Why do the books not adjust significantly for exceptionally poor teams?

Those of you who have read my posts in the Baseball Forum will remember how I mention that the Detroit Tigers have been a .250 team, meaning that they win 1 game in 4 this year. If a person betting against a .250 team took an average odds of -300 they would come out even.

Yet even recent odds have been as high as -150 and have been regularly under the -250 level for this team. That would seem to me to be an invitation to bet against them at these odds.

Are the books hesistant to put up odds at -300 on a regular basis, fearing that the public will not bet such odds?

This is a really good question.

I bet against Detroit Tigers all season long and was very suprised at some of the low lines. Especially when you've won ATS 4 or 5 in a row you would think the number would range higher.

I was curious about the Cincinnati Bengals doing the same last year. It may be just perception, but after covering one or two in the beginning of the season, they proceeded to reel off about 12 ATS losses in a row -- yet the line never seemed to grow significantly larger.

I can only speculate that either there was not a lot of action on these teams, or there is some inverse psychology going on where the capper "thinks" the spread should be higher, sees that it isn't, and is fooled into thinking there's something he/she doesn't know, so they back off. Maybe the schedules pitted the teams against equally inferior competition and it was the crossing of these platforms that keeps the line low. Although I've noticed that when you are the worst, you have a real hard time beating anybody.

I really don't know but you can sure make money betting against the worst/best in any sport.