runningblind
Active member
Yep.
Everyone says that, I normally take the under on Iowa too, but then they win 9 or 10 games against all reason. Way more money has been made betting the under on Nebraska than Iowa in the last decade.
Husker Future Lines
- Thread starter teachercd
- Start date
JJ Husker
Donor
Yeah I thought +900 was a bit light. But it’s tough to make money on No at -1000.
$10 to pay $100 or $10 to pay $11. I’ll take the first one and lose my $10. The other just isn’t worth it.
NsideScoop
Member
Once you understand that the numbers are just trying to hit the middle of the gambling money in total it makes sense. The bookies just want to take their cut from reading the betting population. They don't think that NU will win 7.5. They think that the bettors will be 50% 7- and 50% 8+.
I get that. But it shows that maybe the Huskers are a bit underrated coming into the season.
Hilltop
Active member
Based on paper... on the field, a guy could have made a fortune betting against NU the past decade. I'm optimistic but I'm not betting a dime until I see them prove it on the field.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fair take. I think if they stay on the good size of health, 8-wins should be plenty achievable.
Biggest fallacy in sports betting. The vigorish is just a safeguard, a house edge that protects them over time. There are loads of bets out there where the bookie has significant liability if a certain result pops up. There are also lots of bets where they have a massive edge.
Gage County
Banned
I've never met a bookie that was in it just for the juice, they all play. Same with casinos.
There's certainly some bookmakers willing to take more of a risk than others. But, if we assume the logic is correct that their primary goal is to split the bet and collect the vig then we're saying they're doing all of this for about 4.5%. There are far better (and often more legal) ways of making 4.5%.
They aren't making 4.5% on their money though. They are making that on ALL of the money put on the game for both sides. Do that for every game and it is a lot bigger than you think. And that's before the other things people are dumb enough to bet on like parlays and Raiola winning the Heisman as a freshman. Vegas didn't exactly happen by accident.
Of course, not, as it's not their money. However, because it's not their money they run the risk of having more liability than incoming bets.
A prime example of where they have a massive house advantage and are not just trying to balance the action and collect the vig. (Seriously, no one play parlays)
The Heisman prop bet is another example of a bet without an 'other side to balance the action.
Even when you try to balance the action, it rarely happens that cleanly to where they run no risk because the two sides cancel each other out. The Super Bowl, as highly scrutinized and wagered as any spread, will still typically have one side with a higher liability. What they want is the five and dimers to go 'ooh, Iowa at 7.5 wins is ridiculous because they won 10 games last year'. What they don't want is the guys with the big bankrolls to go 'But Iowa only performed like a 7 win team'.
It's less about balancing action and collecting the vig as it is managing risk. The ones that can aggressively manage risk better make a lot more money than those just hoping to collect fees.
Last edited by a moderator: