#1 Ohio State (1-1) at #4 Texas (2-0) Post Game

[medinabuckeye1]

balanced?

Texas -1.5, wins by 1. 

Wouldn't they make more $$$ if a huge percentage bet on Texas and they don't cover?

They would, but . . .

The only way they can get more people to bet on Texas is to give Ohio State less points and if they had done that then Texas would have covered.  

[utee94]

Right, and if the bets come in too heavy on one side and that's the side that hits, then the casino has "uncovered" bets and has to pay them out of their own pockets.  That's why they have to keep the betting balanced, to manage that risk, and that's why the betting line moves when heavy bets come in on one side or the other, to entice betting in the opposite direction.

[FearlessF]

no risk, no gain

[Cincydawg]

I figure the time they are unbalanced and LOSE is offset by the time they are unbalanced and win.

So,  they never lose over time.  It's not possible without fraud or incompetence.

[LetsGoPeay]

They are awful.  Situationally, those can be very useful.  They can even be a staple (Jimbo Fisher in his best LSU/FSU/A&M offenses).....if you can execute them well and get elite blocking from your WRs.  UT just isn't getting that.  They're poorly executed, and as you say, they're slow.  It feels like everybody would be better served and wouldn't risk injury on a play if Arch just took the snap in the shotgun and knelt down for a 4 yard loss. 

This was one of the under-appreciated aspects of IUs succcess the last two years. WRs block. If you can’t or won’t block, you won’t play for Cig. Sarratt and Cooper were elite WR blockers. Donavan McCulley wouldn’t block and that’s why he went from WR1 under Tom Allen to WR6 under Cig. 

[utee94]

no risk, no gain

There's no need for them to assume risk, they make their money on the percentage, not the total.

I figure the time they are unbalanced and LOSE is offset by the time they are unbalanced and win.

So,  they never lose over time.  It's not possible without fraud or incompetence.

Sure, theoretically the wins or losses on uncovered bets would probably even out.  But in practice I doubt it happens very often, because they actively react in real time and move the betting line, in order to keep it balanced.

In the olden days I assume your local bookie probably ended up with uncovered bets far more often than modern digitally controlled casino betting does. 

[MrNubbz]

This ONLY works if the bets are balanced. 

well yes and no as the line can move and still favor the House as those of us "Speculators" might not hedge against that move. Sports books start moving lines a few hours after the original lines are set as the wagering syndicates or "Sharps" set their own lines and reacte according causing the House to adjust

[betarhoalphadelta]

The casino doesn't care about winning big. Predictable consistent income is the goal. If the bets are even, they can't lose. That's their ideal. 

[utee94]

Right.  Unlike their customers, casinos are highly risk averse.  They have no interest in actually placing bets on one side or the other, their only interest is in taking your money.

[MrNubbz]

Yup they'll take their consistent 10% week in/out