How come media members don't understand odds?
I've heard about 1,000 time this week that the odds (Patriots 3 pt favorites opening, 2 1/2 now) means Vegas is picking the Pats to win. Odds (point spreads) are not meant to pick the game. Vegas is not trying to get everyone to bet one way, and then win the other side. That would be them gambling. Vegas is trying to get half of the best on each side (Giants/Pats) and then at worst, with the % they charge on the bets, win, and at best, maybe one way or another falls out and they get some extra money.
The big name teams historically (Pats, Steelers, Packers, Cowboys) get more bets. In a game like the Super Bowl, where there are a lot of casual betters there is a lot of action on the Pats. Thus, to get a betters split, Pats are favorites. If they were underdogs they'd get too much of the bets.
I heard a million times "everyone is picking the Giants, therefore Vegas is happy because when the Pats win, they'll make a killing". No, everyone is not betting on the Giants because then the line would move. It's only moved a half point. A majority of sportswriters are picking them, but that is not the betting public.
The Pats very well may kick our ass but based on the past few weeks, if this was a regular season game, we'd probably have a pick em type game. But since it's the Super Bowl, the casual money required a line that stimulated betting against the Pats.
If you are Joe Schmo i watch one game a year, who are you betting on? 13 Win Pats, who just beat Ravens, with Tom Brady. Or 9 win Giants, who struggled against the 49ers (who i know are good, and you know are good, but the general public underrates) and their QB, Eli Manning?
I don't think any media members understand the spreads. How can that be? And worse, they explain it like they do.
Last edited by niko : 02-03-2012 at 10:26 AM.