I could not find any FAQ or help and old posts regarding this so I'm going to attempt to get some answers here. Please pardon my ignorance if some of these questions are common sense or downright stupid. I appreciate all your help in advance and furthermore any direction to a better source for these answers.
Here's a link to the chart in question:
http://www.thespread.com/ncaa-college-football-public-betting-chart
What a wealth of information! Now only I want to clarify a couple of things:
I will use the USF/Rutgers game for an example. At the time of posting there are 27,366 bets. There market average column shows 73% USF / 27% Rutgers. The open line was -3 and the current line is -2.
1. Does the market average reflect the number (not dollar value) of bets on USF? More specifically, can I say that about (73% of 27,366) ~19,766 bets were made on USF. Although the value of each of those bets may vary significantly.
2. Am I correct that these 27,366 bets are against the spread?. More specifically, can I say that those 19,766 were placed on USF-2 (or USF-3) while the other 27% were placed on Rutgers +2 (or +3)?
3. Can I deduce that the avg value of the wager on the USF line was much lower than the avg wager on Rutgers? Or more specifically - if the average bet on USF was 100, then the avg bet on the Rutgers side was 270 (73/27)?*
4. Lastly are these archived anywhere?
Thanks very much again.
* This is based off the assumption that sportsbooks simply seek to balance the amount wagered on each side so that they have no exposure to the result of the game. Thus the reason for line moves is simply to entice more action on a particular side in the case of unequal overexposure the other side. Maybe this is an incorrect assumption and sportsbooks do at times have exposure to a particular side.
In this instance, it would appear that their exposure would be on Rutgers (b/c the majority of bets were on USF). This seems particularly strange since the line has moved in such a way to entice more action on USF (USF-3 to USF-2). If most of the money was indeed on USF-3 as the volume of bets indicates, then it would seem likely that the books would increase the line (to USF -4 ) in order to invite more Rutgers action, and reduce exposure in the event USF does indeed cover leaving them paying out more than they keep from losing Rutger bets. Thus it appears to me that the people betting on Rutgers are betting a higher average dollar amount to not only offset the higher volume but to actually force the books to move the line and draw more action on USF here.
If any of this is at all incorrect, I'd very much love to hear your thoughts.
Hi pocpoc, welcome to the site and thanks for your questions. I am glad you enjoy the betting chart feeds, they are a great tool for sports bettors.
Regarding your questions...
1. Yes the market average is total # of bets not amount of $ wagered. Also yes, you can say that the money wagered on these teams will vary significantly.
2. Yes these are ATS. If you click the graph on the right of the percentage pie chart it will tell you at what line the action came in on. You can also toggle between teams in that graph.
3. You shouldn't really deduce anything about the amount bet based on the market averages. Reason being is that this feed is made up of data from 5 different online sports books. Sports books with different limits, different clientel and different opinions on bookmaking. If it was just 1 book making up the feed then yes, you could make assumptions about the money being bet but there is no accurate way to do that when 5 books are represented at once with no way to define each source.
4. We do archive the data but that is a pay service, if you are interested in getting more info about it let me know.
If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask, I am happy to help you!
I sincerely appreciate your prompt and thorough reply.
Is the pay service you refer to located at the sportsinsight link at the bottom of that page?
Many books/services advertise with "learn how to beat the sportsbook" slogans which seems entirely uninformed since the books are indifferent to an events outcome. As I understand it, the odds/spreads they set are to balance action on an event in order minimize exposure to any particular outcome. The odds/spreads that balances the action however can and usual is vastly different than an accurate prediction of said event of course. For this reason the information provided here seems immensely valuable and never imagined it would be so readily available.
Thanks again - as this simple chart imo could be much more valuable than any actual game analysis / power ranking/ etc. I will certainly be exploring further the tools available on these two sites.
Hi pocpoc,
Yes, at sports insights you can get an upgraded betting chart feed that will also give you over and under game info and more detailed analysis of this data. It's not picks or power rankings its just a beefier version of the feed we carry for free.
While you are correct that the official definition of point spread betting is to balance action on both sides of the game, not all sports books share the same philosophy on how to accomplish this.
Some books like Bodog are masters at risk management, their sole purpose is to balance action on games, limit exposure and rake in profit. While other books are confident enough to take stands on games and allow lop-sided money to continue to roll in even after other books have moved off a number.
Then you have the books that also bet themselves into other sports books looking to make money on their risk management and exploit what they feel are weaker numbers/bookmakers at other sports books.
So without boring you to death my point is that yes, in theory you are trying to balance risk but at the same time not all books are run the same and you definitely need to take that into consideration when trying to analyze data like this.