Week 2 lines that make no sense (from public POV)

5

53percent

Pretty much a regular
1. UNLV +10 .. Minnesota smoked this team. They looked pitiful. Arizona is middle of the pack P12 team. Minnesota was -17. Arizona is only giving 10? I have to think Joey P. will be all over Arizona here.

2. Illinois +7.5 .. Cincinnati obliterated Purdue. Meanwhile, Illinois lost ATS to an FCS school. Yet UC is favored by a FG less than they were against Purdue. Imagine Cincinnati gets backed HUGE by the public.

3. Oregon St -27 .. Hawaii was +21 to USC and covered. Oregon St lost to FCS school. Now Oregon St is favored by nearly a TD more than USC was? Looking for the public to fade the Beavers.

4. Kent St +7 .. Bowling Green was a favorite to Tulsa in week 1, a position that already had the public baffled as they backed the Golden Hurricane to the tune of a 24 pt loss ATS. Kent St failed to cover -20 against FCS Liberty. Now the public will come back on the team that burned them game 1 and jump on the Falcons.

5. BYU +7 .. Texas steam rolled NMSU. Gave up the first TD and then scored 50+ straight to cover and go over the total. BYU caught in a severe weather delay ends up losing at Virginia in a game that saw a lot of line movement. Needless to say the public has no good will toward BYU and will see no reason why Texas won't win by 3 TDs


Not necessarily playing all of these, but it's an angle I like to consider. These are my top 5 lines that I think will have the average bettor licking their chops....so we will see as we get closer to KO what happens with %s and movement.
 
Last edited:
I like the angle. Like another thread somebody posted on here sometime over the summer, this reminds me of "The Tootsie Roll Sucker Bet of the Week" threads.

GL :shake:
 
53percent said:
1. UNLV +10 .. Minnesota smoked this team. They looked pitiful. Arizona is middle of the pack P12 team. Minnesota was -17. Arizona is only giving 10? I have to think Joey P. will be all over Arizona here.

2. Illinois +7.5 .. Cincinnati obliterated Purdue. Meanwhile, Illinois lost to an FCS school. Yet UC is favored by a FG less than they were against Purdue. Imagine Cincinnati gets backed HUGE by the public.

3. Oregon St -27 .. Hawaii was +21 to USC and covered. Oregon St lost to FCS school. Now Oregon St is favored by nearly a TD more than USC was? Looking for the public to fade the Beavers.

4. Kent St +7 .. Bowling Green was a favorite to Tulsa in week 1, a position that already had the public baffled as they backed the Golden Hurricane to the tune of a 24 pt loss ATS. Kent St failed to cover -20 against FCS Liberty. Now the public will come back on the team that burned them game 1 and jump on the Falcons.

5. BYU +7 .. Texas steam rolled NMSU. Gave up the first TD and then scored 50+ straight to cover and go over the total. BYU caught in a severe weather delay ends up losing at Virginia in a game that saw a lot of line movement. Needless to say the public has no good will toward BYU and will see no reason why Texas won't win by 3 TDs


Not necessarily playing all of these, but it's an angle I like to consider. These are my top 5 lines that I think will have the average bettor licking their chops....so we will see as we get closer to KO what happens with %s and movement.
Click to expand...

Already signed up for that one. If they are fishing, they caught me, hook, line, and sinker. Got a bad number on it too.
 
i just laugh when people try to break shit down from a "public" POV

who exactly is the public? it's usually the people trying to figure out the public's POV

gl this weekend however
 
kjohnson109 said:
i just laugh when people try to break shit down from a "public" POV

who exactly is the public? it's usually the people trying to figure out the public's POV

gl this weekend however
Click to expand...
We're all the public in some fashion. Change it out for the casual bettor if you prefer. The ones who limit their knowledge to major outlets and coverage only. If you know the Texas State 2 deep by memory you probably aren't in this group.. IMO..

People whose process includes the transitive property. Team A won by X over Team B and now play Team C who lost to Team D or even better Team B by X and so we know Team A will win and cover.
 
We've done these lines that don't make sense at first glance here in the past. There is typically a lot to be learned from them and they're interesting to follow over the course of the year. Hope you start this weekly
 
Schrute said:
We've done these lines that don't make sense at first glance here in the past. There is typically a lot to be learned from them and they're interesting to follow over the course of the year. Hope you start this weekly
Click to expand...

Thanks. And I plan to do so.
 
easiest angle out there, be curious to see when you think the "public" side is correct

or to keep it simple, when is the linesmaker wrong? it happens a ton
 
While I like the premise of the thread, you make a few blanket statements that are incorrect.

1. Minnesota did not smoke UNLV in any way other than the scoreboard.
2. Illinois did not lose to an FCS club


If sharp money means anything .. you go three and two which is awesome. Illinois took smart money as did unlv. However, BG took sharp money as did Texas. Good luck .. will be interesting to see what the public bets come Saturday.

Three biggest sucker games last week were ville, bama and fsu... all three covered.
 
kjohnson109 said:
easiest angle out there, be curious to see when you think the "public" side is correct

or to keep it simple, when is the linesmaker wrong? it happens a ton
Click to expand...
Easiest angle out there? I would think "all home under dogs" would be a much easier one. As an example.

Also, somehow you've turned this into a straight fade of every "public" play and it isn't that.

And what do you mean by lines makers are wrong? Like any time the margin is different than the line because that happens all the time or that an underdog wins SU or what? So you'll have to clarify what you mean before I can answer that as to my opinion.
 
VK said:
While I like the premise of the thread, you make a few blanket statements that are incorrect.

1. Minnesota did not smoke UNLV in any way other than the scoreboard.
2. Illinois did not lose to an FCS club


If sharp money means anything .. you go three and two which is awesome. Illinois took smart money as did unlv. However, BG took sharp money as did Texas. Good luck .. will be interesting to see what the public bets come Saturday.

Three biggest sucker games last week were ville, bama and fsu... all three covered.
Click to expand...
Oh sorry, they came back to win...

And your 1 point is exactly why YOU might not see the week 2 line as far off as people who only look at scores will .. You think this goes against what I'm saying but is the very heart of the matter.

I would also surmise that Louisville giving 3 TDs was not a sucker bet .. Iowa was much more so and lost outright. Kansas St -14 to NDSU was easily more in line with the theme of this thread than Louisville..
 
And your 1 point is exactly why YOU might not see the week 2 line as far off as people who only look at scores will .. You think this goes against what I'm saying but is the very heart of the matter.
Click to expand...

True enough.
 
VK said:
True enough.
Click to expand...

And how about some disclosure here . Would you have replied had 4/5 of the plays not been on your list of week 2 plays/leans?

Anyway I welcome the discussion and look forward to more of it. This is one guy who can admit when he's wrong, laugh at himself and argue anything haha..
 
you might mean well but i'm expecting a pie chart showing us that 76% are on cinci right now, and we've gone that route too much around here

would rather hear about why cincy is incorrect, or why the 7.5 is only because they are gonna win by 21+

this whole joe public angle has been played out forever and a day, everyone gets it, just want to go a bit deeper. i honestly love it when books can't make a number high enough and it suckers in the contrarians...
 
kjohnson109 said:
you might mean well but i'm expecting a pie chart showing us that 76% are on cinci right now, and we've gone that route too much around here

would rather hear about why cincy is incorrect, or why the 7.5 is only because they are gonna win by 21+

this whole joe public angle has been played out forever and a day, everyone gets it, just want to go a bit deeper. i honestly love it when books can't make a number high enough and it suckers in the contrarians...
Click to expand...

Mmm pie......

If you notice I said its an angle I look at.. Don't look at it if you don't care about it.... As I lock in plays you will see much more analysis and Cincy might not make the cut....you're kind of jumping the gun as its only Tuesday.
 
Like the thread personally, for the discussion aspects for sure. The "public" thing gets argued here til infinity...either way, I am gonna read this thread and those like it

To me this matters much more in Football pro and cfb....at least I like to see it at least
 
i don't care about cincinnati, it was only an example, not to be mistaken as some great play

hope u get my point, u might have a ton to offer...

gl
 
53percent said:
And how about some disclosure here . Would you have replied had 4/5 of the plays not been on your list of week 2 plays/leans?

Anyway I welcome the discussion and look forward to more of it. This is one guy who can admit when he's wrong, laugh at himself and argue anything haha..
Click to expand...

Heh. I dunno.. I am one of the most prolific posters in the history of the site so I pretty much reply to anything that catches my fancy. But I happen to know where sharp money goes early and that is more important to me than knowing where the public is going later. I was pointing out you have the sharps on three of the five you mentioned...including one where I am opposite of the sharps. I pretty much just say whatever I want, whenever I want and could give two shits about what anyone thinks about it anymore.

I think you have the Illinois week 1 game mixed up with a different game, not that it matters much. They trailed 7-3 early but were mashing by halftime and then held on late ( barely ). your point is just as valid with Illinois' performance winning by 8 on a goal line stand as it would be if they had lost.

Have a good year, I think you took my post as an assault when it was far from it.
 
I don't necessarily buy into the "fade the public" strategy, because a lot of times, the public wins, as evidenced by FSU, Bama, etc. I pay close attention to when a line looks fishy, as in, Team A should be favored by much more than they are, oftentimes to my detriment. Certainly a worthy topic and I will read and discuss
 
After my first run through the lines, it's shaping up to be a card of mostly favorites, big ones at that. Very "public." Maybe I'll throw in some overs as well
 
What about the Kansas State -14 made that line fishy? And I ask the same question about Louisville.
 
53percent said:
1. UNLV +10 .. Minnesota smoked this team. They looked pitiful. Arizona is middle of the pack P12 team. Minnesota was -17. Arizona is only giving 10? I have to think Joey P. will be all over Arizona here.

UNLV's improvement last year was not readily apparent. But it was significant. Biggest home/away disparity of any team these days.

2. Illinois +7.5 .. Cincinnati obliterated Purdue. Meanwhile, Illinois lost ATS to an FCS school. Yet UC is favored by a FG less than they were against Purdue. Imagine Cincinnati gets backed HUGE by the public.

Tried-and-true angle supports Illinois. 58% on hundreds of plays over the last 30+ years, despite oddsmakers accounting for the angle, as they have obviously done in this case where the line is clearly off from the power-rating differential.

3. Oregon St -27 .. Hawaii was +21 to USC and covered. Oregon St lost to FCS school. Now Oregon St is favored by nearly a TD more than USC was? Looking for the public to fade the Beavers.

Hawaii is clearly the right side.

4. Kent St +7 .. Bowling Green was a favorite to Tulsa in week 1, a position that already had the public baffled as they backed the Golden Hurricane to the tune of a 24 pt loss ATS. Kent St failed to cover -20 against FCS Liberty. Now the public will come back on the team that burned them game 1 and jump on the Falcons.

5. BYU +7 .. Texas steam rolled NMSU. Gave up the first TD and then scored 50+ straight to cover and go over the total. BYU caught in a severe weather delay ends up losing at Virginia in a game that saw a lot of line movement. Needless to say the public has no good will toward BYU and will see no reason why Texas won't win by 3 TD


Not necessarily playing all of these, but it's an angle I like to consider. These are my top 5 lines that I think will have the average bettor licking their chops....so we will see as we get closer to KO what happens with %s and movement.
Click to expand...

see above
 
Dollaz said:
What about the Kansas State -14 made that line fishy? And I ask the same question about Louisville.
Click to expand...

Depends on the amount of credit you give to the average dude placing bets.

Most will see a team that competed for BCS title hopes against a team from a lower division.. Only giving 14..
 
53percent said:
Depends on the amount of credit you give to the average dude placing bets.

Most will see a team that competed for BCS title hopes against a team from a lower division.. Only giving 14..
Click to expand...

I don't think you can discount the fact that the "average" bettor is armed with so much more information and knowledge than a decade ago with the proliferation of the internet and sites just like this one. I'm sure in the 90's, lines in the NFL were so skewed toward the favorite and over, knowing that the "public" would keep betting those sides, that blindly betting dogs and unders would turn a profit. Now, the average gambler with an iPhone can read page after page of analysis and strategy for free while taking a shit at work.
 
53percent said:
Depends on the amount of credit you give to the average dude placing bets.

Most will see a team that competed for BCS title hopes against a team from a lower division.. Only giving 14..
Click to expand...


But, they see K-State lost QB.
 
I read this thread and laughed a little. Each week I look at the lines and without thinking of anything I've read or seen, I pick them teams I think will cover. I then take a serious look at the other side, and sometimes I bet the first thought side, but most of the time end up betting the side I thought was a "sure loser" on first glance. Last week my first thoughts were USC, Miami, Kansas State, Florida, Notre Dame, Bama, Michigan, Oklahoma and Boise. Colorado State was on the list, but only because my thoughts on my Buffs were so bad :)

This week, for me, the games would be ECU, Penn State, Houston, Cincy, Okie St, Ohio State, Oregon, Texas, Michigan. Again, I'll look at the other side and most likely play it - my guess is that those plays go 4-5, maybe 3-6.

I think this is also what 53 is referring to when he says "public" plays. I feel the average bettor that doesn't research anything and doesn't read forums (such as CTG) will tend to pick teams that did well the week before, are nationally televised often and against teams that played poorly the week before or are unknown.
 
Just fade public underdogs that have more than 65% and you'll be up a lot at the end of the year. Doesn't happen too often though.
 
That's been iceman's usual thread but I guess he doesn't start doing it right away.... I don't blindly do it though but I'll post a thread later in the week
 
One thing in common with all the teams you list--Minnesota, Texas, Cincinnati, and Hawaii were all at home last week, are all on the road this week.

I have heard that "fade the public" theory for years, but I don't know anyone who makes any money with it.

If you have that 10% juice that sportsbooks have you can do it, but the fact is that the public is very well educated these days and they do just about as well as the guys who pose as experts.

I went down to Vegas for two football seasons just to see if there was any advantage in being in the middle of all that so-called "information." All I found was a bunch of guys scrambling to pay their rent, trying to sell picks to the public, claiming to know what the "sharps" were doing, and advising everyone to bet against the public.

Here is the bottom line. In the Cantor Sports Book Handicapping contest in 2013--the one place where all these experts have to make their picks public--every contestant except one finished below .500. And the winner, the one guy over .500, was from San Diego, not Vegas.

And those same guys who were all below .500 were all over the internet claiming to be winning more than 60% of their picks so send in the money now for the latest lock.
 
The bigger point of these games is about the line being off from where a casual bettor would assume it, not necessarily the sheer number of people betting it.

Duke is a bigger public play than any of these, and I'm not listing it here....

This is simply games that I have identified as having lines "too good to be true".....somehow this has turned into a straight fade of the public
 
53percent said:
The bigger point of these games is about the line being off from where a casual bettor would assume it, not necessarily the sheer number of people betting it.

Duke is a bigger public play than any of these, and I'm not listing it here....

This is simply games that I have identified as having lines "too good to be true".....somehow this has turned into a straight fade of the public
Click to expand...

This is how I read it originally. I think some people saw 'public' and got a different idea.
Gl this season
 
Great thread. Hope you continue to do this every week.


I'm on the BYU Cougars ML +255 for Saturday
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B.A.R.
Week #1 Discussion
Replies
31
Views
1K
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
bookieassassin
WEEK 5
Replies
30
Views
2K
bookieassassin
bookieassassin
R
Saturday's College Football bets:
Replies
1
Views
224
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
bookieassassin
WEEK 10
Replies
31
Views
2K
HUNT
HUNT
bookieassassin
WEEK 3
Replies
32
Views
2K
bookieassassin
bookieassassin
Back
Top