Sr Muny, you are right - there is nothing wrong with WWTS - they take large wagers and they are as solid as they come - I just feel like -700 +400 is price gouging - especially for a top notch book - hey, Olympic uses a 20 cent baseball line and I am sure some people don't care - I guess it's like paying 20 cents extra per gallon of gas - sharp people will drive right by while others will pump away.
I nominate this post as joke of the year.
Bashing a book for using a standard line. Then when you get called on the fact that it's not you use Pinnacle and book whose specailty is REDUCED VIG as an example.
Seymour, when exactly did WWTS advertise lowest juice on the net. If they didn't they why single them out.
As someone pointed put above the HA is only little over 6%, whereas a normal take is 4% on a major sports spread line. This is not one of the four major american sports, so whats the big deal about 2% more. Wouldn't exactly call that 'gouging.'
Or am I missing something?
Bashing a book for using a standard line. Then when you get called on the fact that it's not you use Pinnacle and book whose specailty is REDUCED VIG as an example.
Seymour, when exactly did WWTS advertise lowest juice on the net. If they didn't they why single them out.
As someone pointed put above the HA is only little over 6%, whereas a normal take is 4% on a major sports spread line. This is not one of the four major american sports, so whats the big deal about 2% more. Wouldn't exactly call that 'gouging.'
Or am I missing something?
-700/+400 is a bit strong, but it isn't gouging.
If you want to take a look at gouging, look at the futures for winning the Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, etc. Convert each set of odds into a percentage or decimal probability and add them up.
Better yet, I'll take an example straight from Olympic. Here are the World Series odds for 2004, along with the decimal probability equivalent of each:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
101 New York Yankees +300 (0.250)
102 Boston Red Sox +300 (0.250)
103 Oakland Athletics +800 (0.111)
104 Atlanta Braves +1000 (0.111)
105 San Francisco Giants +1000 (0.111)
106 Chicago Cubs +700 (0.125)
107 Seattle Mariners +1000 (0.111)
108 Arizona Diamondbacks +1000 (0.111)
109 St Louis Cardinals +1500 (0.063)
110 Houston Astros +1200 (0.076)
111 Los Angeles Dodgers +1200 (0.076)
112 Anaheim Angels +2000 (0.048)
113 Minnesota Twins +1500 (0.063)
114 Chicago White Sox +1500 (0.063)
115 Philadelphia Phillies +1200 (0.076)
116 Florida Marlins +2200 (0.043)
117 New York Mets +3800 (0.026)
118 Toronto Blue Jays +5000 (0.020)
119 Kansas City Royals +5000 (0.020)
120 Texas Rangers +6000 (0.016)
121 Montreal Expos +6000 (0.016)
122 Cleveland Indians +10000 (0.010)
123 Baltimore Orioles +5500 (0.018)
124 San Diego Padres +6000 (0.016)
125 Colorado Rockies +11000 (0.009)
126 Tampa Bay Devil Rays +12000 (0.008)
127 Cincinnati Reds +13000 (0.008)
128 Pittsburgh Pirates +20000 (0.005)
129 Milwaukee Brewers +25000 (0.003)
130 Detroit Tigers +40000 (0.002)
</pre>
The total is 1.832, or 183.2%. That translates to a total payout of 54.59%, or a book hold of 45.41%.
What makes such futures worse is that at some books, the lines are adjusted downward as the chances of some teams improve, but many times the odds of other teams aren't adjusted upwards to compensate. You can often end up with a dozen teams at +600 or so, and a total line of 250%+, or a hold of over 60%.
The large hold isn't because Olympic (or other books) necessarilly want to gouge (although some books do exactly want to gouge). The high hold is there because when you're dealing with high odds, there's less margin for error, and the books thus need a larger cushion as a good risk-management strategy. In other words, the further the probability of a series of outcomes is from 50%, the larger the possibility of fluctuation, and therefore, the more cushion the book needs in terms of an edge in order to minimize the chance of a big cash swing. A classic example was the Florida Marlins this year, which could be had at the start of the season for as much as 500-1 (+50000) at one place. It only takes one bettor with a hunch and a desire to bet the limit (as one book found out this year) to put a good dent in the book's pocket, unless the book has taken in a lot of bets of a larger size on other teams.
If you want to take a look at gouging, look at the futures for winning the Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, etc. Convert each set of odds into a percentage or decimal probability and add them up.
Better yet, I'll take an example straight from Olympic. Here are the World Series odds for 2004, along with the decimal probability equivalent of each:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
101 New York Yankees +300 (0.250)
102 Boston Red Sox +300 (0.250)
103 Oakland Athletics +800 (0.111)
104 Atlanta Braves +1000 (0.111)
105 San Francisco Giants +1000 (0.111)
106 Chicago Cubs +700 (0.125)
107 Seattle Mariners +1000 (0.111)
108 Arizona Diamondbacks +1000 (0.111)
109 St Louis Cardinals +1500 (0.063)
110 Houston Astros +1200 (0.076)
111 Los Angeles Dodgers +1200 (0.076)
112 Anaheim Angels +2000 (0.048)
113 Minnesota Twins +1500 (0.063)
114 Chicago White Sox +1500 (0.063)
115 Philadelphia Phillies +1200 (0.076)
116 Florida Marlins +2200 (0.043)
117 New York Mets +3800 (0.026)
118 Toronto Blue Jays +5000 (0.020)
119 Kansas City Royals +5000 (0.020)
120 Texas Rangers +6000 (0.016)
121 Montreal Expos +6000 (0.016)
122 Cleveland Indians +10000 (0.010)
123 Baltimore Orioles +5500 (0.018)
124 San Diego Padres +6000 (0.016)
125 Colorado Rockies +11000 (0.009)
126 Tampa Bay Devil Rays +12000 (0.008)
127 Cincinnati Reds +13000 (0.008)
128 Pittsburgh Pirates +20000 (0.005)
129 Milwaukee Brewers +25000 (0.003)
130 Detroit Tigers +40000 (0.002)
</pre>
The total is 1.832, or 183.2%. That translates to a total payout of 54.59%, or a book hold of 45.41%.
What makes such futures worse is that at some books, the lines are adjusted downward as the chances of some teams improve, but many times the odds of other teams aren't adjusted upwards to compensate. You can often end up with a dozen teams at +600 or so, and a total line of 250%+, or a hold of over 60%.
The large hold isn't because Olympic (or other books) necessarilly want to gouge (although some books do exactly want to gouge). The high hold is there because when you're dealing with high odds, there's less margin for error, and the books thus need a larger cushion as a good risk-management strategy. In other words, the further the probability of a series of outcomes is from 50%, the larger the possibility of fluctuation, and therefore, the more cushion the book needs in terms of an edge in order to minimize the chance of a big cash swing. A classic example was the Florida Marlins this year, which could be had at the start of the season for as much as 500-1 (+50000) at one place. It only takes one bettor with a hunch and a desire to bet the limit (as one book found out this year) to put a good dent in the book's pocket, unless the book has taken in a lot of bets of a larger size on other teams.
