Posted 7 hours, 12 minutes ago
Line has moved from Vandy -3.5 to -4.5 at all books. No injury data reported.
This lends more credibility that Vandy is indeed a strong play but the line opened at -1.5 and had now move 3 pts to -4.5
IMO, Vandy is unplayable at -4.5 since the number 3, a key number, has been crossed.
I played Vandy at -165 on the ML but the ML price has now moved to -200. This means Vandy must win SU 67% of the time to cover a -200 ML. At -165, the needed win rate was only 62%
I am locked in at -165 but I would not recommend betting Vandy at either -4.5 or -200.
Posted Sunday, August 28, 2016 05:56 PM
As time has gone by, the criteria have resolved into a very predictable situation with 60 + % on SC and most of the square books favoring SC as well. I don't use a " fade the public " system exclusively but I still try to avoid games that look too much like a John Q Public play ( in this case, SC is starting to look that way).
I have 7 criteria in this game that all point to Vandy. I dont recall ever having a game this strong on week 1 so that is surprising to me. I am going to play Vandy for 1 unit since I don't like to fire 2 unit plays this early in the season when so much is based on predictions as opposed to on the field results.
I will play Vandy on the Moneyline because I am worried at laying -3.5 and getting hooked by the half point (ie losing the game by 3 which is a key number).
This is subject to change since I will use very late action to confirm this play. Will have to post my decision to play or not play about 10minutes after kickoff.
Posted Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:12 AM
They actually let Muschamp back into the SEC as a head coach for So Caro.
Curious early action on Vandy. Early money came in on Vandy and has moved the opener from Vandy -1.5 to Vandy -3.5. I have not seen any injury news to warrant this big of move so I am wondering why??
Typically, I would expect bettors to jump on SC and that is what has happened over the last few weeks. The SI consensus now has SC at 72% of bets which implies a preponderance of square bettors on SC.
However, early betting was split 50/50 on each team which also implies early sharp money on Vandy.
No way I am going to lay -3.5 with Vandy but I may consider a moneyline play in the -175 range at this time.
Posted Sunday, August 14, 2016 12:40 PM
Several of you have asked what is my "system". I don't have a "system".
But I do use a unique approach that works for me and seems to have a solid rationale for making selections.
I have included below a sample of a game coming up in September between So Carolina and Vanderbilt. Terms may be new to some of you so PM me if you want to know more.
South Carolina vs Vanderbilt -3.5
LINE MOVE ANALYSIS - 8/14/16 (This analysis is early and incomplete. Much of what you read below is subject to changes in the betting market between today and kickoff)
Line opened Vandy -1.5 and has
gradually moved all the way to Vandy -3.5, crossing the key number of 3.
Sharp Moves vs Square Moves
This appears to be a generally
sharp move since the original consensus on Vandy was only 26% when the line
started to move. Also, general
perception about So Carolina is typically more favorable than Vandy but this is seemingly contradicted by this early move on Vandy
Line moves this early and on teams
as low profile as Vandy would suggest a sharp move is in play here ... [More]
Posted Sunday, August 07, 2016 10:41 PM
Every year, there are always a few teams who are being hyped by the media as this year's emerging Cinderella.
Typically, these teams finished the season with an impressive bowl win or finished the previous year with an impressive victory or two against quality opposition.
The most common trait these teams typically have is that while they may be schools with a good tradition, their recent history is typically not that great. Most have not won any conference championships in the last 4 to 5 years, sometimes more. The media for some reason always picks a few of these teams to finish the season ranked highly, maybe even playing in the national championship playoffs.
I am not saying these teams will fall flat. Sometimes, they actually do very well. But the start of the season is where these teams are most vulnerable.
This year, there are two possible pretenders and they are Washington and Tennessee. Everybody is falling in love with these two. But I never like to trust unknown quantities early in the season, especially those that are long on potential and short on actual results.
Oddsmakers will likely have both of these teams overpriced since all the pre season hype has been on what a great season these two are going to have. Maybe. But you can bet both of these teams are going to overpriced early in the year. Look for them to win but also run into trouble covering big pointspreads. Wash... [More]
Posted Wednesday, July 27, 2016 06:45 PM
Looking ahead to the new season, I want to point out how many things are no longer valid in capping CFB.
The two major changes to my approach are follows
1. "Fading the Public" no longer works as a stand alone system
Sure we need to know if the public is overwhelmingly on one side but these situations are really not that common. I have several years of data and over the last few years, a system based on strictly fading the public is around 50/50. In other words, a losing approach. Use caution when "fading the public" It is still a useful tool but not worthy a stand alone system.
2. Reverse Line Movement are dead.
Everywhere you look on the internet, someone is blabbing about RLMs and I have to admit, that was me as recently as last year. But over the last 3 years, RLMs are no longer a solid play and in fact, are often times a fade situation.
After a very long time of following these things, you come to realize you need to be smart money and not attempt to chase it based on public %'s and movements. Odds makers are on to this methodology and will move numbers just to create action from people with this mentality. Just go to any forum and when you see an RLM and it's always the same conversation. The public is taking team A at 70% and the line has moved against them. Sharp money must be on the other team. That might be true, sure, but oddsmakers might have also just conned a lot of people int... [More]