Scscsc89 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 ... and maybe the comparative paucity of Utah-based bettors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think the line is generally artificially a bit biased towards any LA team because of the proximity to Vegas, and wealthy Los Angeles fans betting on their teams. I recall being in Vegas for game four of the series between the Jazz and the Lakers the last time the Jazz went to the finals ( the Jazz were up 3-0 ) when it was pretty apparent the Lakers were done. The Lakers were still favored by 6 or 8, and I got 2-1 on my moneyline bet. They set lines to try and get an even amount of action on each side and collect the vig risk free. I understand this but this is why opinion should be formed by fact and not by anecdotal evidence. Here are the facts. I'll use 2010 since that is the 1st year without Carroll. Since 2010, USC has covered 48% of their games, which is slightly worse than your average team. It appears that betting against USC because "they get extra points due to all of those LA fans" doesn't work that well. Let's delve into the numbers further. Since 2010, USC has covered exactly 50% of their home games. You would think that the overwhelming amount of LA betters would be extra confident at home, inflating the spread. It hasn't led to an advantage for contrarians nor has "vegas made billions" of USC. Let's look at more recent trends so as to get a different perspective and alleviate any potential bias you may think I have in formulating these numbers. Since 2013, USC has covered 51.5% of all games and have covered an amazing 58.8% of all home games. (maybe those LA betters aren't just betting with their heart.) Since 2014 USC has covered 52.6% of all games and have covered 60% of all home games. This year, USC is once again, 50% against the spread. Going back as far as the data allows me to - since 2003, USC has covered at a 51.3% rate. This is a sample size of 12.5 seasons worth of data. As far as I can conclude, USC covers at a slightly above average rate, making them as good a bet as any despite this perception that "Vegas makes billions" off people betting on USC. In reality, it is the people betting on USC that more often than not, end up making the money. Source - https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/trends/ats_trends/?range=yearly_since_20150&sc=all_games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I would think that a team in a major market would breed just as many backlash anti-UCLA/USC/Dodgers/Yankees bettors as fan-bettors. If not more. So All Hail's stats don't really surprise me. It's not just a ton of fans, it's good ole-fashion notoriety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mano Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I understand this but this is why opinion should be formed by fact and not by anecdotal evidence. Here are the facts. I'll use 2010 since that is the 1st year without Carroll. Since 2010, USC has covered 48% of their games, which is slightly worse than your average team. It appears that betting against USC because "they get extra points due to all of those LA fans" doesn't work that well. Let's delve into the numbers further. Since 2010, USC has covered exactly 50% of their home games. You would think that the overwhelming amount of LA betters would be extra confident at home, inflating the spread. It hasn't led to an advantage for contrarians nor has "vegas made billions" of USC. Let's look at more recent trends so as to get a different perspective and alleviate any potential bias you may think I have in formulating these numbers. Since 2013, USC has covered 51.5% of all games and have covered an amazing 58.8% of all home games. (maybe those LA betters aren't just betting with their heart.) Since 2014 USC has covered 52.6% of all games and have covered 60% of all home games. This year, USC is once again, 50% against the spread. Going back as far as the data allows me to - since 2003, USC has covered at a 51.3% rate. This is a sample size of 12.5 seasons worth of data. As far as I can conclude, USC covers at a slightly above average rate, making them as good a bet as any despite this perception that "Vegas makes billions" off people betting on USC. In reality, it is the people betting on USC that more often than not, end up making the money. Source - https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/trends/ats_trends/?range=yearly_since_20150&sc=all_games Small sample sizes will give you wide swings like that. I am sure the more fans you have and their proximity to betting establishments effects the amount of money wagered on a team, and hence the line. I know that I get worse odds than I should if I try to bet on Utah in either Wendover or Mesquite for similar reasons. I recall wanting to bet on the Utes when they played Arizona (defending champs and I assumed were decent favorites pretty much everywhere else) in the Elite Eight when we drove to Mesquite from a golf trip we were doing in St. George. When I went to the sports book at the casino, they had Utah as a 2 point favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Card Tricks Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 His weird fawning over Notre Dame was what first caught my eye, so I don't know if that's true. Didn't realize my opinions were under such scrutiny. To be fair, I'm not the only one who believes Notre Dame is a dangerous team. Take a quick look at the AP and coaches poll and you'll see that I'm in good company. For the record, I'm not what you'd call a Notre Dame bandwagoner. But the reason I'm particularly high on them this year is that they keep finding ways to win despite amassing some pretty significant injuries. Which is no small accomplishment (just ask UCLA). While I would not be surprised to see them drop one to Temple or Pitt, it would surprise me even less to see them come into that Stanford game at 10-1. And if that's the case, all eyes will be on Palo Alto to close out the season (assuming Stanford doesn't stumble down the stretch of course). As far as my opinions on Stanford are concerned, I always try to err on the side of caution. While I wasn't aware they were such preseason darlings on here, I would have been the first to offer an opposing viewpoint. I saw many reasons for concern heading into this season. Chief amongst them was my assumption that this would be most competitive year ever in the Pac-12, top to bottom. Turns out I couldn't have been more wrong seeing as how nearly every team in the conference outside of Utah, Stanford, Cal, and Wazzu have underachieved. So while I may not always be right, I do try my best to give an honest, objective opinion on conference talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Didn't realize my opinions were under such scrutiny. To be fair, I'm not the only one who believes Notre Dame is a dangerous team. Take a quick look at the AP and coaches poll and you'll see that I'm in good company. For the record, I'm not what you'd call a Notre Dame bandwagoner. But the reason I'm particularly high on them this year is that they keep finding ways to win despite amassing some pretty significant injuries. Which is no small accomplishment (just ask UCLA). While I would not be surprised to see them drop one to Temple or Pitt, it would surprise me even less to see them come into that Stanford game at 10-1. And if that's the case, all eyes will be on Palo Alto to close out the season (assuming Stanford stumble down the stretch of course). As far as my opinions on Stanford are concerned, I always try to err on the side of caution. While I wasn't aware they were such preseason darlings on here, I would have been the first to offer an opposing viewpoint. I saw many reasons for concern heading into this season. Chief amongst them was my assumption that this would be most competitive year ever in the Pac-12, top to bottom. Turns out I couldn't have been more wrong seeing as how nearly every team in the conference outside of Utah, Stanford, Cal, and Wazzu have underachieved. I may not always be right, I always do my best to give me honest, objective opinion. WSU has underachieved. We should be Bowl eligible right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quack 12 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 WSU has underachieved. We should be Bowl eligible right now. Or 2-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Didn't realize my opinions were under such scrutiny. To be fair, I'm not the only one who believes Notre Dame is a dangerous team. Take a quick look at the AP and coaches poll and you'll see that I'm in good company. For the record, I'm not what you'd call a Notre Dame bandwagoner. But the reason I'm particularly high on them this year is that they keep finding ways to win despite amassing some pretty significant injuries. Which is no small accomplishment (just ask UCLA). While I would not be surprised to see them drop one to Temple or Pitt, it would surprise me even less to see them come into that Stanford game at 10-1. And if that's the case, all eyes will be on Palo Alto to close out the season (assuming Stanford doesn't stumble down the stretch of course). As far as my opinions on Stanford are concerned, I always try to err on the side of caution. While I wasn't aware they were such preseason darlings on here, I would have been the first to offer an opposing viewpoint. I saw many reasons for concern heading into this season. Chief amongst them was my assumption that this would be most competitive year ever in the Pac-12, top to bottom. Turns out I couldn't have been more wrong seeing as how nearly every team in the conference outside of Utah, Stanford, Cal, and Wazzu have underachieved. So while I may not always be right, I do try my best to give an honest, objective opinion on conference talking points. FWIW I enjoy your takes, even the ones I happen to disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Small sample sizes will give you wide swings like that. I am sure the more fans you have and their proximity to betting establishments effects the amount of money wagered on a team, and hence the line. I know that I get worse odds than I should if I try to bet on Utah in either Wendover or Mesquite for similar reasons. I recall wanting to bet on the Utes when they played Arizona (defending champs and I assumed were decent favorites pretty much everywhere else) in the Elite Eight when we drove to Mesquite from a golf trip we were doing in St. George. When I went to the sports book at the casino, they had Utah as a 2 point favorite. 12.5 seasons is not a small sample size and USC covered more often than not. These spreads are a reflection of the Vegas composite betting index and thus if LA fans truly influence spreads, it isn't preventing USC from being a good bet. To clarify, I am not saying Vegas doesn't occasionally take advantage of known better bias and trends, in fact, that is precisely what they do. However, I am saying that betting against USC because, fans from LA are betting up the lines, has proven to be a failed strategy. The idea that Vegas makes billions of off people overvaluing USC has also been debunked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utenation Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Yeah, I have no problem with Card tricks. Solid takes and opinions like the rest of us. We need more Stanford fans like him here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Yeah, I have no problem with Card tricks. Solid takes and opinions like the rest of us. We need more Stanford fans like him here. I think we need more Stanford fans period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quack 12 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I think we need more fans period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pac12Fan Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The overwhelming majority of USC fans have never attended USC. That goes for most schools. USC is located in a less than desirable area. Great campus with huge walls and tons of security. There are hundreds of thousands of SC fans due to its' location. They also get a lot of publicity from actors, rap artists and people that want to identify themselves with where they live, a perceived culture, etc. If you happen to be in Vegas on any day that USC is playing, you will see thousands of fans at the casinos. Fans and non fans love to bet for and against USC. USC has to be one of the most inconsistent teams in the country. They can lose to Arizona one week and then destroy Oregon the next week. They have the talent. They rarely have the best coaches. SC fans spend money on betting, hotel rooms, food, liquor, strip clubs, etc. Vegas loves USC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The overwhelming majority of USC fans have never attended USC. That goes for most schools.. Not Oregon State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The overwhelming majority of USC fans have never attended USC. That goes for most schools? Just laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pac12Fan Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 What's laughable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 That the fans of most schools never attended the school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 That the fans of most schools never attended the school. I tend to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I tend to agree. I guess I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pac12Fan Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Most people wearing college gear have never attended college. Especially USC gear. Many college football fans have never attended college at all. They tend to root for the local team. Or the local image. I know most of the people that sit around me at the Rose Bowl. Most of them did not attend UCLA. Some went to college but the majority of them had ever been to college at all. I believe this is the norm at college games. Everybody wants to have something to cheer for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.