Started By
Message
re: How about a real line for the Bama-LSU Game? (Spoiler Alert: It's not +17)
Posted on 10/31/13 at 1:37 pm to bamafan425
Posted on 10/31/13 at 1:37 pm to bamafan425
The money moved because of the early 17 point line. And apparently moved a lot. What do the books seem to know that we don't? 
1
Posted on 10/31/13 at 2:05 pm to bamafan425
LSU and Alabama have played mostly very close games over the past 8 or so years, even when you would expect one side to dominate.
All signs point to be being a slugfest, I'd say Alabama 7-10 is a fair line.
All signs point to be being a slugfest, I'd say Alabama 7-10 is a fair line.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 2:07 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
There was never a bettable line for Bama -17. Money had nothing to do with this 'move'.
That line was calculated using a power ranking system that Vegas uses, however it is not an absolute and Vegas often has different lines than the power rankings indicate.
That line was calculated using a power ranking system that Vegas uses, however it is not an absolute and Vegas often has different lines than the power rankings indicate.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 2:07 pm to parkjas2001
quote:
So you covered 5 and did not 3...like I said, Bama has had trouble covering all year.
Do you understand how lines work?
A given team should cover 50% of the time and will cover 50% of the time over the long run.
That's EVERY team.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 4:20 pm to bamafan425
You're right, I never saw a "bettable" line at 17 either, saw one at 14 1/2 early if I recall. It seems the strength ratings ought to give 9 or 10 points straight up and 3 for Bryant Denny. So even the move from 14 1/2 15 to 12 seems larger than it should without some influence by early betting. Vegas should be a little worried about Bama not covering or being upset considering last week's SEC blood letting. Holding a line above 10 makes me ask what do the Books know?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News