[Goose]

Vegas knows best: we are #3 at 9:1 after So. Car. and UConn.

Hate to say it about Vegas knows best, but not always. I think Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb. They had us a 9.5 favorite over UCLA in the Pac-12 tournament

Remember, the Vegas line is not set by what the books think will actually happen. It is set by what they think makes the books the most money.

[Goose]

Vegas knows best: we are #3 at 9:1 after So. Car. and UConn.

Hate to say it about Vegas knows best, but not always. I think Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb. They had us a 9.5 favorite over UCLA in the Pac-12 tournament

Remember, the Vegas line is not set by what the books think will actually happen. It is set by what they think makes the books the most money.

[qwerty49]

Vegas knows best: we are #3 at 9:1 after So. Car. and UConn.

Hate to say it about Vegas knows best, but not always. I think Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb. They had us a 9.5 favorite over UCLA in the Pac-12 tournament

Remember, the Vegas line is not set by what the books think will actually happen. It is set by what they think makes the books the most money.

Yes. Whatever best balances the bets (and thus financial exposure) on all sides.

[qwerty49]

Vegas knows best: we are #3 at 9:1 after So. Car. and UConn.

Hate to say it about Vegas knows best, but not always. I think Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb. They had us a 9.5 favorite over UCLA in the Pac-12 tournament

Remember, the Vegas line is not set by what the books think will actually happen. It is set by what they think makes the books the most money.

Yes. Whatever best balances the bets (and thus financial exposure) on all sides.

[Hoops9092]

Everyone on ESPN is selecting Iowa out of this regional in today's article. Think it was 8 out of 9 picked Iowa. I know Caitlin Clark is a baller and Iowa has been playing well as of late; but let's not forget this is very much the same Iowa team that was upset and held to 60 some points at home last season in the second round. They haven't played in an Elite Eight in any recent years either. I just think they are more beatable than people think. Duke or Colorado in the Sweet 16 is not a gimme for them either.

[Hoops9092]

Everyone on ESPN is selecting Iowa out of this regional in today's article. Think it was 8 out of 9 picked Iowa. I know Caitlin Clark is a baller and Iowa has been playing well as of late; but let's not forget this is very much the same Iowa team that was upset and held to 60 some points at home last season in the second round. They haven't played in an Elite Eight in any recent years either. I just think they are more beatable than people think. Duke or Colorado in the Sweet 16 is not a gimme for them either.

[TheFarm07]

The NCAA tournament will be the proving ground of these predictions. Having been in conference play for the last couple months, the teams will finally be able to test their mettle against opponents across the country and determine whether their conference is as tough as they think it is or if specific squads are as fearsome as some believe.

[TheFarm07]

The NCAA tournament will be the proving ground of these predictions. Having been in conference play for the last couple months, the teams will finally be able to test their mettle against opponents across the country and determine whether their conference is as tough as they think it is or if specific squads are as fearsome as some believe.

[Jskass]

first we need to get to the game, then hold Clark to 20 points.

[Jskass]

first we need to get to the game, then hold Clark to 20 points.

[WBB fan]

Article from "Her Hoop Stats" with predictions of possible upsets. Stanford's not in the discussion on this one, but does see a possible takedown of UCLA, and possible good result for UNLV.

https://open.substack.com/pub/herhoopsta...dium=email

[WBB fan]

Article from "Her Hoop Stats" with predictions of possible upsets. Stanford's not in the discussion on this one, but does see a possible takedown of UCLA, and possible good result for UNLV.

https://open.substack.com/pub/herhoopsta...dium=email

[jonnyss]

Vegas knows best: we are #3 at 9:1 after So. Car. and UConn.

Hate to say it about Vegas knows best, but not always. I think Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb. They had us a 9.5 favorite over UCLA in the Pac-12 tournament

Remember, the Vegas line is not set by what the books think will actually happen. It is set by what they think makes the books the most money.

Yes. Whatever best balances the bets (and thus financial exposure) on all sides.

yes, i'm no expert, but i thought espn is the opinion of individuals, whereas the line simply reflects betting volume rather than the opinion of some individuals in vegas. i thought odds favoring iowa simply mean more folks are betting on iowa. as the odds favoring us over ucla reflected more folks betting on us.

[jonnyss]

Vegas knows best: we are #3 at 9:1 after So. Car. and UConn.

Hate to say it about Vegas knows best, but not always. I think Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb. They had us a 9.5 favorite over UCLA in the Pac-12 tournament

Remember, the Vegas line is not set by what the books think will actually happen. It is set by what they think makes the books the most money.

Yes. Whatever best balances the bets (and thus financial exposure) on all sides.

yes, i'm no expert, but i thought espn is the opinion of individuals, whereas the line simply reflects betting volume rather than the opinion of some individuals in vegas. i thought odds favoring iowa simply mean more folks are betting on iowa. as the odds favoring us over ucla reflected more folks betting on us.

[WBB fan]

Vegas knows best: we are #3 at 9:1 after So. Car. and UConn.

Hate to say it about Vegas knows best, but not always. I think Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb. They had us a 9.5 favorite over UCLA in the Pac-12 tournament

Remember, the Vegas line is not set by what the books think will actually happen. It is set by what they think makes the books the most money.

Yes. Whatever best balances the bets (and thus financial exposure) on all sides.

yes, i'm no expert, but i thought espn is the opinion of individuals, whereas the line simply reflects betting volume rather than the opinion of some individuals in vegas. i thought odds favoring iowa simply mean more folks are betting on iowa. as the odds favoring us over ucla reflected more folks betting on us.

That's exactly right, as I understand it -- so the Vegas odds reflect what the betting public is thinking, and these are people who are putting money down. As far as WBB odds are concerned, at this point I think that many new bettors are getting in who aren't as familiar with the women's game as they with other things they bet on, like NBA and NFL for example. The result is that odds can be off compared to an informed assessment of probability of outcome. And that's what I meant when I said that "Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb."

[WBB fan]

Vegas knows best: we are #3 at 9:1 after So. Car. and UConn.

Hate to say it about Vegas knows best, but not always. I think Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb. They had us a 9.5 favorite over UCLA in the Pac-12 tournament

Remember, the Vegas line is not set by what the books think will actually happen. It is set by what they think makes the books the most money.

Yes. Whatever best balances the bets (and thus financial exposure) on all sides.

yes, i'm no expert, but i thought espn is the opinion of individuals, whereas the line simply reflects betting volume rather than the opinion of some individuals in vegas. i thought odds favoring iowa simply mean more folks are betting on iowa. as the odds favoring us over ucla reflected more folks betting on us.

That's exactly right, as I understand it -- so the Vegas odds reflect what the betting public is thinking, and these are people who are putting money down. As far as WBB odds are concerned, at this point I think that many new bettors are getting in who aren't as familiar with the women's game as they with other things they bet on, like NBA and NFL for example. The result is that odds can be off compared to an informed assessment of probability of outcome. And that's what I meant when I said that "Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb."

[Goose]

Hate to say it about Vegas knows best, but not always. I think Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb. They had us a 9.5 favorite over UCLA in the Pac-12 tournament

Remember, the Vegas line is not set by what the books think will actually happen. It is set by what they think makes the books the most money.

Yes. Whatever best balances the bets (and thus financial exposure) on all sides.

yes, i'm no expert, but i thought espn is the opinion of individuals, whereas the line simply reflects betting volume rather than the opinion of some individuals in vegas. i thought odds favoring iowa simply mean more folks are betting on iowa. as the odds favoring us over ucla reflected more folks betting on us.

That's exactly right, as I understand it -- so the Vegas odds reflect what the betting public is thinking, and these are people who are putting money down. As far as WBB odds are concerned, at this point I think that many new bettors are getting in who aren't as familiar with the women's game as they with other things they bet on, like NBA and NFL for example. The result is that odds can be off compared to an informed assessment of probability of outcome. And that's what I meant when I said that "Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb."

The setting of the odds is actually much, much more complicated that balancing the number of bets on each side. The "new" bettors probably aren't putting down as much cash as some of the more experienced ones are. It also isn't just balancing total dollars on each side. The books know the psychology of different classes of bettors. A few very large bets may move the line disproportionately because the books expect "followers" to join in. The odds on other games that create more or less total risk than average for the book will also affect the odds on individual games. The books also have a very good in-house organization that will predict the expected outcome. All these factors are weighed and combined to produce the odds.

It  is a very much "maximize profit" activity. Sometimes you can do that with fewer people betting because they are "high rollers" and the books think they are wrong this time. Sometimes the prognosticators/syndicates often on the radio create demand for bets that the book's in-house people think are losers. If some "influencer" has said "take x and give the points if you can give 3 or less", and the book thinks that is a fools bet, the will set the line at -3 because they think they can make a killing on those people. At the same time they may set up other games as "stop losses" for their more aggressive lines. In those cases, the odds do not "balance" anything. It is a very complex process. Maximize profit.

[Goose]

Hate to say it about Vegas knows best, but not always. I think Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb. They had us a 9.5 favorite over UCLA in the Pac-12 tournament

Remember, the Vegas line is not set by what the books think will actually happen. It is set by what they think makes the books the most money.

Yes. Whatever best balances the bets (and thus financial exposure) on all sides.

yes, i'm no expert, but i thought espn is the opinion of individuals, whereas the line simply reflects betting volume rather than the opinion of some individuals in vegas. i thought odds favoring iowa simply mean more folks are betting on iowa. as the odds favoring us over ucla reflected more folks betting on us.

That's exactly right, as I understand it -- so the Vegas odds reflect what the betting public is thinking, and these are people who are putting money down. As far as WBB odds are concerned, at this point I think that many new bettors are getting in who aren't as familiar with the women's game as they with other things they bet on, like NBA and NFL for example. The result is that odds can be off compared to an informed assessment of probability of outcome. And that's what I meant when I said that "Vegas still has a limited grasp on wbb."

The setting of the odds is actually much, much more complicated that balancing the number of bets on each side. The "new" bettors probably aren't putting down as much cash as some of the more experienced ones are. It also isn't just balancing total dollars on each side. The books know the psychology of different classes of bettors. A few very large bets may move the line disproportionately because the books expect "followers" to join in. The odds on other games that create more or less total risk than average for the book will also affect the odds on individual games. The books also have a very good in-house organization that will predict the expected outcome. All these factors are weighed and combined to produce the odds.

It  is a very much "maximize profit" activity. Sometimes you can do that with fewer people betting because they are "high rollers" and the books think they are wrong this time. Sometimes the prognosticators/syndicates often on the radio create demand for bets that the book's in-house people think are losers. If some "influencer" has said "take x and give the points if you can give 3 or less", and the book thinks that is a fools bet, the will set the line at -3 because they think they can make a killing on those people. At the same time they may set up other games as "stop losses" for their more aggressive lines. In those cases, the odds do not "balance" anything. It is a very complex process. Maximize profit.

[BostonCard]

Also, the book needs to get out in front of movements, not be reactive to changes in the market.  For example, if there is a significant injury, the book will have to move the line as quickly as possible, lest bettors use temporary mismatches in the line to arbitrage an advantage.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, the book needs to get out in front of movements, not be reactive to changes in the market.  For example, if there is a significant injury, the book will have to move the line as quickly as possible, lest bettors use temporary mismatches in the line to arbitrage an advantage.

BC