Does this mean that Louisville is a "sucker's bet?"
Sep 29, 2016, 12:09 PM
Aaron Brenner writes in this morning's Charleston Post and Courier:
"The reason for such a big line move in the Clemson Louisville game is the significant early action on Louisville," said Bovada.lv sports book manager Kevin Bradley, who said at least 90 percent of initial bets on the opening line were on Louisville as an underdog. "We just kept moving the line until we started to see some buyback on the Tigers. We are still seeing the majority of bets on Louisville at this line, but not as one sided as before: 65 percent on the Cardinals and 35 percent on the Tigers," Bradley continued. "We do not see this betting trend changing before Saturday and we will go into the weekend as huge Clemson Tigers fans."
So, the question you experts in sinning is is this what people mean by "sucker's bet?"
Re: Does this mean that Louisville is a "sucker's bet?"
Sep 29, 2016, 12:15 PM
Made the same point to some friends. Vegas made an enticement line in my opinion. The power bill in Vegas for all the flashy lights doesn't get paid by Vegas losing money. i know I'm biased being a fan but even if it wasn't Clemson this line with the money differentials would entice me. I think you will see some line change when the heavy money starts getting placed on Saturday. I think it will wind up a pick em or +/-1 at kickoff.