Hooligans Sportsbook

ATTN Sharps (warning: sports betting related material)

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    27 Replies •
  • Views 2,090 Views
Follow
Daft
There is a dramatic increase in recreational wagers on the Super Bowl but the number of sharp bets stays the same. You don't all of a sudden have a high volume of sharp wagers come from out of nowhere to offset the recreational wagers.

I could be wrong. I used to feel the same way as Fischy on this subject but I've since changed my thinking.
Click to expand...

The sharp players can get more down on this than any other game, so that could increase the $ amount bet, but generally yes it's just another game of many instead of the one game to bet all year (i'm of course talking from a side/total full game perspective -- all bets included it's obviously my heaviest bet game of the year every year)
 
Maybe I worded it poorly but I never intended to suggest that there are sharps out there who don't play a NFL total or side all year and then hammer the Super Bowl. I was more curious if anyone noticed that Super Bowl sides tended to be fruitful historically because the influx of recreational $ coming in.
 
I didn't think you did, perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I was saying in regards to the side/total it's just another game for a pro, whereas there are probably millions of people that make their only bet of the year on it.

Though you see these alleged pros (more like touts and stupid poker players) making million dollar bets on the side or ml every year. I think they all had indy ml last year. Whoops.
 
As far as the ML conversion goes, the neutrality of the site may have something to do with it as well. Even though home/away conversions are nearly identical. Just a hunch though. There really isn't enough data to make a confident argument one way or the other.
 
Daft
Maybe I worded it poorly but I never intended to suggest that there are sharps out there who don't play a NFL total or side all year and then hammer the Super Bowl. I was more curious if anyone noticed that Super Bowl sides tended to be fruitful historically because the influx of recreational $ coming in.
Click to expand...

It's really hard to say one way or the other honestly. However, from a market perspective, you have to take the opinion that more volume would lead to greater efficiency. You still have the typical imbalance (simply exaggerated) in the amount of money that recreational players wager versus the amount that professional handicappers are able to wager. It's not unlike any other market in that respect.
 
I thought the pending preseason futures were the reason for the ML and spread being off slightly.... I thought that was the deal with Arizona when they were in the super bowl... their preseason odds to win the superbowl were crazy
 
I had won every Super Bowl since 2006 until last year. Interesting topic, though I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said.

Daft, assuming recreational money isn't much why would it matter? I mean volume moves a line as opposed to amounts of wagers, right? Also doesn't this money come in later...most recreational bettors would tend to make a wager closer to the game. So I always thought the strategy of figuring what the public will like and betting against it early made some sense.
 
From "Weighing The Odds In Sports Betting" by King Yao

Super Bowl lines can be inefficient because of the ratio of square bettors' money to sharp bettors' money is high. Many square bettors come out of the woodwork to bet on the Super Bowl. Meanwhile, the number of sharp bettors stays the same whether it is the middle of the season or the Super Bowl. Super Bowl lines are likely to be less effiicient than regular-season lines.
Click to expand...

I knew I had read this somewhere but I couldn't remember where until last night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.