We are NOT saying the same things. From your posts

You: "And the bettors who do that will not only cancel each other out, but are of such non-importance ($10, $20, and MAYBE $50 bets) that they do not affect the line one hill of beans"
Me: Wrong. Every bet affects the line. In aggregate, they are precisely what moves the line.

You: "How do you think Vegas figures out how to get equal money? That's right, stats, algorithms, etc."
Me: Couldn't be more wrong. Vegas moves the line based on the action they get, not on an algorithm.

You: "The serious bettors have stats and algorithms of their own."
Me: Possibly, but has ZERO affect. Bettors don't have anywhere near the algorithm the houses in Vegas have if they have anything at all.

You: "So naturally, if a lot more money came in on VT -3 than on WVU +3, then the general thought is that Virginia Tech is the better team."
Me: Couldn't be more wrong. The action means bettors perceive the line indicates a betting advantage one way or the other. It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with which team is "better".

You: "But yes, VT being a 3 point favorite is generally indicative (key words) of the general view in the betting community that VT is a little better."
Me. I don't know how many times I have to say it but the line is set based on the action they expect. There is far more at play than who is the better team.

You: (Based on your previous statement.) "Even more indicative though is the line has moved even more in VT's favor."
Me. Absolutely not. A moving line has NOTHING to do with which team is better. It is 100% based on the action they have gotten on the opening line.

You: "At the very least, a CLEARLY better team (as the article implied and I was mostly referring to with my original point where this came up) would not be a 4.5 point (and growing) underdog."
Me: Wrong. The 4.5 line was set based on presumed betting, not on which team was presumed to be better. The growing line has absolutely nothing to do with which team is better. It represents the action on the original line.

You: "It's going right back to I said one thing, you said I said something totally different and then said a slightly different but very similar point to what I said."
Me: As I've shown above, I'm not "saying you said something totally different" and "saying something slightly different", I'm quoting you and saying FLAT OUT you're wrong.

You: "I understand how the lines work."
Me: No, you don't.

You: (Based on last quote.) "It sounds like you do too since again, we're not saying anything much different."
Me: We're saying a LOT different. It's just that you don't know enough to recognize the differences.

You: "And again, me saying you're disagreeing to disagree, well your post is more of it."
Me: My posts continue to disagree with you not because of an entrenched position for the sake of disagreeing but because you lack a fundamental understanding of sports betting.

You: "If I don't know what I'm talking about, then neither do you because what we're saying isn't much different."
Me: After reading this far you must realize that what we're saying is most definitely different.

You: "rather than critically reading what I have to say, you're assuming what I mean from the words that I'm actually writing."
Me: Good lord. "assuming what I mean from the words that I'm actually writing." Did you actually write that? Just what is the difference?

You: "It seems you know a bit more about the technical side"
Me: Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile.

You: "And typically, the people who move the lines (the big gambers) are the ones that have a pretty good idea generally (again, a VERY key word)."
Me: I answered this in one of my posts, the ignorant masses COSMICALLY outweigh "big" gamblers and therefor are the movers of the line.

You: "If those people thought WVU was clearly superior, then a 3 point opening line in favor of VT would have moved VERY quickly in the opposite direction."
Me: Wrong. There are far more variables at play, e.g. location, history of beating the spread, # of biased bettors, etc. Your understanding is way over simplified.

You: "The stats and algorithms that Vegas uses again if they indicated that WVU was clearly superior, they would not have opened the Mountaineers up as a 3 point dog. "
Me: You make this mistake over and over despite the fact I've explained it to you over and over. The algorithms, which you never mentioned until I pointed them out to you, use a plethora of data to set the line and there are numerous factors in play other than who is the "best" team.

You: "But the people who know what they're doing and put big money into this sports betting thing saw VT open up as a 3 point favorite and the money poured in on VT, which is why the line moved even further in VT's direction."
Me: You have this hard on for what the "big" bettors do. As I've said before, the ignorant masses have FAR more affect on the line than the "big" bettors. Plus, you have no idea at all whether that money is based on a belief in superiority or an inherent bias. All we know is action came in on VT.

You: "Also, I never claimed that the serious bettors have the resources of Vegas. But many of them DO have VERY extensive resources. Again, not necessarily on par with Vegas, but very good nonetheless."
Me: Name one, or are you making this up? What are "VERY extensive resources" when you're competing against "B"illion dollar enterprises? Let's suppose Billy Joe Jim Bob sinks a quarter mil into consultants to build him an algorithm. He's still looking at a 4000/1 differential with a single "B"illion dollar casino.

I'm just going to skip your media prognosticators comment.

Clearly we are not saying the same things.


[Post edited by MountaineerLegion at 07/10/2017 04:40AM]