Keith - no need to get in a big argument or get cross. I wasn't even particularly proposing a bet for Fred. I was simply trying to get people to think a little more about what they do with this great position you have put everyone in. It kills me to think everyone will simply react by going to the outright market and pressing lay at whatever price happens to be up there.
I was also trying to make some more general points to the thread about how seemingly "perfect" markets can be innefficient. I'd been meaning to write on the subject of whether you can beat the Premier League markets for some time.
As I often do, I agree with Red. This line is going to take around ten times as much money to get to 3 as it is to get to 5.5 again. I'm sure you know that as well as I do, but I'm stressing it for those who are less experienced in this wonderful maket (the NFL). NFL betting is different from all other things because of "key numbers" (even from college football) and this is what makes it fascinating.
The reason that no pros have taken San Fran yet is that there is no point. The Super Bowl is not happening until Sunday 3rd Feb and we now all know from history that the public (who nearer to the day will be 95% of this market, maybe higher on the day), are going to back Baltimore Money Line at lower prices than the spread (handicap) suggests are correct. A bookie looking to split the result and never give away a chance of winning would move the spread and money line together. ie if he takes money at 2.5 on Ravens money line and drops it to 2.38 then he'll "have" to move the spread to -3. We know he won't do that because he is worried about getting middled, so now we have an inefficient market that can be exploited.
I don't personally believe the general number on this Super Bowl will reach 3. I believe that I will get 3 maybe at 5/6 or 4/5, but it will be hard to get full bet on. I am not entirely sure what I think the true line on this game should be but my gut feeling is 5.5. I could easily see it climbing to that by game day as the San Fran punters can wait now, but eventually they'll have to bet (it's hard to not bet).
The other thing to remember about the San Fran pros is that if they can't get 3 then they will probably get the money line equivalent of -3 or better (4/6 or maybe even 8/11).
If you surveyed 1000 pro bettors after this Super Bowl you'll find a bunch have Baltimore +5.5 and a bunch have San Fran at 4/6. You wouldn't want to be the bookmaker of any of them. Luckily for the poor old bookies, you could survey 1000 ice-creams and find they have Baltimore at 11/8 and 6/4 and San Fran at -3.5 and -4.
Those lucky booky chaps.
Problem is, I don't think it's mug money driving this move.
I don't think you could argue that San Fran aren't more the "public" team of the two.
Behind Dallas and New England I would guess they are the third most popular team in the USA.
And as for recent performances, I think San Fran's annihilation of Green Bay was the most startling and impressive display of the whole playoffs.
Plus the biggest betting move of the whole playoffs was SF at Atlanta.
San Fran are the public team, but the line keeps moving against them.
As I said on the night, I think the 5.5 you keep quoting was a mirage. The American football books version of early prices at Wolverhampton.
Yes, you can bet it, but for tiny percentage of the amount you'll be able to bet next week.
I reckon the true opening line was 4, maybe 4.5 and two very clever punters I talk to have played at those numbers.
No-one is interested in the 49ers giving up more than 3.
I can't see it reaching 3, because the books would be in a very thorny spot laying 4.5 and 3. They'd rather get with SF than risk that horrible middle.
I think it's very likely that the line finishes at 3.5, but much much chance that it moves to 4 than 3.
So, for hedging purposes, waiting is more likely to be a better play than betting now.
I think you have got me all wrong Keith. I never said it's all mug money driving this move. If I did I was wrong and I didn't mean to, but I don't think I did.
What I will say is that the % of sharp money to mug money is totally different right now than it will be three days before the game and on day time the sharp money will be so swamped it won't even cause a ripple.
Right now though, you are correct. Most early money is sharp money. Sharp people don't neccessarily all bet one way on the game though. Sharp people that like Baltimore took 5.5 and 5 and maybe even 4.5 (as they know 5 is a dead-number so they don't mind missing it). Sharp people do not bet Baltimore on the money-line as they can see that this is out of whack with where it would "normally" be compared to these spread (handicap) lines.
Sharp people that like San Fran are definitely waiting. They will certainly take -3 if they get the chance, but they will also be looking to take the 49ers money-line after the ice-creams overbet the Ravens at bad prices.
You are not being very fair on the firms who post an early line. Pinnacle were letting people have $4,000 on those early numbers and I'm sure Red can confirm The Greek booked some decent-sized action. It's hardly Wolverhampton where you can't get £100. Don't forget we are discussing the bets placed by sharp bettors - these are players who have accounts with absolutely everyone and who could see the line moving. I'm sure if you were a sharp player who liked the Ravens and wanted to take 5.5 you had about five hours to do it and more than 10 books that would give you at least $2,000. I would say that was a pretty decent market-size. I would not call that a mirage.
I also agree with you that the line will not reach a consensus point of 3, but I may find some spots where I can get -3 at 5/6 or 4/5 and that'll be a good bet. I also think that if it gets to 8/11 San Fran on the money-line that will be a good bet.
At no stage am I thinking here about match-ups x's and o's and who will be blocking who and stuff. Just thinking about the number.
Having said all of this I can guarantee you right now that I will have 10 times as much on props as I do on the spread or money-line.
Couple of Super Bowl facts to throw at you while I'm here:
In Super Bowls since 1980 the winner of the game has covered 25-6-2. That is to say that 25 out of 33 times the spread has made no difference.
If you look at teams who have won games as underdogs in back-to-back games since 1989, who then start as underdogs for a 3rd game they are 53-92 in that 3rd game (they win 53 and lose 92). If you look at that spot just in the play offs it's 3-9.
Author