ESPN Bet - This might be a problem

[TomRicardo]

After ESPN banged the Mavs drum so long and most of the civilian cash game in on the Mavs while the professional money matched 80% of the tickets coming in for the Mavs, there has to be some apprehension of ESPN going so deep on the betting analysis.

 

[nattysez]

SVP did a segment on the postgame Sportscenter showing the revised odds for game 2 and the series and mentioned you could "get right" by betting on a Celtics sweep (the betting odds on which were also shown).

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

They be making money either way. How long do touts have to get things wrong before the sheep stop paying attention and pay for their vacation homes?

 

[DJnVa]

After ESPN banged the Mavs drum so long and most of the civilian cash game in on the Mavs while the professional money matched 80% of the tickets coming in for the Mavs, there has to be some apprehension of ESPN going so deep on the betting analysis.

Unless I'm misreading you, ESPN made a shit ton of cash. Why would they be apprehensive? Integrity?

 

[Montana Fan]

Unless I'm misreading you, ESPN made a shit ton of cash. Why would they be apprehensive? Integrity?

Maybe he’s saying that some ESPN “personalities” are being financially rewarded for pimping the Mavs over the C’s. Not just trying to keep viewer interest up but to drive more betting (and driving $$ towards the Mavs) because the series is supposedly a tossup.

 

[scottyno]

Maybe he’s saying that some ESPN “personalities” are being financially rewarded for pimping the Mavs over the C’s. Not just trying to keep viewer interest up but to drive more betting (and driving $$ towards the Mavs) because the series is supposedly a tossup.

Driving money to the mavs wouldn't be any better value to the gambling sites than driving money to the celtics, it's not like the public bettors are taking the mavs at even money

 

[Montana Fan]

Driving money to the mavs wouldn't be any better value to the gambling sites than driving money to the celtics, it's not like the public bettors are taking the mavs at even money

Yeah, good point.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

It’s a partnership deal where Penn operates the Sportsbook and uses the ESPN name for a fixed fee. I don’t believe ESPN would actually make any more money based on action on a specific game, but of course the appearance of a conflict of interest isn’t a great look.

Then again, the networks are selling ads and are always interested in a series going as long as possible.

 

[chonce1]

Maybe he’s saying that some ESPN “personalities” are being financially rewarded for pimping the Mavs over the C’s. Not just trying to keep viewer interest up but to drive more betting (and driving $$ towards the Mavs) because the series is supposedly a tossup.

Despite the public money, the line basically stayed still so Vegas is basically betting on the Celtics themselves here. Which is not unusual, it's a myth if that Vegas books are always trying to get exactly half the take on each side.

That said there has to be some pretty big sharp bets on the Celtics. Doesn't make up a huge percentage of the take but there was very little line movement.

 

[TomRicardo]

Driving money to the mavs wouldn't be any better value to the gambling sites than driving money to the celtics, it's not like the public bettors are taking the mavs at even money

The House is usually going to be driven to have money bet into the underdog to because it allows it to support more action with professional money betting the favorite. Sometimes this narrative would be switched if the odds are made poorly. But if ESPN is controlling the narrative what stops them from having the talking heads take opposite side of the serious action to round out the bets.

 

[bankshot1]

IANAL, but I would assume sports betting in all its legalized platforms has a fair degree of regulation, and maybe some actual oversight. I would be somewhat surprised if some (can't use the old term) legal barrier was mandated separating opinion makers/journalists (the shills/touts) on one side of the firm from the underwriters of the risk on the other side of the wall. The possibility for conflicts of interest, market manipulation, and consumer fraud is pretty high.

 

[scottyno]

The House is usually going to be driven to have money bet into the underdog to because it allows it to support more action with professional money betting the favorite. Sometimes this narrative would be switched if the odds are made poorly. But if ESPN is controlling the narrative what stops them from having the talking heads take opposite side of the serious action to round out the bets.

Why do you assume the professional money will take the favorite as opposed to just whichever side they think is better? If they're worried about rounding out the bets then it means they set a shitty line.