Pinnacle Pulse: Sharps all over Carolina

[Ethan G]

According to the latest Pinnacle Pulse article all the sharp money is on Carolina, while the public is all over the Giants.

Many cappers on this forum favor the Giants, so just wondering why there seems to be such a huge difference of opinion.

Would Pinnacle have any reason to write a purposefully inaccurate article on the flow of sharp money?

Trying not to be square, thanks,

Ethan

[DMBFan23]

will I get flamed if I ask what "sharp money" is?

I mostly post about cards so I dont know your jive lingo /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ethan G]

Sharps = professional/smart bettors

Love the Avatar!!

Ethan

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
According to the latest Pinnacle Pulse article all the sharp money is on Carolina, while the public is all over the Giants.

Many cappers on this forum favor the Giants, so just wondering why there seems to be such a huge difference of opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

If there's one thing I've learned from Natedogg's BSP thread and the 3+1 challenge is that most cappers here (myself included) are struggling through handicapping like the rest of the public. While there are a few of us who analyze the games a lot more, most of us don't put THAT much more thought into the games than the public.

For the record, the side I'm on in this game is the UNDER.

[vilemerchant]

So why on earth would pinnacle want to announce to the public what all the 'sharp' tips are? Somehow I don't think they want to turn everyone into winning bettors, so perhaps this article isn't necessarily accurate?

[sygamel]

[ QUOTE ]
So why on earth would pinnacle want to announce to the public what all the 'sharp' tips are? Somehow I don't think they want to turn everyone into winning bettors, so perhaps this article isn't necessarily accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped paying attention to these Pinnacle Pulse's when they claimed they were receiving all sorts of sharp action on a favorite straight up when it was obvious the game was raised to a spread of 9 to reduce teasing action on that team.

[PropPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
So why on earth would pinnacle want to announce to the public what all the 'sharp' tips are? Somehow I don't think they want to turn everyone into winning bettors, so perhaps this article isn't necessarily accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Gambling Nature.. 99%+ can't stop betting no matter how much they win and will continue to bet till they loose more than they can afford to.
Sure there are pleanty of us who are disciplined but its not the case for maybe 1 out of every 250 or so*total guess on that number* My point is that in the long run the well funded sharp book won't loose.
I worked with a bookie 1999-2002 with over 400 clients that had placed 10 bets or more. He had exactly one overall winner during that time.

[homedog]

I don't know about pinnacle but I think Carolina is the trap play here. Giants are 9-1 at home. At worst they're a coinflip. Giving 2.5 is a gift.

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about pinnacle but I think Carolina is the trap play here. Giants are 9-1 at home. At worst they're a coinflip. Giving 2.5 is a gift.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am determined to get a proven definition of "trap play" or "trap game". What do you mean?

craig

[Ethan G]

The reason I brought this topic up is the last time I recall Pinnacle making this kind of statement was Indy vs. Pats.

The sharps were on Indy. I was on the Pats.

Thanks for the responses,
Ethan

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
don't know about pinnacle but I think Carolina is the trap play here. Giants are 9-1 at home. At worst they're a coinflip. Giving 2.5 is a gift.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no gifts in the NFL. If the oddsmaker felt that the Jints 8-1 home record was a substantial factor the line would be higher. That it's less than the standard 3 should make you think.

I like the Panthers to win this game outright. They've looked pretty bad at times this year for sure but when they show up they are well balanced and solid on both sides of the ball. I can't imagine Fox doesn't have them focused for a playoff game.

[homedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about pinnacle but I think Carolina is the trap play here. Giants are 9-1 at home. At worst they're a coinflip. Giving 2.5 is a gift.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am determined to get a proven definition of "trap play" or "trap game". What do you mean?

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

My personal definition of a trap game is a game that looks too good at first glance. Panthers seem like the obvious pick to me. They have the more recent Super Bowl experience. John Fox knows the Giants. Among my gambling friends, most are taking Carolina. But I think it's a trap. Although I guess we'll see after Sunday which side was the trap.

[stickman]

Dont forget, all NY teams are bet heavy ,especially in the playoffs. Therefore the lines makers adjust the line for that.

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
Although I guess we'll see after Sunday which side was the trap.

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter what the result, you will not see that.

craig

[Caldarooni]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I guess we'll see after Sunday which side was the trap.

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter what the result, you will not see that.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Craig you just don't get it. And that is why you will fall for the trap.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh. Craig you just don't get it. And that is why you will fall for the trap.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh. Craig you just don't get it. And that is why you will fall for the trap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there anyting I can do to avoid the "trap"? I really don't want to fall for it.

In all seriousness, I ask all the time "what is a trap"? When the "trap" side loses I don't get a response and when the trap side wins, we are told "I told you it was a trap." My guess is that "traps" don't exist. But, the burden of proof is not on me, but on those who claim there is a "trap". Almost everything in sports betting can be quantified (just like with baseball), yet can the "trap concept" be quantified?

craig

[homedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I guess we'll see after Sunday which side was the trap.

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter what the result, you will not see that.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't fall in that Carolina trap Craig.

[TWolf2006]

Go Carolina.

[vilemerchant]

http://cartoonme.net/images/bonus_stuff/wallpapers-1024x768/wallpaper-admiral_ackbar.jpg

[ZeroGravitas]

Carolina + Road = Suck.

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
Carolina + Road = 6-2

[/ QUOTE ]


FYP

[Ethan G]

Thank you, pulse!!

Ethan

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about pinnacle but I think Carolina is the trap play here. Giants are 9-1 at home. At worst they're a coinflip. Giving 2.5 is a gift.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am determined to get a proven definition of "trap play" or "trap game". What do you mean?

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a 'trap game' is where the casino/book actually has a strong view on the game, and tries to get the public to take the other side by taking the other side, occasionally with a 'suspicious-looking' line, --according to the general public that is. Of course, the public doesn't know which lines the book has a view on and which they don't. So they try to guess on lines they can't figure out.
Some squares might guess that NYG-2.5 was the 'trap line' trying to entice bettors into taking the 8-1 at home Jints over a better Panther team. Or maybe Cinci +2.5 is the 'trap game' this week, I have no idea if the books have a strong view on any of these, but if I had to guess I'd say they were trying to get more public action on NYG this week, if anyone.

Naj

[shamu]

Craig,

I think Najdorf basically hit it but I think some extra points need to be made. A trap game is a game where the book knows that the public will be all over one team for a certain game. This can be for several reasons, but usually it's because that team has been very successful in the recent past (ie last few games, or dominated the last time the two teams played). However, that book also feels that that team may not be the right side because of certain other factors that the public overlooks (usually home/road splits, fatigue, motivation, etc). They will therefore set a line that makes the publicly favored team more attractive. Usually for football, the line will give you an extra hook, whether it's -2.5 or -6.5 or +3.5 or +7.5. You can often identify a trap when most of the money comes in on one side, yet the line doesn't move.

Keep in mind this is only my opinion. It's debatable whether books ever intentionally try to trap people or not or whether they are just correctly setting/adjusting the line based on recent performance (ie if you've won 5 in a row, then you should be the favorite over a team that has lost 5 in a row). I do feel that the term is thrown around way too much, but my personal feeling is that it does exist. A recent example that comes to mind is Denver -1 @ KC. I'll try to point out future games that I think fall under this definition for better clarification.

[Easy E]

Maybe the cappers who label a game a "trap game" should be required to post what the actual line should be in their mind.

That way, the "trap" advocates could be judged on actual results... if that isn't too short-term subjective.

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
You can often identify a trap when most of the money comes in on one side, yet the line doesn't move.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between "most of the money coming in on one side" and "most of the people betting one side". The public, which is the majority, may like a certain side and be betting it, but that doesn't mean the "pros", a minority group, are not betting more money on the other side of the game. Hence, this could be one reason why the line doesn't move. I think a lot of people on this board, and others, look at wagerline and think that is where all the money is going to on a certain game. This might not be the case. This is just where individuals are putting their money.

Also, I was being sarcastic when I asked what a "trap" was. I know what people think a trap is, but I am not certain that they exist. I am not saying that the books don't take a certain position on games, because they most certainly do, but, this in itself is not a trap. My guess is, that games that people call a trap land on either side about 50% of the time; just like other games.

And even if there is such a thing as "trap" games, they are most likely highly over valued. A good comparison would be clutch hitting in baseball. It may or may not exist (since it isn't proveable), but for those who think it does exist they generally over value it much more than they should.

Another note about "trap" games; if one looks at a line and sees that it is way off, there is probably a reason for that. For example, when I saw the NE/DEN line, I thought it would be higher than -3 DEN. Now, some would think that DEN must be a trap, but there is most likely something I am, and they are, missing.

craig

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the cappers who label a game a "trap game" should be required to post what the actual line should be in their mind.

That way, the "trap" advocates could be judged on actual results... if that isn't too short-term subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too short term subjective? Hell no! I think this board would be much better with some accountability. The people that come in here and scream "lock" should apologize /images/graemlins/smile.gif . I am half-way joking.

craig

[Caldarooni]

Craig,

I jumped all over Denver when I saw the line.

Trapped again,

Calda

[NoChance]

I jumped on Denver too. I think they are the better team and on top of that you can add about 4 points for home field advantage in Denver. I simply think the line is low because Vegas knows it takes in a LOT of Patriot bets. Value on Denver IMO.

In my mind = Denver -6.5 is more accurate. (Then again, my mind is probably messed up /images/graemlins/blush.gif )

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
In my mind = Denver -6.5 is more accurate. (Then again, my mind is probably messed up )

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right about this(on both counts /images/graemlins/smile.gif). Denver dominated this matchup when they played earlier this year.

I think this line is only -3 for two reasons:
1- NE has been getting stronger each week.
2- Public perception and past history of NE's playoff success. If this line opened at 6.5 the line to bet NE would stretch around the block. So even if that's the correct line the books are put into a very unbalanced situation. Which at times they don't mind, to be sure. But against NE it may not be such a good idea because seriously, can you really count this team out?

[shamu]

I said I would post when I noticed anything, so here we go. I see two trap lines today, both in college bball, Wisc -1 and NC -1. Both teams coming off huge wins and both home teams coming off losses. The linesmakers set the lines at -1, trying to make it look real easy to bet NC and Wisc, who seem like they should roll easily. But my money's going on the home dogs tonight. Line should probably be closer to -2-3 for each game.

[shamu]

Oops, looks like Min actually opened as fav but Wisc was bet up. Still doesn't change any of my bets.

[craig]

You are not understanding, or maybe I am not, but these aren't traps. The linemakers are interested in making a profit. If they can set a line that will attract money on a bad bet why wouldn't they do that? That is their job.

Bowman's is a perfect example of this. Their "square" lines are sometimes 1-1.5 points worse for fav backers. It isn't a trap, it is a way to get the players who aren't knowledgeable to place an even more -EV bet.

craig

[shamu]

[ QUOTE ]
If they can set a line that will attract money on a bad bet why wouldn't they do that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that what a trap is? Trying to attract money to the wrong side?

[craig]

No, that is sports betting. It is a myth that the books want even action. They want to win. Let's imagine that a game was a PK (just like a coinflip); in fact lets pretend that we were flipping a coin. Well, if i have 30 people and 25 of them bet on heads at -105 and 5 bet on tails at -105, if I can afford the risk, wouldn't I be better off just letting it go instead of adjusting the odds to make the tails side more attractive?

Now, lets say that a game should be lined at -2, but I know my customers are willing to lay -3.5 -110, why would I not want to take the risk? The only reason, is because the pros, who bet more, would hammer the +3.5. But, Bowmans and Bodog have a way around that.

craig

[NoChance]

[ QUOTE ]
You are not understanding, or maybe I am not, but these aren't traps. The linemakers are interested in making a profit. If they can set a line that will attract money on a bad bet why wouldn't they do that? That is their job.

[/ QUOTE ]

"IF" a trap does exist, this would be the very definition of a trap. At least that is the way I understand it. Yes, it is their job but that is exactly what they are trying to do. They want to "trap" people into taking a side that benefits the book the most.

IMHO

[craig]

I wanted to also add, that though lines don't move on these suppossed "trap" games, it isn't necessarily because the books are just willing to take the risk; it is also because heavy action is keeping the line more solid.

Also, once again, I am not saying that "traps" don't exist. But, the burden of proof is not on me. If someone says "God exists" is the burden of proof on me the (atheist; i am not btw..just an example) or on the person who is postulating that God does exist?

craig

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are not understanding, or maybe I am not, but these aren't traps. The linemakers are interested in making a profit. If they can set a line that will attract money on a bad bet why wouldn't they do that? That is their job.

[/ QUOTE ]

"IF" a trap does exist, this would be the very definition of a trap. At least that is the way I understand it. Yes, it is their job but that is exactly what they are trying to do. They want to "trap" people into taking a side that benefits the book the most.

IMHO

[/ QUOTE ]

Then every game, except ones that get heavy heavy action, are "traps". If you look at recent Super Bowl numbers they are all pretty solid lines; and in fact are lined on somewhat key numbers; last 4 years: 7,7,3,14 (moved to 13). One would not argue that 6:5 blackjack is a "trap". It is a game that can't be beat. The house knows it will win in the long run.

Also, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I think this is a good discussion.

[NoChance]

To be perfectly honest, I agree that the book is trying to "trap" people into taking sides at times to gain every edge they can get. That is their job. The word "trap" to me is simply a term people use to describe a situation that does not make sense to them. It looks to good to be true and makes them second guess themselves. Then they begin to wonder if it's a "trap". I also agree that you can't prove that a trap exists.

[craig]

I can agree with your definition. Especially since it seems like we are arguing the same thing /images/graemlins/smile.gif .

craig

[shamu]

Ok I agree that we are all saying the same thing more or less. I don't know if books intentionally try to trap bettors and I have no way of proving it either way. Some may argue that the lines are actually accurate because the last times NC and Wisc went on the road, they got beat, hence the short line. But I guess just personally, I've been on the wrong side of these situations so many times and every time I feel like I've been duped. Maybe it's my own crappiness as a sports bettor but I just feel like I got trapped every time. If you guys are sharp enough to not get lured, then I guess you are better than I am. But I know that many bettors think the way I used to. They see the recent impressive wins over good teams, they see the short line, and it looks like a good bet. But it's not. These bets lose more often than they win and if I have to call it a trap to convince people (and me!) not to fall for it, then it's worth it.

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
But I guess just personally, I've been on the wrong side of these situations so many times and every time I feel like I've been duped. Maybe it's my own crappiness as a sports bettor

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume that you are a 54% handicapper (including line shopping). It takes quite a bit of games to know whether your methods are working or not. To feel like you have been "duped" because of a 46% chance coming in is not a good attitude. HOw often in poker do longer shots than that come in? I think you are being too results oriented. At the same time, one thing you can do in these "trap" games is look at the books that are known for having sharper lines. For example, lets says you go to PIN and see -2 on X game, but then go to a "square" shop (PM me if you would like a list of these) and see -3.5. Well, it is pretty obvious what side the public is betting on.

craig

p.s. man that was a lot of rambling.

[Fraubump]

What's a "square shop"?

[craig]

They are shops that generally deal lines that are more "rogue" than the "shaper" sites like Pinnacle and Mansion. I would rather actually name them in PM as oppossed to the entire message board.

One thing to remember about most of these square shops, is that they do deal two different lines. Once you win enough money from them, they label you a "sharp", and will give you the sharper lines.

craig

[shamu]

You're right, my sample size probably isn't large enough to make any definite conclusions, and that would take many many years of data, but do you know anyone that waits that long before making adjustments in their game, especially if they are losing? I also believe that sports betting has less variance than poker so you can get a general sense if you're a winner or a loser much more quickly. And not all results-oriented thinking is bad. It just has picked up this bad stigma because using it in the short term in poker can be very dangerous. But in sports betting where it's more obvious what the right side and wrong side are after the fact, I think it's ok to use results as a gage, so long as you're not using it over an unreasonably short amount of time (but you certainly don't need ~50k hands or whatever the equivalent is). Most of sports betting (and poker too) is about your feel for the game and I know previously I was on the wrong side enough times to know that it was a long term losing side but with each bet you learn and make adjustments and I feel like I have a much better grasp of the games and lines now. Maybe that's too nebulous of an explanation for others to agree with me or my picks but it's enough for me (and my bank account seems to agree). (How's that for rambling?)

[craig]

Why would you think that sports betting has less variance? I don't know one way or the other. I am just curious.

Also, maybe in NL would "feel" play such a big part, but in LHE, I doubt it. Yes, you learn things with experience. Same with sports betting. "Feel" is probably the worst thing to go on. All losing players go by "feel". But, if you line shop (no feel), make correct mathematical moves (no feel), don't overbet your bankroll (no feel), figure why a certain line is set (80% experience, 20% feel), scalp/middle PROPERLY (no feel).

craig

[legend42]

"Trap" is a term for novice sports bettors- those with decent sports knowledge but little gambling knowledge. Its most common application is the small road favorite that is clearly the better team in the game. You hear beginners say "I can't believe the Broncos are only favored by 3 at Arizona- easiest bet of the week!" type things a lot.

After awhile, you get to understand the lines, and "trap" becomes meaningless.

[shamu]

I say that poker has more variance because it seems to me that the downswings in poker are far worse. You can play perfectly for a month, or more, yet continually get your ass handed to you hand after hand. But in sports betting, if you make solid bets for a month, the worse you'll do is maybe break even, maybe down a few units, but nothing as bad as poker in my experience.

Also, when I talk about feel, I understand it's not everything, but it's usually what separates the slightly losing players and slightly winning players, or slightly winning players and large winning players. In poker, there is your standard solid play, but that alone won't make you a great player or even a winning player. It's knowing how to play the marginal +EV situations that separates the great players from the merely solid players, and for that it's largely based on feel, ie, how you read the table/players. In sports betting, yes you need to be disciplined, shop, find value, etc, but what separates the good and the great is knowing how teams will react on a certain day, judging their motivation, etc, and for that you mostly have to draw from your experience and instinct.

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
but what separates the good and the great is knowing how teams will react on a certain day, judging their motivation, etc, and for that you mostly have to draw from your experience and instinct.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here is where I would disagree with you. You don't really know how a team will react on a certain day. All you have is stats. There are some stats that are fairly indicative of future progress and some that don't mean crap.

The idea of "clutch", "motivation", etc... may be a factor, but it cannot be quantified. But, let's pretend for a moment it could be, it would not be as important as people think. "Clutch" is the perfect example. It hasn't really been proven that clutch hitting exists in baseball. Now, does this make it "untrue"? Of course not. But, how many runs/games would it be worth if it was true? Same goes for motivation. Only a select group of people can play on a professional level. What forms of motivation does one need in order to do this? Do they want to win? Of course. Do they want to be the best? Of course. I think teams are motivated all the time.

Now, they may get tired. But, it doesn't take experience to know that two road games in a row in basketball will make one tired.

craig