NCAAB Teams that have given up

waldo027 · #1 02-12-2006, 02:17 AM

As the regular season is winding down, what do you think of betting against teams that are horrible, have long losing streaks and seem to have given up on the season? Specifically for 2-11-06 I'm talking about Kansas St -2 at Missouri and Richmond -2.5 at St. Bonaventure. Mizzou has been blown out in 6 straight games and their coach just quit. St. Bonnie has lost 11 straight. Both programs are in complete disarray and I would be very suprised if both of these games didn't end in blowouts. I think both of those bets are very solid.

PropPlayer · #2 02-12-2006, 03:09 AM

Kansas State looks good. The first 4 teams of those 6 who blew Mizz out were good team, but getting blown out by Baylor showed this team is totally demoralized. I just took Kansas State for 1.5 units.

plus_man · #3 02-12-2006, 03:33 AM

Sounds good but how do you know if a team quit or is just not that talented?

PropPlayer · #4 02-12-2006, 03:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds good but how do you know if a team quit or is just not that talented?

[/ QUOTE ]
You need to not care to get blown out by Baylor [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

waldo027 · #5 02-12-2006, 04:00 PM

Mizzou up 5 with 11:30 left...I'm shocked

PropPlayer · #6 02-12-2006, 04:10 PM

This looks like it will be a close one up MO has had the lead most of it. KSST up 1 pt with 5:55 to go.

faithdrool · #7 02-13-2006, 04:23 AM

OK. After reading the above posts, I took Kansas -2 and Richmond -2.5. Both Kansas and Richmond lost the game. Ok, it could happen.

What befuddles me though, is the movement of the line before the game time. Kansas line moved from -2 to -1 in most sportsbooks before the tip off. Now, why would people bet on the team that lost the last 6 games by 26, 18, 13 and 13, 24, and 15 points. All double digits! Granted two of those teams Nebrasksa and Texas were both great teams, but some of those losses included a 26 point loss to Baylor, a team with 2-8 record. In fact, Missouri played at Kansas State in Jan 21, and lost by 15 points. So, why would more money come in on the terrible Missouri Team? Can you imagine someone actually making a wager on Missouri if he knew Missouri's last 6 game scores?

Interestingly, according to Wagerline.com, 530 wagers were placed on Kansas St. and only 290 on Missouri? So who were these people driving the line down and what additional information did they have?

Now, this may sound paranoid, but in the light of NHL players recently being involved in illegal gambling operation (even though so far their activities seem rather innocuous), is it not possible that some of the bettors have unfair advantage over others? In fact, if you were a refree would you not be tempted to bet on these games under your friend's name? Would this not be pretty easy to do? What if you were a NCAA player on a mediocre team like Kansas State? He knows he won't get drafted in the NBA, would he not be tempted to miss a free throw here and there so his friend whom he told to bet on Missouri has a better chance to win?

craig · #8 02-13-2006, 04:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, according to Wagerline.com, 530 wagers were placed on Kansas St. and only 290 on Missouri? So who were these people driving the line down and what additional information did they have?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing interesting about it, and yes, you are being paranoid. All wagerline.com measures is what side people are taking. It does not measure how much money is bet on a certain side. Pros better more money than the public. Hence, they will be able to move the line more than the public. When a line first opens up at -1 and moves to -2.5 overnight (the same night it opened) who do you think it moving that line so far? Also, they probably don't have any more information than is available to you. They just don't take as much of a simplified approach as you did (that is not personal) or as most people do. Betting on bad teams is where the value is. They are usually undervalued. Also, 6 games is not a big enough sample size. There is much more to this than deciding who the better team is. And even if you do identify the better team, this in no way means they will cover.

craig

faithdrool · #9 02-13-2006, 07:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing interesting about it, and yes, you are being paranoid. All wagerline.com measures is what side people are taking. It does not measure how much money is bet on a certain side. Pros better more money than the public. Hence, they will be able to move the line more than the public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, Craig. You state the obvious, but you’ve failed to comprehend my post. My original post assumed just that. According to Wagerline.com, it showed that most of the public was betting on Kansas. So, it must have been so-called “pros” that moved the line toward the otherside.

[ QUOTE ]
When a line first opens up at -1 and moves to -2.5 overnight (the same night it opened) who do you think it moving that line so far? Also, they probably don't have any more information than is available to you. They just don't take as much of a simplified approach as you did (that is not personal) or as most people do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granted, I did not analyze this game very much in depth. But you tell me. Missouri lost 6 games in a row by double digits. They lost to terrible teams like Baylor by 26 points. They played the same Kansas State team less than 2 weeks ago and were blown out by 15 points. Sometimes, it is knowing when to accept the obvious that makes a sports bettor successful.

[ QUOTE ]
Betting on bad teams is where the value is. They are usually undervalued.

[/ QUOTE ]

Missouri was getting lousy 2 points. Yes, it is true sometimes that a horrible team ends up getting more points than they should because public foresees them as “the bad team” and blindly bets against them. If Missouri was getting points close to double digit points, I would have weighed the option more carefully. But at -2, it seemed obvious to me which side was the right side.

That said, maybe I was on the wrong side. It is possible that these pros after more thoughtful analysis all came to conclusion that Missouri should be favored to win (although looking at the past stats of these two teams now, this doesn’t not seem too likely). The obvious premise of my original post was that many of the players, refs, and coaches have advantage in betting on their own games. I simply postulated that some of these players probably have enough incentive and not enough discouraging factors to actually do so.

stoli · #10 02-13-2006, 10:20 AM

Don't forget the other factors of a game that motivate players. Mizzou was holding an event honoring their all-century team at their arena during halftime. This was the largest crowd of the year. The players feel responsible for his "resignation," and they had something to prove. Everyone knows it wasn't really a resignation and those players are mad. That being said, they are still really bad, but if they were any good they would've won this game by a little more. They were all quoted in the post game as saying "We played this game for our coach, like he would've wanted us to. He didn't quit on us he's not a quitter and neither are we."

Just wanted to highlight how important it is to look at all factors of a game.