Not a gotcha question, I don't know what it is, so I'll go first. I'll think in print:
We were +8.5 in G1 and +9 in G2. The talking heads (I don't know about the bankers) predicted Boston unanimously to win the series. I assume the bankers' discount rate was commensurate. But the banks established the game lines and they were emboldened rather than chastened by G1. There is a faulty psychology at work, something like the football coach who calls 10 straight running plays thinking that his opposite is going to be taken increasingly by surprise. The House is at a remove from this psychology. They don't buy into it or reject it, they just read their depositors' psychology and set the line at where they think the action will fall 50-50. I think bettors are still like the football coach: "The 'Celtics' HAVE to win sometime!" (They don't). I think the bettors see a Boston team that is awful at home (4-5) and very good on the road (4-2). "Didn't they beat Miami on the road in G7 last spring?" (They did.) The "Heat" are 5-0 at home this postseason. "Yeah, but the 'Celtics' have more talent." Taken together I think the bettors are going to divide at Boston -3.5.
