|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 3, 2016 8:44:56 GMT -8
Time to get down!
A lot of folks hark back to the 1985 Villanova upset over Ewing/Georgetown as a similar mismatch. But looking at the point spread for that game, Georgetown was only favored by 8. So that wasn't really a colossal upset. |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Apr 3, 2016 11:27:35 GMT -8
I don't know who would bet on that because they think there is an advantage one way or the other. I'm sure some folks bet because they are fans, but no one is handicapping women's basketball.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 3, 2016 12:11:36 GMT -8
I don't know who would bet on that because they think there is an advantage one way or the other. I'm sure some folks bet because they are fans, but no one is handicapping women's basketball. I don't understand your post. Are you saying you can't put a bet down on this game in Vegas? Dude, gamblers will bet on ANYTHING. Or are you saying that the 21.5 is the perfect line and there is no point trying to bet either side of it? |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Apr 4, 2016 11:04:27 GMT -8
I'm saying there are not any sharps when it comes to Women's basketball. On the college side I'm not sure what games have a line. I know there are no regular season lines. For the WNBA, I'm guessing if you started winning your action would be severely limited. The books don't need anyone who is better than they are. For definitions, gamblers are the folks who bet for the thrill. They don't have a long term expectation of winning. Sharps are people who make bets thinking they have an advantage on the line . . . more than a 52.4% chance of winning. Regarding the 21.5, I'm not sure anyone (before the game) could say if it was appropriate or not. On a mostly obscure mens game, for instance Eastern Washington at Nevada on March 21, the line was UNR -5.5 and 159.5. There would have been quite a bit of effort to handicap that game.
|
|
