If there is a more than 90% chance that New Mexico covers and the game goes under, or OSU covers and the game goes over, then this is a -EV bet. (Do I have this right? Can someone say this more clearly?)
I once bet Penn St +35 points when they were actually a 35 point favorite! I spent over an hour arguing with the runner (soon to be an ex-runner), arguing that he HAD to correct his mistake. Before I left, I got him to put my bet in writing, and I got paid! ($1,000) Thirty or so years ago. We had a book who didn't know of the time changes in CBB. Those were the days!
[QUOTE=bumpo;7495]The sad reality is they don't have to justify it.[/QUOTE]
i'm guessing a book a like cris isn't thrilled about people betting the quasi-corrolated 44/48. i'm all for capitalizing on casino mistakes but this is most likely a software glitch. the right thing to do here is to call them up and verbally verify they want that bet.
Mistake? [QUOTE=goose148900;7517]i'm guessing a book a like cris isn't thrilled about people betting the quasi-corrolated 44/48. i'm all for capitalizing on casino mistakes but this is most likely a software glitch. the right thing to do here is to call them up and verbally verify they want that bet.[/QUOTE]
How can it be a mistake when all the books have it the same...Ohio St. -44 and a total of 48' to 49?
[QUOTE=dandarla;7503]My book had -44 Ohio St. and the over/under was 48. So I made two straight bets of equal amounts of money on the over and on New Mexico State to cover. The only way I can lose both bets is if Ohio St. wins 45-0, 46-0, 47-0, or 46-1. I'll most likely go 1-1 and lose the juice on one bet. But look at the upside potential of all the scores whereby I'll win both bets. Am I missing something?[/QUOTE]
You are missing something. Look at the ways that you can win both bets and they are equally unlikely as to losing them both. You are just wasting juice here. They are highly, highly anti correlated. There was another thread on this topic a few weeks ago with the USC/Wash. St. game.
[QUOTE=goose148900;7517]i'm guessing a book a like cris isn't thrilled about people betting the quasi-corrolated 44/48. i'm all for capitalizing on casino mistakes but this is most likely a software glitch. the right thing to do here is to call them up and verbally verify they want that bet.[/QUOTE]
This isn't quasi correlated. It is almost a perfect correlation.
Software Mistake [QUOTE=goose148900;7532]its a software mistake. the lines are correct[/QUOTE]
Do you mean the mistake was that the book's software took a correlated parlay when it shouldn't have? If so, you may be right because I've tried to bet correlated parlays before and it rejected me. That's why I was suprised when it took the bet this time. But then I tried it again with LSU parlayed to the Over and it took that bet also. So I'm not sure what's going on with CRIS right now...
