Wdenvernuggets Basketball Betting News

<< Blackhawks limp into Honda Center to battle Ducks
(Sportsbook Betting Lines) - Chicago has had a hard enough time picking up victories in Anaheim without having injuries to worry about. Nonetheless, the Blackhawks could be without as many as four key skaters tonight when they visit the Honda Center to t

<< Avs attempt to extend win streak over Flames
(Sportsbook Betting Lines) - The Colorado Avalanche will try for their fourth straight win overall as well as their seventh victory in a row over the Calgary Flames tonight when the two teams clash at Pepsi Center. The Avalanche's current winning stre

<< Devils try to extend domination of Penguins
(Sportsbook Betting Lines) - A huge battle in the Atlantic Division race is on tap tonight in Newark, pitting the host New Jersey Devils against the Pittsburgh Penguins at Prudential Center. The Penguins, of course, are the defending Stanley Cup champ

<< Red Sox prospect Westmoreland has successful surgery
Fort Myers, FL (Sportsbook Betting Lines) - Boston Red Sox prospect Ryan Westmoreland had successful brain surgery Tuesday. The procedure, which lasted five hours, removed a cavernous malformation that was diagnosed earlier this month after he ex

Spurs finish Florida trip in Orlando >>
(Sportsbook Betting Lines) - An intriguing interconference matchup is on tap tonight in central Florida, where the San Antonio Spurs take on the playoff-bound Orlando Magic at Amway Arena. San Antonio is still trying to solidify a postseason spot in t

Basement brawl: Woeful Nets visit lowly Sixers >>
(Sportsbook Betting Lines) - The bottom two teams of the Atlantic Division will go head- to-head for the final time of the 2009-10 campaign this evening at the Wachovia Center, where the homestanding 76ers aim for a season sweep of the dismal

Reeling Bulls visit powerhouse Mavs >>
(Sportsbook Betting Lines) - The Chicago Bulls have picked a bad time to start playing poorly and their chances of ending an eight-game slide don't look so promising with tonight's road matchup against the Dallas Mavericks. The Bulls have also dropped

Road-weary Pacers try to fix issues in Cleveland >>
(Sportsbook Betting Lines) - An Indiana Pacers team that's had its share of troubles on the road will face another tough challenge in tonight's visit to Quicken Loans Arena for a bout with the NBA-best Cleveland Cavaliers. The Pacers have lost eigh

Sportsbooks to bet on football

Recently I had an email debate with an angry reader who said I did not understand "the science of oddsmaking", as he called it.

He said I was wrong for suggesting oddsmakers care about who wins or loses games.

"Oddsmakers only care about splitting the betting public 50/50 on both sides of the line and keeping the commission (a.k.a. juice)," he wrote.

He might have been right about not understanding "the science of oddsmaking". After all, I'm not an oddsmaker. That said, I stick to my assertion that oddsmakers (a.k.a. sportbooks) often do care about who wins games.

Granted, as a general rule, sportsbooks try to balance their action so that they're not exposed to big losses. However, there are times when this is difficult to pull off, regardless of how much a line has moved. There are also times when that general rule is ignored and a book pursues risk.

Generally speaking, it's safe to say the books in Vegas are risk-adverse. Unlike in the past when the wise guys ruled the town, Vegas is now corporate and the goal of most casinos is to make as much money as possible with as little risk as possible.

Thus, Vegas sportsbooks try everything in their power to balance the action. They're satisfied simply collecting the juice. But these profits are small, especially compared to the take from other casino games, namely slot machines.

Because the profits at Vegas sportsbooks are so small, you could argue that many casinos operate sportsbooks simply as a novelty to keep the tourists happy.

With a growing aversion to risk, it should come as no surprise that Vegas bookmakers have been panicking this NFL season.

Despite huge pointspreads, a disproportionate percentage of bettors are still laying their money on favorites like the Eagles, Colts, Pats and Vikings rather than the dogs (a common trend for the largely recreational bettors that visit Vegas).

And much to the dismay of the books, those favorites are finding ways to cover the thick chalk. In fact, prior to Week 7, the four teams listed above are a combined 16-2-2 (88 percent) against the spread. (The tables turned dramatically in Week 7, but more on that later.)

The result has been an early-season beating for the books, and a bonanza for bettors.

While Vegas increasingly hates risk, it's no longer a major player in the sports betting world. Most of the betting action now takes place offshore where sportsbooks are not as obsessed about balance. In fact, some books encourage exposure to risk because the rewards can be so much bigger.

Consider MySportsbook.com. On its website, the book has odds pages which actually display the amount of action it's getting on games. In other words, you can see how much action the book is taking on both sides of a pointspread, moneyline or over/under.

One look at these numbers and it's obvious MySportsbook.com does not balance every game. In fact, far from it.

Take last weekend's matchup between St. Louis and Miami. By game time on Sunday, 83 percent of the betting action at MySportsbook.com was on the Rams; only 17 percent was on Miami.

What's interesting is that MySportsbook.com opened the pointspread with Miami at +6 1/2. By game time, the spread had lowered to +5.

That goes contrary to the balancing theory. If MySportsbook.com had wanted to balance the action, it would have given Miami more points; instead, it took away 1 1/2. World Series odds are now up as well.

MySportsbook.com exposed itself to even more to risk, and rolled the dice on the underdog Dolphins. Why? I contacted a representative with the book to find out. His answer was simple.

"The line moved early based on 'smart money' from sharp players," said Jeff Gilroy, a spokesperson for the book. "We also knew from early in the week that we would need Miami, therefore (we dropped) the spread to encourage Rams money.

"At the end of the day, we liked the home team."

So the conclusion is this: MySportsbook.com respected the sharp action, and gambled that the sharp bettors had a better take on the game than the recreational bettors, who were hammering the visiting Rams.

In the end, the gamble paid off. Miami, desperate for a win in front of its home fans, pounded the overrated Rams, who are terrible on the road and even worse on grass. Final score: 31-14 Fish.

MySportsbook.com was also heavily exposed on numerous favorites in Week 7, including Philadelphia, Seattle and Denver. All three failed to cover.

The fact that sportsbooks are exposed to risk on certain games is really nothing new. The fact, that Sportsbook.com is willing to show the public where it's exposed is intriguing.

Armed with this type of information, bettors can make more educated wagers. They can get an idea where the sharp money is going and conversely where the public money is headed.

MySportsbook.com is opening up its cashbox, letting bettors look inside and challenging them to take their best shot at grabbing the cash.

To visit this online football betting got to MySportsbook.com for all your football betting odds needs. Mysportsbook.com online sportsbook accepts Visa and Mastercard credit cards.

How did changes to college football betting rules affect bettors?

The 2007 college football rules changes that were implemented to shorten games are now history. The NCAA rules committee did what they set out to do; games were cut by an average of 14 minutes per game last season. There were also, on average, 14 fewer plays per game. We’ll get into how that did (or didn’t) affect games in regards to the pointspread a bit later.

While the NCAA rules committee may have had the betterment of the game in mind, they'll now “turn back the clock” for next season. Two key rules have now been overturned by the NCAA committee for the 2007 season, something definitely for the better.

For those of you who may not remember what those rules actually were, let us refresh your memory.

1) The first one was actually starting the clock on a kickoff as soon as the kicker touched the ball rather than waiting until the returner touched it. The problem here was near the end of the half (or game), if the team leading was kicking off, they could milk the clock by intentionally running offsides and then re-kicking. They could run 10-15 seconds off the clock each play while taking just five-yard penalties each time. They could run the clock down and simply cause the half (or game) to end on a kickoff, keeping the opposing offense off the field. In 2007, the clock will now start when the returner touches the ball as it had before last season.

2) The second rule dealt with starting the clock after a change of online football betting possession rather than waiting until the ball was snapped. This took a lot of time off the clock throughout the game as teams changed possession, however it caused the most problems late in games (or halves). Rather than huddling up and calling a play, the offensive team would have to rush onto the field as the clock started. This was a definite disadvantage to a team that was trying to come from behind late in the game. This year the clock will start on a change of possession, after the ball is snapped.

How did those rules affect the college game last year and will it make a difference this year when it comes to the pointspread? We commonly heard two theories when it came to these changes. First, it would affect scoring negatively. Second, it would hurt favorites as they would have less time and fewer plays to cover the number.

Did the rules hurt scoring? Yes. It seemed obvious that shortening the game by what amounted to 14 plays would push scoring downward. That was the case last year. Of the 119 Division 1A teams, 69 squads scored fewer points in 2007 than they did in 2005. Just 48 teams had a higher PPG scoring average and two stayed the same. Almost 59 percent of the teams in college football last year had a lower PPG average than they did in 2005. Expect more scoring in 2007 as we revert back to the old rules.

Did the rules hinder favorites from covering the number in 2007? Not really. Last year the favorites posted an overall spread record of 336-350-16 (48.9 percent). The year before, favorites were 316-326-13 (49.2 percent). In 2004, the favorites were 316-339-2 (48.2 percent). In fact, college football favorites have been above 50 percent for the season just once in the last seven years (in 2003). Last year’s numbers fell right in line with where they have been historically.

How about big favorites? The rules must have hurt them? Maybe a little bit. Double-digit favorites last year came in at a 47.8 percent clip compare with an average of just over 50 percent over the last seven years. Since 1980, favorites of -10 or more have covered at exactly a 50 percent clip (measured over 6,716 games).

Even bigger favorites must have struggled? Not really. In fact, it was just the opposite. Favorites of three TD’s or more were 59-54-2 last year (52.2 percent). Since 2000, those same favorites (-21 or higher) hit at 51.3 percent and since 1990 came in a clip of 50.3 percent. Stepping it up a notch to four TD favorites or higher, we actually see they've covered at a much better rate last season than before. Last year, favorites of -28 or more were 31-21-1, or almost 60 percent. Historically, four-TD-or-higher favorites have come in at a 50.7 percent spot since 2000 and only 48.9 percent since 1990. The “perceived” problem with the favorites covering at a reduced rate really never came to fruition.

Bottom line is, there might be some more scoring in 2007, but no real revelations when it comes to finding any pointspread golden nuggets.

To visit this online sportsbook got to MySportsbook.com for all your bet on college football needs. Mysportsbook.com online sportsbook accepts Visa and Mastercard credit cards.