Many bettors don't understand the how sportsbooks use the pointspread or side...they just think they do. The majority of players think that the pointspread is set with a view
to predicting the outcome of a game but in actuality it is set to divide public opinion.
The sportsbook really wants to act as broker only and make money
regardless of which team wins, yet even if they cannot balance the action to the extent that they would wish, thereby being
forced to bet into their lines and take on some risk, the book should end up in a good position over the long term, having laid bets at around -110 to the customer.
Taking an example of the public perception of a lines-maker's job, I remember an NFL game where the New England Patriots were 7.5 point favourites but blew away the other team (I forget who it was!)
by 35-7. I remember how bettors were commenting on 'how the sportsbook had got it wrong' or 'how the oddsmaker must have had his head in the clouds' and that the 'number' on the Patriots should have
been much higher.
In fact, the line on the Patriots was too
high and should have been
lower. The underdog in this case attracted a lot of action as bettors felt sure
that they would cover the spread against New England. The line moved from -7.5 on the Patriots to eventually as low as -5.5 in some places.
The situation became so desperate that bookmakers
had to cut the line to such an extent that they were at risk of being 'sided' or 'middled' - something they want to
avoid at all costs because it means that they might have to pay out on both teams and collect nothing. This would occur
if e.g the game ended in a 7 point win for the Patriots - payouts would have to be made to customers who got on the Patriots at -6 and to customers who got on the dog team at
+7.5. Indeed some players use middling as a betting strategy.
The sportsbooks found themselves with an imbalance of action and were effectively now betting, by default, on the Patriots. Luckily for
them, the Patriots won easily and so they not only took their usual commission from the game, they also won their 'bets' too,
as the underdog team failed to win / cover the spread.
The public perception was that the
sportsbook line was wrong because it did not
get close to reflecting the final difference in the score-line between the teams. As stated already, it is not the intention of the sportsbook to predict the final outcome of
a game, they are concerned with the balance of action before game. Although in this case the sportsbook did get it wrong (by posting a line that did not adequately divide the action)
they did not get it wrong for the reasons that some of the football betting public thought they had.
The spread essentially ends up as a tool by which sportbooks balance their betting action - as a bettor you simply need to amend your
thought processes and realise that you are not really betting against the high volume sportsbook but 'against' the consensus of opinion of other players
at that sportsbook. That's why a customer who wins, does not really win against the sportsbook, he simply wins against other players.
Therefore, if the line does not reflect the likely outcome of a game in terms of points deficit between the teams, but instead likely public
opinion, the bettor can beat the line by doing better than the public. If you are prepared to put in more work than the
average sports bettor, then you will in all likelihood do quite well.
Remember, you can take added comfort from the fact that
the sportsbook is often putting up a line that it knows is 'wrong', in that it won't necessarily reflect the final result scores.
Back to sports betting articles
