Totals are a middling........

Totals are a middling........ 712 SB/Fl on 130 716 Bucknell/Conn on 133 718 Mizzou/cin on 141 724 Rich/Vandy 135 25% of the totals landed on a number that was available at post today....... As for sides, Temple-2 and BYU -8. Further, BYU closed as high as 9, but 7.5s popped up also 15 minutes to post......

So are the linesmakers getting better, getting lucky, both, or just typical variance you'd expect?

definitely getting better. if i miss a number, i often pass, and if i can get a better number at halftime then i take it. did it with pac 10 final over and won, did it with cinn/mizzu under 75 2h yesterday. also if a line moves to much i go the other way. played byu - 7.5 when it popped up.

The concept is almost too basic--too easy. Take the total ppg (for and against) of Team A + total ppg of Team B/2 = math total. More than a seven point difference and it's gold. In almost all cases, the line moves towards the direction of the basic math formula. It's been this way for at least a dozen years.

YOu can also do basically the same thing with Kenpom's numbers... Very good at predicting line movement though it has not worked out well this year.

With absolutely no data to back it up; I am going to say that the percentage of winners that were an opening number (or at least a number close to the opening number that was available for a period of time) compared to a closing that lost is quite small. When you compare that to the number of possible winners one did not play because the lack of getting the best number, I think overall this is a losing cause. I could be way off here and I am sure it varies by sport but in reality when a line moves a certain amount does it make it a losing cause? I think it is probably a quite small percentage. I could be way off and I am nobody, but just my thoughts.

If you are talking about middles at this time of year [QUOTE=bluehorseshoe;40832]With absolutely no data to back it up; I am going to say that the percentage of winners that were an opening number (or at least a number close to the opening number that was available for a period of time) compared to a closing that lost is quite small. When you compare that to the number of possible winners one did not play because the lack of getting the best number, I think overall this is a losing cause. I could be way off here and I am sure it varies by sport but in reality when a line moves a certain amount does it make it a losing cause? I think it is probably a quite small percentage. I could be way off and I am nobody, but just my thoughts.[/QUOTE] Its very plus ev if you know which way lines are going. That's the hard part for most. Yesterday we caught UNLV-only one-basically covers the juice on the day. If you catch one(money mgt) the rest on the day are usually a free roll. We caught 3 on Thursday.

I was not really referring to getting a middle; not sure if I did a good job of trying to make a point. With the talk of getting the best number I was just trying to illustrate if ultimately passing on a play because one did not get the best number was ultimately a winning or losing venture. Say you have line A, being the opening number or at least a number that was available to most; then you have line B, a number close to closing. What would be the percentage of plays where line A was the winner and line B was the loser. Then comparing that to the concept of one either playing all the B lines you would normally play or not playing them at all. Obviously there are going to be other many factors like the degree of the movement and the sport, but I just wanted to get an idea of the raw numbers compared as a whole. My initial thought is that when you compare these numbers of Line A and Line B in the current market (not going back years and years), the percentage of line A winners to line B winners is very small. So small that it may ultimately be a losing venture if one were to decide to not play any of the B lines. Again I have no data to back this up, just talking.

kentucky....

I can not go by recent but... [QUOTE=bluehorseshoe;40876]I was not really referring to getting a middle; not sure if I did a good job of trying to make a point. With the talk of getting the best number I was just trying to illustrate if ultimately passing on a play because one did not get the best number was ultimately a winning or losing venture. Say you have line A, being the opening number or at least a number that was available to most; then you have line B, a number close to closing. What would be the percentage of plays where line A was the winner and line B was the loser. Then comparing that to the concept of one either playing all the B lines you would normally play or not playing them at all. Obviously there are going to be other many factors like the degree of the movement and the sport, but I just wanted to get an idea of the raw numbers compared as a whole. My initial thought is that when you compare these numbers of Line A and Line B in the current market (not going back years and years), the percentage of line A winners to line B winners is very small. So small that it may ultimately be a losing venture if one were to decide to not play any of the B lines. Again I have no data to back this up, just talking.[/QUOTE] A few years back,3-4, some guy posted like 6 months of originator plays. The assumption based on the thread was BW. % was like 54.5 at the best #-the one he actually bet it at. The "arrow" was on a straight line to loserville if you were 1.5 points worse. They posted 1/2 point-like 53.5-1 point 52-2 points below 50%. Like you, I do not know how it would apply to todays market, but IMO it would be worse as the lines are much, much better today than just 3 years ago.