BOOKMAKERS VS. BETTORS, WHICH JOB REQUIRES MORE TALENT?

wilheim · Jul 8, 2004

Actually the only holiday bookies get is right around the corner - the all star break, 3 whole days. Bookmaking has been changed immensely by the internet, in the past a book could take action on sides and totals of the 4 major sports and horses, today they book reality TV etc.. Things have only improved for the player with the inception of the net. More info readily available, many more betting options to specialize at, and most importantly, a great many more places to play at. Still pickling winners remains tougher than ever as bookmakers get more sophisticated. IMO speaking strictly about talent, I have to say it takes talent more to be a winning bettor. It takes more determination and hard work to be a winning bookmaker.

wil.

SportsBettingTrivia.com · Jul 8, 2004

Great topic, and so much has been said..Bookmaking today is much tougher than it was years ago..The playing field has changed drastically..The internet and the info it provides in such a timely and informative manner has given the player MORE equity..

The house has 2 things that are extremely important on its side though..

1. THE VIG..

2. The human factor..The player must pick the winner..

Most wagerers are fans first..They bet with their hearts..Thats part of the fun..Winning though is the rush..

BOY..I LOVE THIS GAME....

wantitall4moi · Jul 9, 2004

Everyone mentions vig. Vig doesnt even pay their light bills, especially the low juice places.

Besides the only ones that actully "lose" the vig are the winners. So for vig to actually make a difference you have to assume more people are winning than losing for it to really matter.

Of course in a truly balanced situation then vig is relevant. But I would say there has probably never been a perfectly balanced game in any of the large places. "Close enough" might be a differential of a couple thousand dollars to some of these places. So at 7% they aren't going to break even if the "high" side wins.

If they have $15000 on Packers @ -107, and $13000 on Vikings @-107. If Pack wins they pay out $14018.69, their hold on the vig is about $982. Obviously they get all the $13000 on the Vikes, plus the 982 held on the Pack. For a total diffferential of negative 36.

That is why I say it is "close enough" because they aren't going to worry about 36 bux, that is less than scalps they offer.

But also demonstrates how unimportant vig really is. Places could go no vig and still make money. I mean they have all gone back to dime lines in baseball, the only sport they actually don't show a proift in, and they still survuive,

Books are all about volume. It requires no talent at all to be a book maker. I am surprised at some of the responces, I guess a lot of guys that post here work in books.

The Angels/White Sox game yesterday, that line couldn't have been more off when it came out. It was offered -159/+151. It got to a low of -117/+109. That is a move of 42 cents. That is obviously an extreme, but it also shows that even linemakers are wrong. BUT in this case LUCK won that game, not an ability to actually make a fair line or a line to divide the action. Because that line came back -135/+127 and STILL got crushed.

But as it is Angels blew a 3 run lead, White Sox get a run in the 9th, game over, thanks for coming books cleaned up.

Mostly because maybe only 5% of anybody that bet that game actually had the brains to buy back.

And in that game you cannot think there was anything even close to equal money. Even with the buy backs late it only went back up like 8 or 10 cents.

So if you tell me that offering a game that moves 42 cents is talent, you should quit gambling and sell what it is you are smoking. Doesn't matter if it was "the right" side or not. When a line doesn't get equal action or does get buried one way then it isn't doing what it is "supposed" to do in a bookmaking sense. Making valid all the points people are trying to make here. Because if they are putting up lines to get action one way or the other, that isn't bookmaking it is gambling.

Now on the talent issue. Sure a lot of guys lost yesterday. BUT the ones with TRUE TALENT all won, and won big. Because the ones with TRUE TALENT bought that game back. Even if they go in late at -135/+126 they still could have gotten 9 cents, which still is a nice scalp these days.

Like I said in my other post, the truly talented gamblers could do a bookmakers job blindfolded. And they would also probably less inclined to gamle than half the places out there, becaue to be a successful bettor, you don't want to gamble.

THE SHRINK · Jul 9, 2004

OK, let me give you my FINAL thoughts on WHO has to have MORE talent, the succesful gambler vs. the successful bookmaker...

I should have qualified it at first by specifying bookmakers who deal with Wise Guys, because anyone can beat the square..

There is no doubt in my mind that to be successful at sports betting and bookmaking, one has to use similar tools...

And to fail at either, it's usually because of GREED....

So, let's use a Baseball analogy since it's this time of year...

I believe that the winning sports bettor is like a great Pitcher who gets to rest 3-4 or 5 days sometimes before letting go with his good stuff...

On the other hand, a talented sports book has to play every day like a great hitter, and he cannot even end up on the DL either...

So when I ask myself, which is more talented a GREAT PITCHER or a GREAT HITTER that plays all the time, I can't come up with an answer...

It's based upon values and I value BOTH...

I will say this though about me. I am pleased to be involved on the gambling end at this time of my life. And I love throwing curve balls...

THE SHRINK

wantitall4moi · Jul 9, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by THE SHRINK:
OK, let me give you my FINAL thoughts on WHO has to have MORE talent, the succesful gambler vs. the successful bookmaker...

I should have qualified it at first by specifying bookmakers who deal with Wise Guys, because anyone can beat the square..

THE SHRINK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(I just had to try that stupid quotes thing)

How do you explain the steam plays going down in flames this year?

This has been a banner year so far for scalps and taking leads, thanks mainly to steam. In the past month alone there have been 30 games or so that have moved more than a dime. I haven't done it full time this year, but I would bet there are well over 100 that have moved that much, and probably 150 that have offered at least a nickle. that is way ahead of last year. I do have records for last year, but they are back in Vegas, but I know there weren't one hundred by the break, so this year is ahead of the curve. Chasing by the steam players?

exilarch · Jul 9, 2004

It's not about talent, Mr. Shrink. It's all about perspiration, that is, hard work. I believe it was Edison who said that "genius is 10 per cent talent and 90% perspiration", or words to that effect.

SportsBettingTrivia.com · Jul 9, 2004

Want it all..

I disagree with your comments on vig..On a Sunday during football with the volume books do, at the end of the day the vig is quite impressive..Its the built in cushion we have..

Sometimes I call myself a sports stenographer..For writing the business we get in a built in margin..Just like other industries..

If I have 14000 on team A..8000 on Team B..one way I get 1400..the other 800..At the end of the day thats real $$$..

On a college Saturday..its real $$$..So many positions..

The guy who brought me into this biz taught me the figures dont lie..VIG..at least to me is an important part of the business..
Just one mans opinion..

wantitall4moi · Jul 9, 2004

SBT, Actually you don't.

In theory you might, but in actuality you do not.

Even if all the players did add on the extra 10 per 100, the only ones that it matters to are the winners.

In your example you have 14000 translated to 15400, theother way you have 8000 translated to 8800. So a total of 23400 on the game. In your way 2200 of that is your free and clear, depending on which side wins gives you the particukars, but it is not. Some of that was going to be lost by the losing side anyways. The only ones that really lost out were the guys that had the winning side.

So again, using your numbers. the side with 15400 wins. You have to pay out 14000 to the winners, and you do have the excess 1400 left, BUT the 8800 on the other side doesn't make up the difference, so rather than having the 800 "the other way" as you say, you are actually a negative 3800 for the day( -14000 +8800 +1400) . Granted the 1400 helps out, but you still are in a decent sized hole.

Now if the 8800 side wins, you pay out 8000, keep the extra 800 layed, and also the 15400 lost on the other side. For a profit of 8200. (-8000 +800 +15400) So on the same game you could be in the hole 3200 or profit 8200. If that isn't gambling I don't know what it is.

It is all semantice, because unless you can fine tune to the dollar it doesn't mean much. I will shop for pennies, but only because I can fine tune it to a perfect position ( I usually don't as it is complicated sometimes) But when you don't have control over how much is coming in each way (unless you are laying off) a penny here or there isn't going to break a larger place.

Same as mortgaging and refinancing, unless you find a place who will give you the right numbers it is best to finance a loan yourself. But if they have someone whom they can't work with, and you can, it is a give and take situation. Again, my theeory on the divide and conquer, the more books the better for everyone. Not one place is going to get buried because they can always sell it to another book, at a loss of a couple pennies for sure, but it minimizes their risk. Just like with banks, they can finance everyone, so they sell you to someone who can, again at a cost to them in some instances. But it averts their risks.

lurkerforages · Jul 9, 2004

Shrink just to prove the point.

You know people who were lousy bettors who made money bookmaking.

Do you know many genuinely winning bettors who went to bookmaking who were lousy?

Its highly unlikely.

DarrylParsons · Jul 9, 2004

To clarify: Edison's words were "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration."

IMO it requires less talent to make good money at bookmaking. Hard work combined with average talent should be enough.

On the betting side if you don't have a good amount of talent, you could work until the cows came home and never be a winner.

But to be the best at either one, you must have clairvoyance about what the best guys on the other side do.

THE SHRINK · Jul 10, 2004

Guys,

I am not arguing the fact that most bookmakers I know were unsuccessful as sports bettors or they probably would never have left that side of the fence...

Whereas, I don't know any bookmaker who left and became a successful sports bettor, with the exception of perhaps Roxy if you can throw him in this example (not sure one can)...

But when it comes to measuring overall talent, it's damn close...

THE SHRINK

exilarch · Jul 10, 2004

Most gamblers are losers, so where is this "talent"? It doesn't seem right to use the word "talent" and "gambler" in the same sentence.

Fishhead · Jul 10, 2004

In the grand scheme of things it would probably be better for an individual to become a licensed Phd or be the owner of a successful watchdog site.

wantitall4moi · Jul 10, 2004

For clarification, he said "BETTOR" not GAMBLER, there is a big difference there.

It is like one of those IQ test questions

Some bettors are gamblers

All gamblers gamble

All gamblers lose

Bettors who don't gamble always win

Which of the fololowing statements is most correct:

All gamblers win

Some winners are gamblers

All bettors are winner

Some winners are bettors

PanchoSanza · Jul 10, 2004

"Bettors who don't gamble always win"

You mean scalpers right?

How about this statement.

Scalpers only scalp because they are lousy handicappers.

Fishhead · Jul 10, 2004

That is not a true statement overall Pancho.

In fact, some of the sharpest handicappers in the world, are also some of the best scalpers.

PanchoSanza · Jul 10, 2004

They scalp as a secondary way of earning, the bread and butter is handicapping.

I'm talking about these guys who troll around for pennies and do nothing else, thinking they are bright because they know to take more than they lay.

Fishhead · Jul 10, 2004

I see, ok.

I can agree with that.

exilarch · Jul 10, 2004

Pancho, I know you are the anti-scalper, but consider this: A savings account pays 1% a year these days. Much, much better returns by scalping, not that I am a scalper myself.

Skyweasel · Jul 10, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wantitall4moi:
So again, using your numbers. the side with 15400 wins. You have to pay out 14000 to the winners, and you do have the excess 1400 left, BUT the 8800 on the other side doesn't make up the difference, so rather than having the 800 "the other way" as you say, you are actually a negative 3800 for the day( -14000 +8800 +1400) . Granted the 1400 helps out, but you still are in a decent sized hole.

Now if the 8800 side wins, you pay out 8000, keep the extra 800 layed, and also the 15400 lost on the other side. For a profit of 8200. (-8000 +800 +15400) So on the same game you could be in the hole 3200 or profit 8200. If that isn't gambling I don't know what it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really follow you here. When the bettors lay 8800 and the dog wins, he pays out 8800+8000, he doesn't keep the "extra" 800. His profit is 15400-8000=7400. If it goes the other way, he pays out 14000 and keeps 8800 for a loss of 5200.

Reality is he's risking 5200 to win 7400, unlike the punter who would have to risk 8140 to win 7400. Think about it. What win rate does he need to just break even when he has this working for him?

Say he has 10 situations in a row like this and the results a.t.s. split 50/50 which is what would be expected over the long haul. He earns 74000-52000 for a 22k profit, all with "unbalanced" action. On his handle of 242k, that's .09090909 return, sound familiar???