NFLSystems.com: From the creators of EasyBaseballBetting.com.
 |
| Additional Information |
| Home |
| Free Picks |
| Live Betting Odds |
| NBA Playoffs Betting Guide |
| Betting Systems |
| Handicapping |
Receive a Free Month of Picks The free systems picks on our site are great but who wants to bet the 8 or so teams it says to go for each day? Join our premium service and we'll make sure we give you the 2-3 highest rated plays each day.
Picks for MLB, NFL, NBA. |
Sports Systems Explained
Basketball Systems
-
Looking Ahead
-
Sandwich
Live NCAA College Football Odds
Rose Bowl Betting Line Dupes Public
by Kris Lazaro
In general, if a game is on national television, point spreads will be inflated in favor of a particular team. No game falls into this angle more than a national championship game. With so much handle on a single sporting event, bookmakers must be careful to set a line that will not set up a liability for the books they serve. Thus, "big-time" games often lure the public to go on one side (usually the losing one). As I have written prior, pointspreads usually do not reflect the true line/power line between two teams. Instead, oddsmakers handicap the public and set up a line that will look "too good to be true". Ever just see a line and think to yourself, "wow, this line seems too easy"? How many times have you bet on that side, watch the game, and hate yourself after the outcome? In this article, I will explain why the public lost their hard-earned money on the 2006 Rose Bowl (National Championship Game).
Arguably one of the most hyped NCAAF National Championship game to date, the 2006 version matched up the USC Trojans against the Texas Longhorns. The Trojans were laying a 'mere' 7 points to the highly under-rated Longhorns, and to the dismay of many bettors, the Trojans not only lost ATS, but also lost SU. Why? Public perception.
Everybody, including ESPN, highly touted the Trojans as perhaps the greatest team ever (perhaps even better than some NFL teams). This fact alone scared the hell out of me into systems on the Trojans. When the public is heavily backing a team, the spread is usually skewed against that said team. In this game, several factors played against the Trojans: since this was a virtual home game for the Trojans (they played approximately 15 miles from the campus of USC), the line was inflated for the 'home team'; defending national championship teams usually get the line inflated against them; oddsmakers knew the public would take USC (I mean who wouldn't take the home team, loaded with 2 Heisman winners, an offense as explosive as TNT, and the hottest team in the nation?); lastly, this would be Leinart and Bush's last game (wouldn't they play to their potential and smoke their opponents to leave a lasting legacy?).
On the other side, everybody counted out the Longhorns. Virtually everybody forgot that this was the same team that went a staggering 10-2 ATS during the whole year, was undefeated, and featured an All-Star caliber quarterback in Vince Young. This was certainly a live-dog.
In all, the line set by the oddsmakers in the 2006 National Championship Game fooled the public into taking USC. In general, never bet with the public, especially in national spotlight games.
In my next article, I will discuss the technical angles that made Texas the right pick, and why they won the way they won.
In general, if a game is on national television, point spreads will be inflated in favor of a particular team. No game falls into this angle more than a national championship game. With so much handle on a single sporting event, bookmakers must be careful to set a line that will not set up a liability for the books they serve. Thus, "big-time" games often lure the public to go on one side (usually the losing one). As I have written prior, pointspreads usually do not reflect the true line/power line between two teams. Instead, oddsmakers handicap the public and set up a line that will look "too good to be true". Ever just see a line and think to yourself, "wow, this line seems too easy"? How many times have you bet on that side, watch the game, and hate yourself after the outcome? In this article, I will explain why the public lost their hard-earned money on the 2006 Rose Bowl (National Championship Game).
Arguably one of the most hyped NCAAF National Championship game to date, the 2006 version matched up the USC Trojans against the Texas Longhorns. The Trojans were laying a 'mere' 7 points to the highly under-rated Longhorns, and to the dismay of many bettors, the Trojans not only lost ATS, but also lost SU. Why? Public perception.
Everybody, including ESPN, highly touted the Trojans as perhaps the greatest team ever (perhaps even better than some NFL teams). This fact alone scared the hell out of me into systems on the Trojans. When the public is heavily backing a team, the spread is usually skewed against that said team. In this game, several factors played against the Trojans: since this was a virtual home game for the Trojans (they played approximately 15 miles from the campus of USC), the line was inflated for the 'home team'; defending national championship teams usually get the line inflated against them; oddsmakers knew the public would take USC (I mean who wouldn't take the home team, loaded with 2 Heisman winners, an offense as explosive as TNT, and the hottest team in the nation?); lastly, this would be Leinart and Bush's last game (wouldn't they play to their potential and smoke their opponents to leave a lasting legacy?).
On the other side, everybody counted out the Longhorns. Virtually everybody forgot that this was the same team that went a staggering 10-2 ATS during the whole year, was undefeated, and featured an All-Star caliber quarterback in Vince Young. This was certainly a live-dog.
In all, the line set by the oddsmakers in the 2006 National Championship Game fooled the public into taking USC. In general, never bet with the public, especially in national spotlight games.
In my next article, I will discuss the technical angles that made Texas the right pick, and why they won the way they won.
