Sports-Betting AP Myth Weaknesses and Cleveland/Buffalo

I'm going to do a full review of this on my blog in the next week or so. For now, I just want to mention that the Cleveland at Buffalo NFL game just blew up on quite a few people who take a simple "AP" angle on sports betting or who adhere to the myths that "weak" NFL lines exist or that outlier NFL lines provide great opportunities.

This was a fascinating week for this particular game, and the books held all the cards, but many so-called "sharps" didn't grasp to what extent the books held the cards until the hammer fell.

For us old-timers, it was actually pretty funny.

So check out the blog when you get a chance in a week or two and I'll have plugged in the details. In the meantime, of course, I'm pimping for your favorite presidential candidate and mine:

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...in-saddle.html

Bet MGM voided all bets. I don’t know what others did. Lines were already volatile due to the snow. I would hate to be stuck with a bet if the book didn’t void it, especially if I “took advantage” of the line changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by regnis

Bet MGM voided all bets. I don’t know what others did. Lines were already volatile due to the snow. I would hate to be stuck with a bet if the book didn’t void it, especially if I “took advantage” of the line changes.

Exactly.

When there are venue changes, some books have it written into their rules that the bet is voided. But many (I'd say most) leave it to the discretion and decision-making of the book management. When the venue change is announced, the books can survey their risk/reward and decide if bets stay live or bets are voided. Offshore-wise, many bets are action until the books decide they are not action.

Here's another bit of trivia -- LOL -- books, and of course offshores, do not have to apply the same rules to different people. Just as different tiers of various slot clubs (and pure subjective management preferences also) can lead to different people having different limits on the same games, books don't have to adhere to a one-size-fits-all decision-making.

A lot of "smart money" -- "sharps," whatever -- just got put in very awkward wagering positions.

As someone who used to abuse the Stardust when they were slow on weather-related totals changes (Circus-Circus was always a step ahead, and just 100 yards away), I understand the value of attacking lines based on weather. But many folks didn't grasp the context in which they were pounding the Cleveland/Buffalo total.

Me, as an oldtimer, I was looking at going the other way. Buying a 41 1/2 down to 40 and betting Over based on the possibility/probability the venue would be shifted. But this was a case where if you do that, you have to wade through all the rules at different books, you may as well stick a big fat "red alert" on your head because it'll look like you had inside info on the venue shift before anyone else (which could restrict other bets down the road). So I didn't do it.

I'll get into this more on the blog in a week or so. It's okay if books interpret me as being a -- cough, cough, gag me with a spoon, "sharp" -- but I do not want them thinking I'm out to abuse them on some freakish event. Bad idea in the long run. People don't get that, because they are so desperate to adhere to some "I have an angle" AP-esque behavior.