Wednesday 2/18

I don't see a reason not to play all of the earlier games on my leans list this morning.

Early Games (7p-859p)
7p South Florida +5.5 +104 2x
7p West Virginia -9.5 +102 2x
8p Wisc-Milwaukee +5.5 +101 2x
8p Arkansas +4 -101 2x
8p Virginia -1 +112 2x

Late Games (9p-12a)
9p Idaho +6 +102 2x
Passes: NW, TTech

-USF was the closest to getting cut. The public knows that G'Town isn't very good, but I still think most people looked at that line and went "who the hell is USF?"

-Yes, I read ML's piece today on getting 9 vs. 9.5 with the 'Eers. I have two points on that. One, while I agree that in general we are working within small margins, I am still not convinced that remains the case when there is large line movement, both anecdotally from the last few years of wagering and the empirical, quantitative evidence I found during NCAAF season. Two, -9.5 +102 is actually a better price than the -9 -110 he got.

-If the UW-Mil/Butler game weren't a Horizon League game, it would have been a three. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the public thinks about these small conference, ranked teams and if the books care enough to offset the line.

-NW and TTech ended up not being particularly anti-public. Easy passes.

Good luck tonight.


moneyline said...

"Two, -9.5 +102 is actually a better price than the -9 -110 he got"

I wasn't clear on this, but I certainly wasn't suggesting that one should forsake the best available line in an effort to increase the chances of winning a bet.

When I locked in at -9 -110 the line was at like -9.5 -108 at Pinnacle.

am19psu said...

Yeah, I knew that wasn't your intent. I wasn't sure how many people that actually read my crappy blog would make the connection, though.

am19psu said...

I should also add, that you're obviously the industry standard here. I feel if I do/think something that is different than what you are posting, it is worth me explaining it so it can either spark more discussion or I can be labeled as an idiot. Or if it's both, I'm ok with that, too.