What do you think about famous "traps"? Need help from all of you.

[Doctor Baseball]

Ok guys, it was a long time since my last post but Im back. After reading some posts I started to asking myself this, Does Vegas really have "trap" games?. I read how many of you said that the Giants-Oakland game was a trap, that Oakland looks to easy, and that the public where all over Raiders. First of all Im an Antipublic guy, When line moves 1.5 or more I bet the other side or sometimes I dont bet. Today all the public on my book had skins and raiders, we all now the final scores.

The reason for my post is this, do you really think that Vegas have some "trap games" I guess not, Im the kind of guy that believes that vegas prefer a 50-50 than have the public all over one side, thats why the odds are not the number that vegas expect the fav to win, but are the number by which vegas think they will get a 50-50. I will never forgot this, it was 2 years ago when titans face the rams on the super bowl and the line opens at -7. I was talking to a friend and he told me "can you believe it, that line is so ****ing easy, I hope it is not a vegas trap, I will bet the game before the line moves" I answer him "yes I Know I cant believe they are giving 7 points to the Titans, they will win SU" and he told me "Are you kidding I was talking about the Rams". Well that is an example of how sometimes the line looks like a gift for you and someone thinks exactly the same as you (only that they are looking to the other side). For m that trap game was the 49 vs Colts (I like 49) But I didnt bet it because it was so easy on the paper for me.

Well I will not bore you anymore I just wanna finish my post with this last commment. How many times you had seen a line and tell a friend that you are not going to bet any single cent to some game, but that it looks so easy and that scares you, at the end if the team won you tell your friend "I told you that the game looks so ****ing easy, damn why I didnt bet on it " but if the team lost you say " I told you that the game looks to easy to be true, thats why I didnt bet on it, I knew it was a trap". Im guilty of charge, and you?

 

[wondo]

I don't believe in "traps" in the sense of the word. Nobody knows what is going to happen in a particular game, so I don't buy into the 'trap' theory the way most people explain it. But when I do see a number that is well off from where I would have put the game, I don't think of it as a trap, but I do ask myself what other factors have I missed or misinterpreted that would have me so far off from the line on a play. Then I can go back and re-examine the game and see if I missed something crucial. It's easy to say -- oh, that line was a trap ; or 'it was too easy' after the fact. But that usually happens (atleast for me) because something in my methodology was off. Maybe I figured a team would have a different game plan or focus -- but it's usually something that is obvious in the first part of the game. So basically, I don't believe in 'traps' but I think unusual lines can call attention to other possible circumstances, but I hesistate to blindly fade or back them, one way or another.

 

[yyz]

"Vegas" doesn't set the line, for one thing....they pay people to do this.

Also, these are corporations running those books, not just a guy who might take a risk on a number.

I honestly believe that whatever number got posted on Sunday night, it would get bet into.

Take last night's game. If the line was Minny -3 or a pick em, I think the action would have been the same! Your average wager is placed by a guy who has no clue. They bet into a "line", rather than handicap the game! I had this discussion in another post last week.

Why do the lines not change much from opening post, to the start of the game? Are you telling me that the linesmakers are dead on acurate every game? We know that aint so! People give too much credit tio the "line" and not enough to their own handicapping skills.

"Gee, I think this team wins by two td's, but they are only favored by 2.......Vegas must know something!"

That is so weak!

Noboby is setting 'traps' out there. They will not take that risk. This is another gambling version of an "urban legend".



------------------
"You can't polish a turd."

 

[Night Owl]

I definately agree that sometimes lines come out that leave you scratching your head as to why it's so high (or low, as the case might be). But to me, I've long since given up on the trap theory and frankly think any game called a "trap" is more like CRAP!!!

However, I do think you can scare yourself out of betting on a game sometimes. My definition of that would be when you like a game, but don't bet it because you start to question "What happens IF....." I did such a thing yesterday when I was too SCARED to pull the trigger on the SF-Indy over 52 even though I did like it all week long!

One of the most important things about gambling to me is learning from all your mistakes. When you see a game you really really like, I think you just have to refer to it as "value." Meaning simply to say if team A shows up and plays the way they are CAPABLE of playing, then you don't see any other reason(s) why they won't cover the number vs. team B, or in my case go over a total.

Given the notion that ANYTHING is possible and you're not guarenteed a win no matter if you spent seconds on your pick or DAYS..... I think you have to go with the percentage plays and just do your homework to the best of your ability. Handicap the game/games in question and determine who you like. If you get beat, it WAS NOT because you were "trapped!" That's just plain BS!!! YOU control who YOU want to bet on, right?? When you lose, I'm guessing it's for the same reasons as it is when I lose. Didn't do enough handicapping (such as maybe forgetting a team has bad special teams -- Wade Richey of San Diego and Jake Arians of Buffalo could barely kick a 20 yard field goal to save their lives....lol...), or you were mistaken in your evaluation of a team's focus or game plan, didn't wait long enough for injury or weather reports, played a hunch, went against a strong trend for one reason or another, got too caught up in the "history" side of the matchup, thought a team really "HAD TO HAVE" said game, underestimated the other team, did not ever factor in whether extra emotion might play a small part in the outcome, asked a bad team to play good (or at least ok and they still couldn't even do that...lol...) had some very questionable calls by the refs go against you and/or just plain never did get many breaks or bounces to go your way.

Bottom line for me is that traps do not exist. I personally need a REASON that I believe in before I take a certain team or total. Bad beats are a part of the buisness. As long as I did my homework and didn't scare myself out of a bet that I originally liked, I can mentally absord whatever the results end up being. But it's when I don't have any GOOD REASON to NOT bet on a game that I like, yet I still don't take it -- and it ends up winning like I thought it would -- that causes the most aggravation.

Night Owl

 

[Z-MAN]

For what it's worth, I thought that Raiders line was a trap. As I was looking at the card, I couldn't understand how Oakland was favored by 2 points at New York. Oakland is clearly he better team and I had them beating them by 2 touchdowns. So what do I do? I act like an idiot and play the Giants. I figure everyone and their mother's mother was on Oakland....

I should have gone with my own instinct and hammered the Raiders. It was a dumb play on my part.

The Giants suck, the Raiders are good, but not good enoug to beat my Steelers!

 

[pepin46]

looking at lines before looking at the match-ups and figuring your own scenario, pre-conditions your thinking. that is the "trap" we fall for so many times. there is no other trap, except for some exceptions below:

just like we do, oddsmakers have their "angles" on why this game should go one way or the other, plus the anticipated betting. i suspect they use computer averages, just like other 'cappers and services do, and that is why they came up with philly -8. also, consider that they have private figures on bettor's patterns. maybe philly had been teased to death lately, and the 8 points would take almost everyone out on teasers.

so right off the bat, a great percentage of people anticipated philly being the class, and washington the dog. had they come in at "pickem", they would have had us all thinking, yeah, it is going to be a tight game, wash is really kicking a..., and still come close to splitting bettors in half, but with a pretty good chance that both sides of the teaser will hit. therein lies a big difference.

vegas can't lose, and the 8 points was the real "trap" for philly teaser backers. that is the kind of line that takes all teasers out on what should otherwise be a tight game that can go either way. as a general rule, teams giving more than 7 points make bad risks for teasers, especially when either the favorite is floundering or the dog is doing exceptionally well.

as for oak, it is tough for a neophite to figure or guess what the anticipated betting on ny teams is, so it would take a vegas line setter to answer this question. did they anticipate that if they came in at oak -6 or -7, the betting would be lob-sided to the giants? that is the name of the game, although off-hand, and without any research, i also anticipated a close game, slightly favoring oak.


pep

 

[Junior44]

*This is from another thread. No time for me to retype this.

I've said it a hundred times, I'll say it again. There is no such thing as a "so-called" trap. It is pure fallacy. At a given line, a play either has value or it does not have value. If a game has value based upon your handicapping processes (whatever they may be), then you make a wager. If a game does not have value based upon your handicapping processes (whatever they may be), then you do not make a wager.

To not make a play upon a game or (god forbid) take the other side than your handicapping suggests (assuming you have confidence in the process) because the line is "too good to be true" holds no water.

If an individual doesn't have confidence in the handicapping process used to arrive at a wagering decision, he shouldn't be betting. Perhaps for entertainment purposes, yes. But, as far as turning a profit, no way. There are many factors involved in being successful, but it starts with coming up with a variance in the line and acting upon it. The linesmakers are not in business to "outsmart" bettors. While it's true that, perhaps, as few as 1% of bettors are successful, I firmly believe that a much larger percentage can (and does) make a better line. Linesmakers are not prophets and are not superhuman. There are many other, and more important, reasons why people fail other than not being able to outhandicap Vegas. Poor money mangement, lack of discipline, impulse decision-making, lack of confidence (changing sides) to name a few. Those are the REAL reasons more people fail than not.

Now, do I personally feel I can make a better line than Vegas? Without sounding smug, absolutely. In my opinion, that's not the most difficult part and alot more people are able to than it appears. We must remember that "Vegas" does not base their lines on X's and O's, they base their lines on public perception. BIG difference. The rest of the equation is the hard part and ultimately will decide the success, or lack thereof, of the bettor (assuming he can beat the line). Example: You show me a bettor that can pick 60% winners and I would not be able to tell you if he made money or not.

 

[yak merchant]

Okay, I always avoid this topic, but I too am going to weigh in. Whether or not you want to call it a trap or not, Vegas does manipulate lines often to get uneven action. Sometimes it's just to offset the overbetting of the public favorite teams, often it is to limit teaser risk, but alot of times, Vegas is just making a wager that they are smarter than the bettor. If you're handicapping is really good, you'll find your spread in line with Vegas most of the time. But often times Vegas knows that if they post a spread of Vikings -3 they'll get 2 to 1 action on the Vikings and the Bears have a 55% chance of covering. That's when you hope your handicapping is good enough to have the Bears. The reason the lines don't move much from opening to kickoff is the juice will take care of most lopsided action in the longrun even when the heavy side wins, but if you start moving lines and crossing key numbers, the middle comes into play and that is Vegas' worst nightmare. And for those that don't believe Vegas does on certain games try to get lopsided action, I suggest you read "The Odds" by Chad Millman, which has an interview with Joe Lupo of the Stardust, and "The Man with the $100,000 breasts" by Michael Konik, which has an interview with Roxy. Call it a trap if you want, but I just call it a game, in which Vegas knows the tendency of the public and their handicapping methods and puts out a line to take advantage of it.