For Football Fans - Just For Fun

No, it isn't. Bookies don't make money like that. You're not even close.

Typically, a football bettor must bet $11 to win $10. Bookies (or sports books) collect $11 from the losers and pay $10 to the winners. They keep the $1 difference. (This is known as the "vig.") The ideal situation is when there is the same money on both sides of the bet--the bookie collects the vig either way.

Because some teams are clearly better than others, too much money would be bet on the better team in each game, with too little on the worse team. The bookies must do something to even the odds, so betters will be willing to bet the underdog. There are two ways to do this.

First, bookies offer "even up" bets. That is, they let you bet the game by picking either the favored or the underdog team. But if you take the favored team, you must put up (risk) more money that you will win. If you take the underdog, you will win more than you risk. That's because the underdog will not win as frequently as the favorite. The odds offered are designed to even out the payouts vs. the take, leaving the bookie a profit margin. But the outcome doesn't matter--either way, the bookie takes in some and pays out a little less.

The other, more commonly known, way is to offer a point spread. The bettor puts up $11 to win $10. If the bettor takes the favorite, his choice will have to win by a certain number of points, or he will lose the bet. If the underdog is chosen, that team must either win, or lose by fewer points than offered. So if the "spread" is, say, 4 points, the bettor bets on the underdog, and the underdog loses by 2 points, the bettor collects $10 for every $11 bet.

So how are point spreads established? Initially, the spread is set by the books at a point where they think they will attract the same amount of money on both sides. So if the Colts are considered slightly better than the Chargers, the books might set the spread at 3 points. If they're considered way better, the spread might be set higher. Again, not because the book is trying to determine the exact difference, but because the book is trying to attract the same amount of money on both the Chargers and Colts. That way, he'll collect $11 from the losers and pay $10 to the losers, regardless of the outcome of the game!

So what happens if, say, the spread is set at 3 points and too much money goes to the favorites (in this case, the Colts)? Then the bookie must make the Chargers more attractive. How? By offering more points. Then, bettors who wouldn't take the Chargers at 3 points will take them at 4 o 5, etc. Once the money is balanced on each side, the spread settles. The previous bettors, who got the Chargers plus 3 points, retain those bets; they're bets don't see an increase (or decrease) in the spread.

Okay, so let's say the Colts' quarterback, Peyton Manning, gets injured in practice and cannot play in the game. This makes the Colts less likely to do well. Does that change the point spread? Not necessarily. While it does make the Colts less likely to win the game, the book will change the line (spread) only if the betting begins to change, too. If bettors are confident that the Colts will win anyway, they may keep betting on them, which means there would be no need to change the point spread. Remember, the point spread is in place for only one reason: to get bettors to bet on both sides, balancing the bets so the book can collect the vig (the difference between what is bet--$11--and what is paid--$10).

The Bottom Line: Bookies do not want "77%" of bettors on one side of the bet. It's bad business. Sure, if the outcome of the game causes those 77% to lose, fine. But if they win, the bookie is screwed. Such an imbalance causes the bookie to be in competition with the bettors, and to make the outcome of the game relevant. Bookies would much rather have half the bettors on one side, the other half on the other, and collect the vig in between. No risk, no matter what the outcome (or how lopsided).

The Bottom Line (Part Two): The point spread ("betting line") moves when more bets end up one one side compared to the other. It moves to attract more money to the other side in order to level each. It has absolutely nothing to do with the probable outcome of the game.

 

I think he was just kidding.

I don't see the Steelers getting past the Jaguars; losing Willie Parker for the year is a crippling blow to Pittsburgh's offense, and I don't think Roethlisberger can carry the offense with his passing ability. The Jags are one of the hottest teams in the NFL right now, they have a great ground game and David Garrard very rarely makes a mistake.

As a Pats fan, the Jaguars actually scare me more than the Colts right now.

 

This is just too easy:

Rich (11-16-07) [this very thread]

"There isn't any upside to this anymore. From now on I am a one-issue poster: The University of Leicester's Center for Market Studies."

Lighten up Rickie. It's obvious that you've decided to stroke out on little ol' me, no matter what I say. You embarrass yourself when you say that you're going to restrict your posting and then you don't restrict your posting. It simply shows that you're an emotional poster who has no real control. That's OK with me but then you go on to wonder why all those assholes on other forums pick on you. Let me clue you in. They do it to see you jump. And you do it so well. Now I understand Levicoff's impulse.

 

Keep it on football, people.

 

Oh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OK

 

Thank you.

 

Person. Singular.

 

77%? I count 73%. The big question is whether, of the remaining 27%, those 8% voting they'll lose in the playoffs or those 19% voting they'll win the Super Bowl will join the "voted wrong" column.

 

Ted: "77%? I count 73%"

John: It is now. Two people voted since I did the calculation.
Now: 27/37=73% Then: 27/35 = 77%.

 

Sorry, sir.

 

Well, my Redskins are gone, so I hope no one takes the rest of my predictions seriously!

 

And the Jags beat the Steelers, as I predicted. Unfortunately I don't have enough faith in myself to put money on any of the games.

 

Good, I like the Seahawks.

 

Well, I no longer live in Las Vegas, so doing that would be illegal, right?

 

I was speaking theoretically, of course.

 

Colts Baby! All the way!

 

The Colts knocked the Pats out of the playoffs last year!

 

Well the Colts are going to have to get past the Chargers before they can begin to worry about the Patriots. I was very impressed with the play of Tomlinson today. He didn't come out with great numbers but he impressed me with making some very smart plays. While Rivers was busy thinking about ? Tomlinson realized that the play clock was about to hit 0 and he called a time-out. Usually you expect the QB to be on top of that. Then he stopped a run short of the sideline so that the clock would keep running. A smart play in the heat of battle. Finally, after failing to get the ball across the plane of the goal line he made a good second effort by extending his arms (and not getting the ball stripped). Three smart plays. The Colts have a very good team and I think that the Chargers will have to play their best game to get by them.

 

As a Pats fan, I'm not exactly thrilled they have to face the Jaguars this coming weekend. The Jags are not the typical Florida team that relies on the pass (and accompanying good weather) to get things done; Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew frankly scare the crap out of me, given the age & injuries of the Pats' linebacking corps.

 

In the playoffs, there are really no "easy" games but New England vs Jacksonville is about as close as it comes. A twelve point spread is about as big as one is likely to see in the playoffs!