When NFL exhibition games start, enthusiasm for the upcoming pro and college seasons hits full stride. Bets on regular season wins, odds to win divisions/conferences/Super Bowl and on the first weeks slate of games picks up considerably. The announcement of all the Nevada football contests being offered takes place earlier in the summer but as opening day approaches the entry counts are tracked and compared to the pace of previous years. No matter what style or level of betting one practices, August is the time of year when excitement and the anticipation of a winning season is everywhere. Like the old sayings go, everyone is undefeated and no one is out of it. “Just wait till next year” has arrived.
In my previous post, Handicapping vs Market Efficiency I pointed out some of the differences in betting methods between those that rely primarily on their opinion to determine their bets and those that use more of a buy low/sell high approach. The practitioners in each group truly believe their way is superior and nowhere is the divide between handicappers and the market loyalists more obvious than in football-contest play. In order to make a contest functional from a maximum participation standpoint, it’s necessary to use set lines and fixed submission periods. Because of this, the fluctuating market comes into play. A line that was market on Wednesday may be off by a point or two (or three) by Friday. How one handles these disparities between the market line and the contest line varies based on the contestants’ understanding of the change in value, their commitment to handicapping, and their grasp of tournament strategy. Some will rail against the set-up, claiming that the line movement somehow puts them at a disadvantage — a silly notion since the line moves affect everyone without prejudice. An equally common complaint is that it reduces the skill element. This is, of course, seen from the perspective of handicappers who value their skill greatly, while at the same time minimizing all other relevant contest and wagering factors. It’s almost as if they refuse to acknowledge that market play is a valid method of day-to-day betting, and accordingly, is just as relevant an approach as is handicapping.
In the most popular contest in Nevada, the $1,500-entry-fee Westgate SuperContest, contestants make five picks per week vs. lines that are posted Wednesday afternoon and go off the board Saturday morning. That’s about a two-and-half-day window to get the picks in, which is reasonable if the expectation is to allow contestants to use the Thursday game while also establishing a cut-off that permits public evaluations of the contestants’ picks. Although pointspread fluctuation has always been a bone of contention for a certain percentage of entrants, there have been years when obvious line shoppers have won the contest and other years in which handicappers have taken it down. That’s pretty much what you’d expect considering the distribution of player types in a contest like this. The anti-line-shopping contingency still complains though. Due to natural pointspread movement or a key injury, a line or two each week is “off” and in their eyes that somehow negatively affects just them. They moan about that aspect of the contest, but offer no workable alternative.
In the $2,000-buy-in Golden Nugget Friday Football Showdown, a much larger selection of picks is offered. The SuperContest is all NFL sides, meaning that from 12 to 16 games will be on the card on any given week. At the Nugget, virtually all college and pro sides are used, along with the totals for those contests. That’s several times more games available and those totals on the college games are the biggest source of complaints. Totals are volatile mid-week and they can easily move two to five points. They stand out on the card but the real nature of a big total move is not always understood by casual market observers.
When a college total moves it’s not the same as when a side moves. In general, a point on a side is worth more than a point on a total so a three point move on a total is not as big as some might think. Key numbers don’t play a big part on totals either. On sides, a 1.5 point move can be huge if it involves a key number, whereas on a college total we’re talking a much less significant impact for any number individually. Also, when a game moves to any notable degree, there’s usually some piling on that takes place. Some bettors that were late to the party will bet the hot total anyway, reasoning that they’re on a winner. For some, the line they get is secondary to being on the right side and this can make a total look better than it really is. A game that opened 56 and moves to 60 may actually belong at 58.5 if not for the late followers.
Best guess is that even with the narrow 24-hour-pick submission window, the Nugget will still get an earful urging that college totals be excluded. It seems that instead of examining what the details of a contest are and employing a strategy designed to best compete, they’d prefer the contest providers examine their betting style and tailor it to fit them. But the elimination of totals won’t solve their problem. If totals get axed, Sun Belt teams or Friday night games will then become the issue. Any line that moves will do when it comes to pointing a finger at what’s wrong with a contest set-up. Having a unique and challenging format is apparently not good enough for some.
The crux of the contention across the board is basically one of conscious awareness. In live betting one can completely ignore the line-shopping aspect of betting and operate in his own handicapping vacuum. He can remain as blissfully ignorant of the market as he desires. In a contest, the difference that market awareness makes in results cannot be as easily ignored. It’s visible each week on the leaderboard. A familiar group of names populate the top 25% of the standings, with the only characteristic shared being that they all employ some degree of line selectivity.
The same line-shopping, market timing, and life cycle of the over-the-counter number on a game exists to a certain degree within the submission period of a contest. Taking advantage of market inefficiencies is not just a contest thing, it’s a daily way of operating for some and it’s not confined to the SuperContest or any other contest. If nothing else the obvious effectiveness of the strategy should at least wake up a percentage of folks to the fact that the market approach is strong and can elevate their daily cash wager win rate. Maybe part of the problem is that they truly believe betting is all about handicapping. Whatever the true cause of the animosity, the handicappers are in the majority so contest administrators take note when the line variance opponents make noise.
In response to the complaints about college totals, the Golden Nugget leaned heavily toward eliminating them entirely for 2017. They ultimately went with a compromise of cutting the submission window in half, thereby reducing the time a total has to move. Instead of lines being set from Wednesday afternoon, they will put out lines on Thursday afternoon with the pick submission deadline at 2 p.m. Friday. A reasonable and measured adjustment instead of the knee-jerk preference of some to entirely eliminate totals from the only contest in the state to offer them. Although the change has been met with mixed reviews by the hardcore protestors, it’s a step in the direction they’ve lobbied for. As a result, we enter the 2017 season with college totals allowed in the Nugget contest, but by far the narrowest submission window I can recall.
It’s an interesting dynamic to observe yearly as the same scenario replays itself. No matter what rule changes are made to appease the squeaky wheels, it’s never enough. It seems they would have contests run just like the live-betting boards operate. What they fail to see is that in addition to making the contest unworkable, it would also bring in a whole new set of market-player advantages. I would dearly love for a contest to be run with dynamic lines. The players unable to adapt and adjust to the new format would quickly realize their mistake in asking for it. Dynamic lines would not eliminate the market-player advantages, it would simply necessitate a shift in strategy, and a properly adjusted approach would still be effective.
A contest can be viewed as a microcosm of what goes on every day in the betting world. There are variances in the lines daily. Games get steamed every hour and on game day the board lights up on almost every contest. Market players get good lines every day, not just in tournaments. That’s their objective. The daily bettors who ignore resources such as the number or quality of their outs are diminishing their prospects in contest play. Any casino-tournament veteran will testify that the advantages lie in the details and how best to adapt to them. Football contests are as much about strategy as they are anything else. Just as live blackjack differs from blackjack tournaments and cash poker differs from the WSOP, football contests are tournaments based on football betting and should be viewed as such. If you can’t recognize that and adjust accordingly, you’ll forever be trying to stick that square peg into a round hole. It will come close to fitting, but will be just a little bit off and that little bit can make a big difference.
If this whole thing comes off as a bit antagonistic and agenda-driven, then you’d be on the right track. Making the point that combining solid handicapping with a keen sense of market awareness creates the most effective type of bettor was one of my objectives. The real motivation though was to make the point that any contest offered will have it’s own unique set of characteristics. It’s these differences that make things interesting and enable the players to develop their own strategies and approaches for each one. If all the contests were run the same way, then contest play would not be as popular as it is, nor would it be very interesting to follow. As players, we should want more contests and more diverse set-ups. This is how that sector of betting in Nevada will grow — diversity.
The Westgate will go with a new $5,000 buy-in contest this year that’s a variation on the SuperContest. The big twist is that in SuperContest Gold it’s winner-take-all. That makes a big difference. It turns off some and appeals to others, but it had to differ from the SuperContest. Otherwise you’d be playing the same thing, just for more money. SuperContest Gold is not for everyone, but it’s an addition that offers something new. It may succeed or it may fail, but because of the its unique aspects (biggest buy-in coupled with the winner-take-all payout) it will probably be the most followed contest in the state this year. That attention will help all the contests.
Entrant #1 in SuperContest Gold was VSIN radio host and legendary sports broadcaster Brent Musberger. That got the media ball rolling and pretty much guaranteed that the event will get weekly coverage on the Sirius 204 channel broadcast live daily from the Southpoint Race and Sports Book.
By now some will be wondering what’s the point of all this. Is it about handicapping vs. the market approach? Not really. Although taking a poke at some in the handicapping world is something of a guilty pleasure in which I frequently overindulge. Is it just a tirade against contest players trying to homogenize the rules? Sort of. But the real point is that contests will never be a carbon copy of live betting. To insist that they should be or that they come as close as possible to mimicking live betting is to miss the big picture. Contests are a sports betting opportunity. An opportunity to not only apply your sports betting skills, but also your overall gambling acumen. More specifically, your tournament acumen, because that’s what they are. They’re tournaments, and when viewed as such, become much easier to understand and excel at.
For a full rundown of all the Vegas football contests check out LVA Football Contest List.
Never miss another post