Still no love for Michigan

[cwerph]

It is. Your assumption was that betting doesn't indicate who wins, just money flow. I wasp ting out that people put money on how they think will win. You are assuming money flow is a random event. Just doesn't make sense

Fans put money on who they think will win. Bettors put money on who they think will cover. The purpose of the line is to make sure the money is even on both sides so the bookie doesn't lose his shirt. It is a reflection of the thought of the book maker about how they think the money will be laid.

If it was about who they thought would win, why would a line ever change absent something like a major injury? Yet, it happens all the time.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Early in the season Beilein was trying to find the right mix when McGary came back but I know that one of the reasons Robinson came back was because he was told he would be able to play more in his natural position, at the 3. So what I said was what they said the plan was. Obviously the plan changed.

I think you may be mistaken on this one. Morgan wasn't playing much at all last year after injuring his ankle and McGary getting inserted into the starting lineup. Once McGary was put in the starting lineup -- Morgan only played to give him a breather.

Unless you are saying they would use him at the 4 occasionally if they had a game like the last couple that came along.

Who would Michigan sit if they planned on starting Morgan or McGary at the 4? LeVert? He is the best defender on the team. They aren't bringing Stauskus off the bench.

Only way I could see UM's offense working with two bigs is if they were in the mold of GR III, but a little bigger. They would have to be athletic, able to shoot the three, but big enough to handle the post on the defensive side of the ball.

 

[BUD]

Almost game time, It's time to rock em Wolverines.

 

[cwerph]

I wonder why?

 

[BigAppleBadger]

It is. Your assumption was that betting doesn't indicate who wins, just money flow. I wasp ting out that people put money on how they think will win. You are assuming money flow is a random event. Just doesn't make sense

Money follows the line. If there was no line, then people would bet on the team they think will win. But bookies would take on a lot of risk if a large majority of people bet on one team and were right, so they set the line in such a way that equal money is laid down on both teams.

But yes, if one team is giving points, that means the "market" thinks they are going to win.

 

[dcZONAfan]

I think you may be mistaken on this one. Morgan wasn't playing much at all last year after injuring his ankle and McGary getting inserted into the starting lineup. Once McGary was put in the starting lineup -- Morgan only played to give him a breather.

Unless you are saying they would use him at the 4 occasionally if they had a game like the last couple that came along.

Who would Michigan sit if they planned on starting Morgan or McGary at the 4? LeVert? He is the best defender on the team. They aren't bringing Stauskus off the bench.

Only way I could see UM's offense working with two bigs is if they were in the mold of GR III, but a little bigger. They would have to be athletic, able to shoot the three, but big enough to handle the post on the defensive side of the ball.

You just described Brandon Ashley. He would literally be perfect playing that role. But there are not many guys in that mold.

 

[Codaxx]

Fans put money on who they think will win. Bettors put money on who they think will cover. The purpose of the line is to make sure the money is even on both sides so the bookie doesn't lose his shirt. It is a reflection of the thought of the book maker about how they think the money will be laid.

If it was about who they thought would win, why would a line ever change absent something like a major injury? Yet, it happens all the time.

That is the same thing with the stock market. People bet on where they believe the value is and the price reflects the consensus. It is exactly the same. Vegas is simply the NYSE. I am not sure why so many people think that it is something different.

 

[charlie42s]

That is the same thing with the stock market. People bet on where they believe the value is and the price reflects the consensus. It is exactly the same. Vegas is simply the NYSE. I am not sure why so many people think that it is something different.

Here's one reason why it is different.

In the stock market, one rarely loses all their money in a single bet or get a yield like that given when a gambling bet is won. Gambling is a win it or lose it all in a single bet.

The other is that Gambling on sport's events is usually based upon a short event, usually a game or a series which involves a competition between small teams of people. These people don't produce a material product.

The stock market results of a single stock are based upon long-term events, monthly and yearly(progress and financial reports). The value of the stock is based upon the production of material products, that other people can buy, sell and use.

 

[Codaxx]

Here's one reason why it is different.

In the stock market, one rarely loses all their money in a single bet or get a yield like that given when a gambling bet is won. Gambling is a win it or lose it all in a single bet.

The other is that Gambling on sport's events is usually based upon a short event, usually a game or a series which involves a competition between small teams of people. These people don't produce a material product.

The stock market results of a single stock are based upon long-term events, monthly and yearly(progress and financial reports). The value of the stock is based upon the production of material products, that other people can buy, sell and use.

That isnt true. All the bucket shop in the 80s and 90s proved that right. Penny stocks, biotechs, Vancouver mining stocks the lists go one. Stock market only seems more complex. Either way the concept is the same. Vegas is a market that is based on building a consensus. It is not quite as efficient, but still quite similar.