To the surprise of no one, the Alabama Crimson Tide are very good at football again in 2018. Nick Saban’s team hasn’t been seriously threatened on the way to a 5-0 record and, with Tua Tagovailoa at the helm, the Tide look to be as potent on the offensive side of the ball as they have been at any time during their highly impressive run at the top of the sport.
Alabama’s success has largely translated to Las Vegas as well, with the Crimson Tide blowing out opponents and generally (although not always) covering the point spread on the way. This week’s victory didn’t quite live up to the handicapping expectations, however, as Alabama allowed Louisiana-Lafayette to “hang around” after taking a 49-0 halftime lead before the final score of 56-14. That fell short of the seven-touchdown pregame spread, which means some disappointed gamblers if they expected an even bigger blowout.
Still, there was a way to profit financially while also betting on the Crimson Tide, even if it was rather amusing. David Purdum of ESPN reports that one bettor at South Point sportsbook in Las Vegas placed a money line bet on Alabama at -99000 odds. And while the handicapper did secure a victory, he risked $1,579.65 to make the wager and only gained $1.60 in the process.
Realistically, there was virtually no chance that the Tide were going to lose in this spot and that should be said. However, the upside of placing the bet doesn’t make much sense, as the $1.60 profit doesn’t seem to justify even the four-hour investment of worrying about nearly $1,600, especially for a person with enough wealth to justify the bet in the first place.
Hilariously, the ESPN story notes that South Point sportsbook director Chris Andrews shared that the money line on Alabama “should be higher” but the system’s computer wouldn’t allow odds greater than the listed -99000 number on the favorite. In the end, the casino had to pay out $1.60 for the trouble of taking a nearly $1,600 wager but, in all honesty, that is probably something that the “house” enjoyed in that the risk for the handicapper didn’t nearly come close to justifying the reward.