In case anybody cares, here's the way I usually break down games to see if I want to bet them and for how much. I'm performify's counterpart (sportsbetting moderator) at ftr, so if that lends me any extra credibility...woohoo! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
I'm a big proponent of fading the public, especially when the lines go contrary to what one thinks should go. Why?
Well, there's a few possible explanations, depending on whether or not you believe books set traps.
1) The books are setting traps. They know something the majority of the betting public doesn't know and so they want more action on one side than the other. Of course, they can't have this look super-fishy, so they still have to take bets on the other side. Ergo, bet the side that looks ridiculously stupid.
2) Someone, somewhere, has information on this game that other may not have. He (or they) have put down enough on the anti-public side to force the books to move the line the other way in order to encourage action on the other side. There may be 10,000 bets of $10 on Team A, but if this guy or syndicate puts down 1 bet of $200,000 on Team B, the book needs more action on Team A to balance.
3) Public Perception has caused a spread to go so far out of whack that the books can't afford to move the line further out of whack, for fear that smart bettors will pop them HUGE when these bettors get a very favorable number. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If you move the line from -7 to -7.5, you may get millions of dollars in 'professional money' on +7.5 and be left holding a liability on -7.5. But if you don't move the line, that money doesn't come in and you have gajillions of dollars of public money on -7, leaving you with a liability of +7. But given these two crappy choices, you'd prefer the latter to the former.
In the case of option 2, I think of the reverse line movements as ripples in a pond: evidence that something important has happened. I usually follow these ripples.
Does it always work? Hell no. I've lost tons of times. There can only be so much a book or a person can know. But I believe that over the long run, these bets will make money.
Also, I believe that this works a lot better in pro sports than college sports. Why? Because pro sports have higher prominence. It's a lot easier to get tons of money in on public perception for a pro team than a college team.
---
So why do I tend to bet moneylines? Well, in basketball (and football), the main bet of choice is a point spread bet. A team giving or receiving x number of points. This is usually adjusted when a book wants to balance action.
I believe that moneylines are not adjusted to the same extent that points spreads are. They are adjusted, to be sure, but <i>not enough</i>. Add in the fact that in the NFL and NBA, points only matter in around 1/4 to 1/5 of total games and you can see why if I'm betting an underdog (which is usually the case), I'll take the moneyline over the spread.
Also, betting moneylines I believe saves me money. Whenever I lose a M/L bet, often the dog doesn't cover. Which means that instead of losing 1.1 units or 1.05 units or whatever, I only lose 1 unit. And whenever a dog covers, the dog often wins. Instead of winning 1 unit, I win >1 unit . I believe these savings and added profit more than offset the games that I 'could have won' here and there had I taken the spread rather than the M/L.
"But why do you take underdog spread sometimes then?"
Well, for the following reasons. In the NBA, without a true salary cap, there's enough of a talent disparity to the point where some teams can just win and outright dominate their opponent. But the oddsmakers have to adjust or else the public will just keep betting these teams and keep winning; how do the bookmakers adjust? They make the spreads higher and higher. The team may continue to win, but the M/L prices on them become ridiculous and the spreads become HUGE and inflated. Case in point: Dallas, Phoenix (although I'm starting to rethink Phoenix just a bit...nah. I'll just leave it alone [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )
Or else the team that I'm betting against is more a defensive oriented team to the point where the points matter SO much more than in other games. Case in point: San Antonio, Houston
Also, I don't like betting against 'my' team, so when I can take a spread vs. the Rockets that is +points, I'll take it. So that I can win my bet and my team can win.
---
So what my strategy basically boils down to is fading the public. Whether it's because of distorted public perception, trap games, or not publicly known information making a line go 'skewy', the fact is that the side that seems too good to be true often is.
One of the best indicators of making a bet bigger is when I look at the game and instantly think "Oh. Team A is going to kill Team B at that spread." Then, if I see that the majority of the public thinks so as well, I'll know to at least double up my bet on Team B. How much bigger will my bet get? It depends on the magnitude with which the public agrees with me.
Will this work in baseball? I dunno. Moneylines look to be the bet of choice here, so I'm not sure how this is really gonna work. We'll see.
At any rate, I hope this has given you some insight into what I do and why I do it and that it will help you. Feel free to ask questions.
And if you're wondering how I'm doing at any given point in time with this betting theory:
http://www.sagestats.com/view.php?uid=322424978
...but I doubt you care. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]