Well as most of you know this is my first year on stat fox and I have been taking this very seriously since I began around the last two months of baseball. I have been a member of foxsheets for about two years off and on and when football started I have been every day. I also have been a member of Sports Insights because of the information I obtained from you great handicappers. I know I still have many more years to be able to understand the art of handicapping. I am only 25 so time will tell. That said, here is my theory and I hope you can read this with an open mind.
________________________________________
__________

I have followed and paid close attention to records of most of you and I have noticed that over 65%-75% of the time, most everyone is on the same side. Home DAWGS are always a choice by most of us. As stated in Stat Fox the home DAWG is 41-25 this year. I believe everyone has cashed in a lot of $$$$$$$$$$ up until the last few weeks. It is not abnormal for some of us to go on hot and cold streaks, but it is unusual for a very large group to go on a cold streak. So, I decided to try and figure out what Vegas is trying to sneak over the top of our heads.
Last year as we all know was a year for the favorites( PUBLIC). And this year has been a year for the Underdog, which is who, the professionals like those of you that post selections on a daily basis, usually find more value. Until a few weeks ago, it seemed like all you had to do was handicap the games and then back it up by viewing the betting percentages. However that has not been even close to the winning percentage the past few weeks. SO HERE IS MY THEORY
The public has lost and can not catch up before the end of the season. We all know that when a bankroll gets low, so does the amount of the wager placed. Was this all planned out by Vegas ahead of time? Last year they made most of their money off people like you and I, except for some of you of course, and the public cashed in huge. But this year we have all cashed in with our DAWGS. So, now even though the percentages are way lopsided on games (e.g. 75% on favorites) I believe that the amount of money for that 75% is not as much as what the professional handicappers wager on that game. (The remaining 25%) just off normal plays not counting sharp money. Think about it, the squares lost their house the first 10 weeks, and now they are winning, and we are not hitting at the percentage that we were before. I personally am still up plenty, unless this happens the next 4 weeks in a row. So, do you think Vegas had this planned. Now they are getting money from everyone, where as last year they mainly made a profit off guys fading the public which is what most of the selections posted are on Stat Fox.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question after all this, should we start rolling with the public if the stats and trends point towards that specific team? I know some systems automatically filter out a no play if there is too high of a percentage of wagers placed on that team. Please add any opinions or theories of your own. Like I said above I am still young and dumb (LOL), no; seriously I would love to hear what you might think about the past few weeks with the Squares cashing in big.

Very intriguing and well thought out post. Ive been waiting for the luck to run out for quite some time now and indeed it has. The public has been desimated earlier this season and they no doubt have small bankrolls and very little confidence at this point. Great post indeed. Dont really know how to approach this situation except to say that Vegas certainly doesnt mind if the public wins right now just to keep them in the game. Perhaps its time to sit back and just watch what transpires for a week or two with very little money at risk.

You are giving vegas too much credit. They know no outcomes prior to game.

Dont you believe vegas makes lines in such a way as to influence what side the public is going to be drawn to?

They make lines to balance the action on both sides. Anything else and they would be in the business of trying to pick winners and they dont want to go there.

there's a difference between being influential and controlling outcomes.

You are right they do not know the outcome, but wouldn't you say that they have a very clear idea on where to set the spread, do you think that it is coincidence that all of a sudden the favorites are covering. I do not belive in fixed games at all, but I do know for a fact that they have way more info and statistical tools available to them then we could ever dream of having. If they did not know what the point spread should be, then we wouldn't even have sports wagering.
They would go broke all the time. And I will give them as much credit as they deserve because they are the ones that end up with most of the money when it is all said and done. Thanks for your input and opinion.

Do you believe they attempt to influence a certain side with the line or, as Tex argues, simply attempt to get two way action?

I believe that 99.9% of the time the books are simply trying to balance action. The reason the books make money is because they can balance the money out, if they were in the business of picking games they'd be a lot less successful...I mean, I don't believe that anyone, books included, knew how well the favs would do last year, and vice versa this one. It's an unpredictable world, y'know?

I suppose I have to agree. Last year is a great point. It just seems that some lines look too good to be true. ex. great team on the road -2. You can tell ahead of time that everyone will jump all over the favorite. I suppose when you break it all down I'm back at square one. The line is made to elicit even plays on both sides--- this way is a sure win for vegas with the vig.

If they just made money off two way action and juice alone and did'nt care about highly wagered games (number of bets) they wouldn't be in business for long. They do care.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sports Marketwatch – NFL Week 15

Recapping Last Week

NFL Week 14 went the way of the Public. The shops we spoke with all reported losing between 2-4% of their handle. It was one of the worst Sunday’s of the season for many sportsbooks. The only saving grace was Indy and New England losing badly, which broke up a lot Teasers and Parlays wagers.

SportsInsights.com analysis shows that in games with over 65% of the action on one side, the Public posted their FIRST winning weekend in over 2 months, going 7-4. Over the last 12 weeks, the Public has posted a dismal 32-61-1 record. That doesn’t pay the bills! SportsInsights.com Games to Watch analysis continues it’s “march to the bank,” going 2-1. Overall, that makes the Games to Watch column 26-16 = 62%.

Akira and Tex
Have you not noticed that most of the time the games that the public loses are the ones that have the most action, I do not have an exact percentage but it would be safe to say that each week the game or games(usually only two or three) per day, that the public loses are the ones that have the most action about 68%-74% of the time. That is not coincidence, what the great cappers call it is the public misperception, and vegas sets the line accordingly to get that high action knowing that it has a very good chance to be a winner for the books. They care about alot more than just two way action.

Yes, Vegas is mainly concerned with balancing the bets. That's why pointspreads go up and down after the original one is posted.

You can rest assured that Vegas books do a hell of a lot of sweating when the public is heavily on one side. Their goal is simply to limit their exposure, not to have to root for one team over the other. They hate it when they have to do that.

Pinnacle could not be in business if they only raked in juice and did not win the one-sided plays could they? There are major operating expenses involved. Do Pete and I stand alone in thinking that they persuade the public into taking a certain side with their lines?

Sports betting is a multi billion dollar industry. Any industry that has that much money with that much cash flow has a lot of $$$ to invest (research and development) . There are only a few places they can invest. Investing in resources to predict the outcome of a game would be a big one.
If you had billions of dollars exchanging through your hands wouldn't you want to keep as much as possible?

If Vegas KNEW they could correctly predict the outcome of all games 55% (a very conservative number) of the time, that gives them a much larger chunck of the billions flowing through the books IF they shade the lines. We've all seen lines stay put or move the opposite way with large betting % on one side. It's hard to think the $$$ even. To see how Vegas thinks of You read "Bringing down the house".
My 2 cents.

One section in the book "How Professional Gamblers beat the NFL Point Spread" explains that sportsbooks merely need "enough" action on both sides of a bet. Here is the example given in the book...

'Suppose $6,600 is risked by bettors to win $6,000 on Team A, and only $4,400 is risked by bettors to win $4,000 on Team B...If Team A wins, the sportsbook keeps the $4,400 risked by bettors on Team B and pays out the $6,000 won by bettors on Team A...The sportsbook loses $1,600.
If Team B wins, the sportsbook keeps the $6,600 risked by bettors on Team A and pays out the $4,000 won by bettors on Team B. The sportsbook wins $2,600...
In essence, then, the sportsbook is risking $1,600 to win $2,600. Those are very big odds in favor of the house, and a very big disparity to be overcome by the bettor. '

So, maybe sportsbooks do try to get unequal action if they have a "hunch" on a game, but they certainly need SOME action on both sides...

Road teams in the NFL this season with 75% or more public backing are 7-23 ATS this season with 1 week at 1-1, but ZERO losing weeks. Last weekend was the first time since Week 2 that there were NO publicly supported Road teams over 75% in the NFL. I'm now wondering if this was due in part to the public being broke. I don't remember what the number of bets on each game looks like, but if you can find that they did decrease this may support part of your theory.

I don't however think that Vegas did this in order to trap the foxden community at the end of the season though. : )
They just want to balance out the action and generally make more money off the public on lopsided games throughout the year anyway. I would think that when we are winning, the sportsbooks are happy because for every 1 of us, there are 10 guys sitting on a sofa, eating chips, drinking beer, betting the Colts every week no matter what.

I think that for the most part, they try to get the $ amount pretty even, then clean up on the juice. Having said that, I also think that there are some games that they like a certain side, and if they can get 65% or a little more, then they try to play up to that.
Just like a big company buying another, it is a bet. They have some more insight then we do, so I think that they like some games lopsided. If they win 4 out of 5 or so, then they are doing great on top of the spread. I think that they look at it 4 times a year, not every week like we do.

Even if they play with the lines and win 3 of 5, and clean up on the juice on those games, and the roughly 50-50 on the rest, they are making money hand over fist. They know what they are doing, but I don't think that they are that greedy (they would lose future customers)

Just my 2 cents.

I appreciate everyone's opinion concerning this theory. And I completely understand even wagers. Yes the spread is what causes money on both sides. It creates value for one team or the other. There are only two teams so 50-50 is indeed the medium. The moneyline is where you get the most lopsided. So the example up above is true about the money on team A and Team B, but if you take into account moneyline wagers then you could end up with more money on team B. So that example has two many outs(like a draw on the river).
I guess that nobody actually thinks that Vegas has any advantage by setting the lines and getting over 70% on one side. You can't convince me that Vegas does not know when they set a line that they are going to get heavier action on one team than the other, while all along knowing that those 70% are going to lose. The example up above about the Colts was a perfect example supporting my theory. You don't think that Vegas didn't know when they set the line of he Colts vs. Jaguars game. The line was set Indianapolis (-1) basically a pickem
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis Colts 17 - Jacksonville Jaguars 44 12/10/2006 NSS 217
Opening Line: INDIANAPOLIS COLTS -1 Opening O/U: 42.5 Click for
Line History
Final Line: INDIANAPOLIS COLTS -1 Final O/U: 44

Straight Bets: 20% H 80% V Teaser Bets: H n/a V Over/Under Bets: 54% O 46% U
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Colts had just lost to Tennessee, and the Jaguars had lost 2 of their last four games(2-2) with their losses coming to the Texans and Buffalo. Buffalo was (4-6) when the Jaguars lost straight up. The Texans were (2-6) when the Jaguars lost SU. So what does Vegas do, they set the game at a pickem. Can you honestly tell me that they were trying to get even money on that game. If they were then they didn't even come close as listed above. --------------------------------------------------------------------

It is obvious however that they were trying to do only one thing, just get as much action as they could on the Colts, and they did. All along knowing that they were about to make some major $$$$$$$$$. So, after all the opinions so far, I must say::::::::::::::::::: It is obvious that for years the purpose of the point spread was to get even money on each team. But as listed above this is a billion dollar(multi) industry and the tools and info that they get their hands on does not come cheap. It is the best money can buy. Vegas does want more money than just juice (vig) and they know when and who to get it from. Keep em comin

Sneaky Pete

yea they want even action on every game but clearly they dont get it.

they are begging people to take TEN this week. ask your friends what the line should be sometimes (if they havent already seen it) and when they say BUF -1 or TEN -3 it tells me something. when they say BAL -3 and they are stunned when they hear +3. I think if vegas truly wanted even action on TEN BUF it would have to be BUF -2.5 or lower

there are games like this every week and people cash in on them all the time. PIT -6.5 to the saints? dalls indy pick em? IND -1 to JAX, SEA -3 to ARI. those are just a few. Now Im not saying they win every time but I was on teh right side of all 3. and example of it being wrong is HOU -1 to TEN, I thought the world would take TEN they did and they won anyway. I dont think the TEN backers will get another one this week is all Im saying, mainly because there wont be even action on the game. Anytime IND doesnt cover against HOU its pretty shady too

Glad to see somebidy understands. All one has to do is look at it for what it really is, a business. We all know and should know that a business is always trying to come up with a way to increase profits. It is as simple as that. A business couldn't survive on the bare minimum 10% juice. Give me a break, People are acting like vegas and the books are the nice guys and they wouldn't try to get an edge to make more than juice. LOL if you feel that way you are only fooling yourself. They want your money, and as much as they can get.