Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

USC Forum

Buffenuf said:
Good! Vegas cares not a whit! Line is to balance the cash bet on each side. Bookies really don't want to dig into their cash reserves
But the U$C players who peek at that and have no understanding of the betting line (like so many here!), might start getting "overconfident," along the lines of "See? Vegas knows we're gonna kill 'em!"
Click to expand...
Why do you have a vendetta against so many people here? We all understand how the betting lines work.
 
Truly the most self-absorbed, irredeemable fanbase I've encountered. I can't even muster up the desire to engage in any discussion or troll them. I just want to beat them, continue our little dream season, and get that historical goose egg against USC off the books.
 
BuffNut99 said:
Truly the most self-absorbed, irredeemable fanbase I've encountered. I can't even muster up the desire to engage in any discussion or troll them. I just want to beat them, continue our little dream season, and get that historical goose egg against USC off the books.
Click to expand...
Well, there's baylor. I'm just trying to be reasonable here.

But after the Waco gang, yes.
 
buffaholic said:
I don't think they started out the year blitzing. Graham has tried to not blitz nearly as often as they did last year. Perhaps he blitzed less in USC game than previous games (I didn't watch the USC game yet), but he's blitzed much less this year than last.
Click to expand...
Gotcha, I just know there was a reduction in their blitzes for the USC game. I watched that TTU game and ASU blitzed almost every play.
 
I live in the thick of it, and I have to say, maybe it's because SC has been down a few years, but right now, in terms of worst pac 12 fan bases, I'd have to go with both Arizona schools (ASU wins by a hair, if I have to pick). The level of douchiness is unmatched. SC fans are definitely 3rd though. After that it sort of levels off...with Oregon getting an honorable mention.
 
3/5 ESPN writers agree, CU will win

NAME PICK SCORE
Kyle Bonagura
i
38-35
Kevin Gemmell
i
28-24
Chantel Jennings
i
31-27
David Lombardi
i
31-30
Ted Miller
i
30-27
 
Buffenuf said:
Good! Vegas cares not a whit! Line is to balance the cash bet on each side. Bookies really don't want to dig into their cash reserves
But the U$C players who peek at that and have no understanding of the betting line (like so many here!), might start getting "overconfident," along the lines of "See? Vegas knows we're gonna kill 'em!"
Click to expand...

Maybe that was how it was in the 80s but that's not how it works in 2016. Gambling is effectively a market these days and the professional bettors are the ones who actually influence the lines. Money flows very quickly to winning bettors in sports betting if lines are substantially off. So if a line gets off by much, the pros (or long-term winning bettors) will knock the line back into shape.

As far as overconfidence from being a favorite or underdogs being motivated by being an underdog, if that were actually the case, you could simply bet underdogs across the board and win a ton of money. But that's obviously not the case.
 
Nor Cal Buff said:
Maybe that was how it was in the 80s but that's not how it works in 2016. Gambling is effectively a market these days and the professional bettors are the ones who actually influence the lines. Money flows very quickly to winning bettors in sports betting if lines are substantially off. So if a line gets off by much, the pros (or long-term winning bettors) will knock the line back into shape.

As far as overconfidence from being a favorite or underdogs being motivated by being an underdog, if that were actually the case, you could simply bet underdogs across the board and win a ton of money. But that's obviously not the case.
Click to expand...

Very well put.
 
Nor Cal Buff said:
Maybe that was how it was in the 80s but that's not how it works in 2016. Gambling is effectively a market these days and the professional bettors are the ones who actually influence the lines. Money flows very quickly to winning bettors in sports betting if lines are substantially off. So if a line gets off by much, the pros (or long-term winning bettors) will knock the line back into shape.

As far as overconfidence from being a favorite or underdogs being motivated by being an underdog, if that were actually the case, you could simply bet underdogs across the board and win a ton of money. But that's obviously not the case.
Click to expand...
Unpossible. Buffenuf is the only poster on AB that understands gambling, and we're all idots.
 
Nor Cal Buff said:
Maybe that was how it was in the 80s but that's not how it works in 2016. Gambling is effectively a market these days and the professional bettors are the ones who actually influence the lines. Money flows very quickly to winning bettors in sports betting if lines are substantially off. So if a line gets off by much, the pros (or long-term winning bettors) will knock the line back into shape.

As far as overconfidence from being a favorite or underdogs being motivated by being an underdog, if that were actually the case, you could simply bet underdogs across the board and win a ton of money. But that's obviously not the case.
Click to expand...
Nice description of how it works for pros, once a line is set. Yet, the Sports Books still have to set the line initially, whose only purpose is to get money bets flowing in evenly divided between the competitors, (irrespective of what the pros do later), so the bookies can pay off winning bets with the proceeds from losing bets; thereby the bookies break even on all bets made on both teams collectively; and yes, there seems to be much confusion over this concept here at AB..
The bookies make their money on the vigorish or vig, (e.g. the money you pay to place the bet---one pays a bookie $11 to bet $10 on the Buffs beating the spread.That one extra dollar is the vig!) Always have, always will.
 
Buffenuf said:
Nice description of how it works for pros, once a line is set. Yet, the Sports Books still have to set the line initially, whose only purpose is to get money bets flowing in evenly divided between the competitors, (irrespective of what the pros do later), so the bookies can pay off winning bets with the proceeds from losing bets; thereby the bookies break even on all bets made on both teams collectively; and yes, there seems to be much confusion over this concept here at AB..
The bookies make their money on the vigorish or vig, (e.g. the money you pay to place the bet---one pays a bookie $11 to bet $10 on the Buffs beating the spread.That one extra dollar is the vig!) Always have, always will.
Click to expand...

We were talking about what the line is right now. The line has already been set for days.

Nevermind that you're wrong about books not caring what the pros do later. If the line is off by a bunch when limits go up the pros are going to hammer the line until it gets close to efficient. Not only are the books going to lose a bunch of money by being on the wrong side of the pros/syndicates, but they're also going to get unequal action because the pros/syndicates will be betting large amounts of money with no balancing amount on the other side.
 
The CU v usc game just made the ESPN halftime report. They're going to talk about predictions. Glad we're actually in the conversation as one of the main games their focusing on.
 
Both jackasses picked u$c. Said we won't be able to keep up with their athletes.
Guess the Buffs will have to earn some more respect before the masses are convinced they're back.
 
buffwings said:
Both jackasses picked u$c. Said we won't be able to keep up with their athletes.
Guess the Buffs will have to earn some more respect before the masses are convinced they're back.
Click to expand...
The score will be what it will be. As you point out, at least we're in the conversation.
 
BuffNut99 said:
3/5 ESPN writers agree, CU will win

NAME PICK SCORE
Kyle Bonagura
i
38-35
Kevin Gemmell
i
28-24
Chantel Jennings
i
31-27
David Lombardi
i
31-30
Ted Miller
i
30-27
Click to expand...

Every one of those score predictions show CU covering the line if I'm not mistaken...
 
This link shows how the CU/USC line has moved over the past week at various offshore books. In general it started around CU +4, moved to +5.5 as early money went on USC, and then came back down to +4.5 as money came back in on the Buffs.

http://www.covers.com/odds/linehistory.aspx?eventId=52504&sport=NCF

Here's how it changed from Sunday to Wednesday at one betting site in Caribbean (shown as USC laying pts)

Colorado vs. Southern California
BetOnline.ag Line Over/Under
10/02/16 4:38:25 PM -4/-110 (Open) OFF
10/02/16 5:28:25 PM -4/-115 OFF
10/02/16 6:48:25 PM -5.5/-115 OFF
10/02/16 6:58:35 PM -5.5/-110 OFF
10/02/16 10:28:27 PM -5/-110 OFF
10/03/16 8:38:27 AM -4.5/-110 OFF
10/03/16 10:58:26 AM -5/-115 OFF
10/03/16 3:38:27 PM -5/-115 58.5-110 (Open)
10/03/16 4:38:32 PM -5/-115 60-110
10/03/16 7:08:29 PM -5/-110 60-110
10/04/16 10:18:28 AM -5/-110 61-110
10/04/16 12:18:26 PM -5/-110 61.5-110
10/04/16 12:28:28 PM -5/-110 62.5-110
10/04/16 1:58:27 PM -5/-110 63.5-110
10/05/16 10:08:26 AM -4.5/-110 63.5-110
 
USC hasn't seen a defense like CU has.
USC hasn't seen an offense as high powered as ours is.
CU has faced a team with better EVERYTHING than USC (michigan).

I think the shock factor favors the BUFFS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top