Yes, this article about the LVH's "massive liability" on Auburn futures has "a much more TMZ feel than actual news". Sure, it's absolutely hilarious that R.J. ends up tweeting stuff like this in response.
But the real issue here, as pointed out by @jbxx, goes back a bit further. Let's look at R.J.'s post from (and the date is important here) July 26:
Who are the Wiseguys betting? Thirty-five-year bookmaker Jay Vaccaro is one of many pointing to Mississippi (from 500/1 to 100/1). LVH also reports significantly sharp action on Auburn (1,000/1 to 300/1) and Florida State (40/1 to 18/1).Getting past how the phrase "significantly sharp action" is either a typo or makes no sense, this in itself is fine. At 1000-1, a wager wouldn't even have to be that large ($100? $500?) to be considered "sharp" and give the LVH a bit of risk.
Always annoying, though, when somebody comes through with those pesky "facts". Here's generally respected, non-tout Vegas reporter David Purdum on December 10:
The LVH Superbook took 14 ham-sandwich bets on Auburn to win the national championship at 1,000-to-1. All the bets were for $5 and $10 and placed between January and June. The bet the Superbook took in August was much larger.
As we head into bowl season, a $100,000 futures ticket is in play on the last BCS National Championship Game.
In August, a bettor placed $500 on three SEC longshots to win the national title. He took Tennessee at 500/1, Ole Miss at 100/1 and …. Auburn at 200/1.Uh oh. Let's take a look at the timeline of events here:
January through June: Fourteen "ham-sandwich bets" (between $5 and $10) placed on Auburn at 1000-1.
July 26: R.J. reports that there has been "significantly sharp action on Auburn" at the LVH; odds have moved from 1000-1 to 300-1.
Sometime in August: Someone bets $500 on Auburn at 200-1.
December 7: Auburn 59, Mizzou 42. Massive liability, etc.There's really only one way to interpret this, right? That the LVH got more random tourists than they expected betting $5 or $10 on their Auburn price, and in response moved the Tigers from 1000-1 to 300-1, because why wouldn't you?
And then somehow -- either because noted #makingshitup enthusiast Jay Kornegay misrepresented the facts, or because R.J. has no clue how line movement and #SHRAP action and risk work, or maybe some other reason -- these tiny bets were reported as "significantly sharp action". Which, really, is not acceptable.
Obviously, R.J. the Analyst is pretty much a joke. And anyway, if you think you're going to make money on widely available NFL lines by listening to anybody on the internet, well, probably not.
However, simply reporting facts just shouldn't be that hard. If you were making a legitimate effort, that is. But R.J. is such a fraud that he can't even reach that relatively low bar. When you're so eager to please and so obsessed with people retweeting you (as often as possible), when you have no clue how these markets actually work, and then on top of that you're so loose with the facts themselves...even if you WERE reporting something which was pertinent and interesting, why would anyone believe you?