SW
It is actually 14000(Bets on Team A) +1400("vig" paid up front on Team A)-8000(Bets on Team B)+800("vig" paid up front on Team B)= +8200 And the other way would be 8000(Bets on Team B)+800("vig" paid up front on Team B)+1400("vig paid up front on Team A)-14000(Bets on Team A)= -3800. So he is actually risking 38 to win 82. That is actually .463% which is "close enough" as I said before.
BUT for this to work, you have to assume that it will be a 50/50 split over time. So that is putting back into the hands of the bettors/gamblers.
It is a circular argument. You are saying that as long as the action balances out over the long haul it all works out. And it does, as long as it comes back to 50/50. But what if it doesn't?
This argument is based on a gambling point f view. With "ifs" and "what ifs". Bookmakers shouldn't have to worry about the ifs and what ifs. As long as the action is equal on every game the results will be the same in the end.
If at the end of 10,20,30, or 100 games the action was 12100(14000+1400+8000+800/2) on BOTH teams each game then the bookmaker wouldn't have to worry about who wins and who loses.
What if they are on the wrong side 8 of 10 weeks?
That is why places thattake only sports bets are always at risk, because most do think the way you just outlined it. They RELY on people losing, or at least not winning. That is the flaw in thier thinking.
But then again unless they handle a large volume of bets they aren't going to pay the bills so that line f thinking is sometimes necessary. But that brings us back to the original point that for books to make money people have to lose, because they (the books) can't survive on the vig. Unless they are handling millions at a 20 cent line take. That is why it is a circular argument.
I never said it wouoldn't work, just that it had necessary prerequisites to succeed. Namely people couldn't win. As I mentioned in the original post, it is all semantics. What you call long term expectations, I call gambling. I wouldn't rely on other people losing to get my share, I would make sure it was as equal as possible to avoid potential problems.
I am sure Aces had the same lineof thinking doing what they did. Unfortunately they had more losers than winners. They just picked the wrong year to offer a premium on a -3 line. I have also said that a dozen times here. Had they done it any other year but that they would have made a lot of money, but they picked the year when 16 games pushed on three rather than 3 or 4.
As far as scalpers being bad handicappers. Not hardly, scalpers just realize that unless you are constantly fluctuating bet amounts then hitting even 60% isn't going to make you rich unless you are betting a lot of money to begin with. They also realize that hitting 60% is impossible long term.
And even at 60% it isn't all that. Say a guy is a 60% capper. He plays 200 games a year college and pro, bets 500(550)a game. That is a record of 120-80. He profits 16000 for the year. He bet 110K to profit 16, and that was at 60%. But let's say for shits and giggles he fluctuates and on his "best" bets he bets 1000 a game. He has say 40 a year. He is still the same 60% capper, and even if they are his "best" bets it is hard to assume they will hit more than his median 60%, BUT for sake of argument, let's say he does hit 70%(highly unlikely, but maybe).
So that gives us a break down of 160 games at 500(550) per, and 40 games at 1000(1100) per. With respective record of 96-64, and 28-12. For a grand total profit of 27600. So our 60% capper has gone from 16k to 27k, risking 132,000 in the process.. And that is for a nickle/dime bettor hitting at almost unrealistic percentages.
This is of course unscientific, but people that realize this a can quickly see where the money is. I can make almost 27k taking leads and getting the occasional simultaneous scalp without risking hardly anything. The ionly risks I take are if I bet a side that doesn't move, or moves the wrong way. So I have to be a pretty damn good capper to guess right enough often enough to not lose my ass.
I posted up about 14 lines at Pin that I said were "off" during those few days I was doing it. All but two moved my way, eaning I had the "right" side originally. One moved just enough to break even, and one was a loss of 3 or 4 cents. So 12-1-1 isn't all that bad, especially considering that a almost half those moved 15 cents, one moved 40.
Might have been luck, might have been something else. But it beats the hell out of sweating teams that can't hold 5 run leads, and it is free money.
Bravado and bragging is for losers. I will take my 50% record and my bankroll and be quite content at "not being able to handicap". I may not get rich, but I won't go broke. I have been doing this a long long time and I make money every year overall. Especially once I quit betting the NBA regular season.
Guys can make a living just betting and hedging series in baseball. Why? Because books don't knw how to correlate odds properly. They overcopensate for public money and/or public sentiment after each and every game.
I wish I could print up the odds and odds changes during the NBA play offs, it was a frigging joke what these places offered as odds. A couple places had LA's odds to win the CHAMPIONSHIP at LESS than their odds to beat SA in the SERIES.
But that is what I like. If everyone knew how to bet then no one would be betting because the books would all be broke. So I like people thatscoff, because that means they don't take me seriously, therefore I can continue to do what I do with no problems.
It is actually 14000(Bets on Team A) +1400("vig" paid up front on Team A)-8000(Bets on Team B)+800("vig" paid up front on Team B)= +8200 And the other way would be 8000(Bets on Team B)+800("vig" paid up front on Team B)+1400("vig paid up front on Team A)-14000(Bets on Team A)= -3800. So he is actually risking 38 to win 82. That is actually .463% which is "close enough" as I said before.
BUT for this to work, you have to assume that it will be a 50/50 split over time. So that is putting back into the hands of the bettors/gamblers.
It is a circular argument. You are saying that as long as the action balances out over the long haul it all works out. And it does, as long as it comes back to 50/50. But what if it doesn't?
This argument is based on a gambling point f view. With "ifs" and "what ifs". Bookmakers shouldn't have to worry about the ifs and what ifs. As long as the action is equal on every game the results will be the same in the end.
If at the end of 10,20,30, or 100 games the action was 12100(14000+1400+8000+800/2) on BOTH teams each game then the bookmaker wouldn't have to worry about who wins and who loses.
What if they are on the wrong side 8 of 10 weeks?
That is why places thattake only sports bets are always at risk, because most do think the way you just outlined it. They RELY on people losing, or at least not winning. That is the flaw in thier thinking.
But then again unless they handle a large volume of bets they aren't going to pay the bills so that line f thinking is sometimes necessary. But that brings us back to the original point that for books to make money people have to lose, because they (the books) can't survive on the vig. Unless they are handling millions at a 20 cent line take. That is why it is a circular argument.
I never said it wouoldn't work, just that it had necessary prerequisites to succeed. Namely people couldn't win. As I mentioned in the original post, it is all semantics. What you call long term expectations, I call gambling. I wouldn't rely on other people losing to get my share, I would make sure it was as equal as possible to avoid potential problems.
I am sure Aces had the same lineof thinking doing what they did. Unfortunately they had more losers than winners. They just picked the wrong year to offer a premium on a -3 line. I have also said that a dozen times here. Had they done it any other year but that they would have made a lot of money, but they picked the year when 16 games pushed on three rather than 3 or 4.
As far as scalpers being bad handicappers. Not hardly, scalpers just realize that unless you are constantly fluctuating bet amounts then hitting even 60% isn't going to make you rich unless you are betting a lot of money to begin with. They also realize that hitting 60% is impossible long term.
And even at 60% it isn't all that. Say a guy is a 60% capper. He plays 200 games a year college and pro, bets 500(550)a game. That is a record of 120-80. He profits 16000 for the year. He bet 110K to profit 16, and that was at 60%. But let's say for shits and giggles he fluctuates and on his "best" bets he bets 1000 a game. He has say 40 a year. He is still the same 60% capper, and even if they are his "best" bets it is hard to assume they will hit more than his median 60%, BUT for sake of argument, let's say he does hit 70%(highly unlikely, but maybe).
So that gives us a break down of 160 games at 500(550) per, and 40 games at 1000(1100) per. With respective record of 96-64, and 28-12. For a grand total profit of 27600. So our 60% capper has gone from 16k to 27k, risking 132,000 in the process.. And that is for a nickle/dime bettor hitting at almost unrealistic percentages.
This is of course unscientific, but people that realize this a can quickly see where the money is. I can make almost 27k taking leads and getting the occasional simultaneous scalp without risking hardly anything. The ionly risks I take are if I bet a side that doesn't move, or moves the wrong way. So I have to be a pretty damn good capper to guess right enough often enough to not lose my ass.
I posted up about 14 lines at Pin that I said were "off" during those few days I was doing it. All but two moved my way, eaning I had the "right" side originally. One moved just enough to break even, and one was a loss of 3 or 4 cents. So 12-1-1 isn't all that bad, especially considering that a almost half those moved 15 cents, one moved 40.
Might have been luck, might have been something else. But it beats the hell out of sweating teams that can't hold 5 run leads, and it is free money.
Bravado and bragging is for losers. I will take my 50% record and my bankroll and be quite content at "not being able to handicap". I may not get rich, but I won't go broke. I have been doing this a long long time and I make money every year overall. Especially once I quit betting the NBA regular season.
Guys can make a living just betting and hedging series in baseball. Why? Because books don't knw how to correlate odds properly. They overcopensate for public money and/or public sentiment after each and every game.
I wish I could print up the odds and odds changes during the NBA play offs, it was a frigging joke what these places offered as odds. A couple places had LA's odds to win the CHAMPIONSHIP at LESS than their odds to beat SA in the SERIES.
But that is what I like. If everyone knew how to bet then no one would be betting because the books would all be broke. So I like people thatscoff, because that means they don't take me seriously, therefore I can continue to do what I do with no problems.
SBT in your example the book is either plus 8200 or minus 3200 hundred. Since a book normally knows his customers and where the money is apt to come in it would seem relitivly easy to lay off enough of the favorite to reduce his exsposure. Sort of like market makers in the markets whose goal is to be balaned and in effect pass risk off to the investors. should be the same here. Not sure if the talanted books are the ones who can reduce exsposure as opposed to the line makers. My exsperiance with books living in the east has always been a guy i called he gave me the numbers which in most cases were about the same as the paper with the exception of the home team redskins always a little higher in th 80,s and 90,s not lately. Dosent seem that difficult except to stay balanced. I guess on the other hand being an average bettor i like team a and think they should win so how difficult is that.I believe the talant is the bookies ho can keep there books balanced and reduce there risk as opposed to lines etc, dosent don best take care of lines for most or something like him> Just a differant perspective I guess.
I imagine the guys who set the first lines have to try and figure out where the world is I guess thats the outlaw lines but how many of these people are there? Just curious.
I imagine the guys who set the first lines have to try and figure out where the world is I guess thats the outlaw lines but how many of these people are there? Just curious.
Bettors. I have booked and bet since I was 17. Thats 45 years experience. In LV (before the off shores) I put up virgin #s, the very first #s, to the sharpest in town and out'a town thru beards. Winning was no problem, as long as I didn't think I was sharp myself i.e. just book. Betting? I couldn't win if the games were over.....ScottyS
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by scott:
Bettors. I have booked and bet since I was 17. Thats 45 years experience. In LV (before the off shores) I put up virgin #s, the very first #s, to the sharpest in town and out'a town thru beards. Winning was no problem, as long as I didn't think I was sharp myself i.e. just book. Betting? I couldn't win if the games were over.....ScottyS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Scotty, that's the smartest thing anyone's said on this forum in a while. I was sort of trying to make the same point, albeit circuitously. The BM has a built-in advantage; as long he's got a big enough bankroll and an average sized brain, he ought to earn nicely over the long haul.
Bettors. I have booked and bet since I was 17. Thats 45 years experience. In LV (before the off shores) I put up virgin #s, the very first #s, to the sharpest in town and out'a town thru beards. Winning was no problem, as long as I didn't think I was sharp myself i.e. just book. Betting? I couldn't win if the games were over.....ScottyS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Scotty, that's the smartest thing anyone's said on this forum in a while. I was sort of trying to make the same point, albeit circuitously. The BM has a built-in advantage; as long he's got a big enough bankroll and an average sized brain, he ought to earn nicely over the long haul.
