it?

 

[Waquoit]

The sports book is not trying to take positions on games against its bettors. That would make the sports book just like the bettors, just with slightly better odds.

I saw a Vegas sportsbook manager on TV say the opposite. Not every game but some.

 

[uh-no]

and they kept it?

there is no duke banner for 1999. That kind of fuckery is reserved for UNC.

 

[The Yakk]

I don't agree with you on this. A single game's betting may get out of balance, but across the entire book of games for a night or a week or a month, Vegas is definitely trying to balance it out statistically so that one bad game does not take down the sports book. Insurance is very similar in this way.

The sports book is not trying to take positions on games against its bettors. That would make the sports book just like the bettors, just with slightly better odds. Also, the sports book would have a huge negative selection problem if it was trying to take positions against bettors. The only games bettors would pile onto one side of would be games that the sports book was taking a contrarian position to the market by moving the spread against itself. How else would you get a meaningful number of people to take the other side of the bet?

Sir, you are a thoughtful and intelligent writer. You are taking the side of the ill-informed on this. I urge you to do some real research, and come back.

Here's a start:

Fact or fiction: Do sportsbooks balance bets to lock in profit?

There is a popular belief that sportsbooks take an equal amount of money on both sides of a game to guarantee a profit. Is it fact or fiction?

www.reviewjournal.com

James Holzhauer: How sportsbooks really make their lines and (early) tips on where to beat them

Jeopardy! James Holzhauer explains how sportsbooks make their lines and how sports bettors can get the best lines available.

theathletic.com

Edit: Here's the Levitt paper. His analysis shows that it is very common in Vegas for 2/3 of the public money to be on one side of a bet.

https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittWhyAreGamblingMarkets2004.pdf

 

[freescooter]

and they kept it?

I’m told the hung it In Cameron. I cannot confirm that part though

 

[ToolzieFan]

I did think was more dramatic, but we looked like we forgot how to play basketball during that January stretch. No one anywhere thought we were a threat after losing that 6th game. Hell, after nearly blowing a huge lead to providence then losing to Marquette in the BET, no one predicted we’d blowout every game in the NCAA’s.

Honest question, are the metrics telling us we’re not as good as we think? We look so damn tough this year.

How the models handled us last year is one of the best defenses of advanced analytic rating systems there is. Despite a rough patch in the middle of the year, the models of KenPom, Torvik, Erik Haslam, and Evan Miya always rated us highly. Pundits and even fans lost faith, but as it turns out, we were really elite despite those midseason losses.

 

[willie99]

Vegas doesn't need 50/50, although that would make it easier. They have a 10% vig, read advantage

Then parlays and teasers and prop bets increase that 10% advantage significantly

Then bad decisions and chasing by people who lost more than they can afford to lose

They do nothing but win over time

Keep it fun people

PS: They're the best at setting the line, because they have to be. Don't bother to argue otherwise, unless you're a billionaire from beating the house

 

[uh-no]

I’m told the hung it In Cameron. I cannot confirm that part though

duke hangs banners for the AP #1 rating at the end of the regular season. There is no confusion of these banners with the title banners, which hang alone at the north end of the stadium, nor do they say "champions" or anything like that on them.

 

[RedStickHusky]

duke hangs banners for the AP #1 rating at the end of the regular season. There is no confusion of these banners with the title banners, which hang alone at the north end of the stadium, nor do they say "champions" or anything like that on them.

"Remember those times that people thought we were really good".

 

[willie99]

duke hangs banners for the AP #1 rating at the end of the regular season. There is no confusion of these banners with the title banners, which hang alone at the north end of the stadium, nor do they say "champions" or anything like that on them.

With all the championship banners won by the women, we don't space for pollster banners

The other day I was looking for our NIT Championship Banner, couldn't find it

 

[freescooter]

I think the analytics are very good among bands. #1 against #30 they generally will get right. But if you took the top say 8 NET or Massey or any other teams and put them in a tournament, I’m not so sure anyone would be shocked if the #6 team won it. At that level, they are more or less equal and it is largely about other factors such as match ups, individual performances, coaches, even luck. Things that are tough to quantify in a mathematical analysis.

I also suspect that as you get deeper into it, you probably get something approaching a bell curve. In the middle you get a whole bunch of teams that, as the saying goes, could beat each other on any given night. Then you have DePaul. The NCAA tries to reflect this with the quad system a bit. But in reality I suspect that there are pretty deep overlays especially between Quad 2 and 3. If the 70th team in quad 2 played the 10th team in quad 3 I’d bet it would be a pretty competitive game.

 

[uh-no]

With all the championship banners won by the women, we don't space for pollster banners

The other day I was looking for our NIT Championship Banner, couldn't find it

Unc hung a nit third place for a while. They still have a "voted" national championship up with their other banners