Interresting read on if Las Vegas won or lost money yesterday on the SuperBowl

[McCrazy]

Update - Nevada Gaming Control Board claims legal books made $5,000,000 on Super Bowl

From USA Today

The Super Bowl XLVI rematch between Eli Manning's New York Giants and Tom Brady's New England Patriots generated heavy gambling action in Las Vegas, resulting in the second biggest "handle," or betting total, in Nevada over the past 10 years.
Gamblers wagered $93,889,840 across the state's 184 legal sports books, according to Frank Streshley of the Nevada Gaming Control Board.

Despite widespread predictions that the wiseguys in Sin City would take a big financial loss on the game after installing the Pats as 3 point favorites, the state says Nevada's legal sports books won $5,064,470 on the game.

Those sports books lost $2,573,103 when the Giants' upset previously unbeaten Pats at Super Bowl XLII in 2008, the only time the state's sports books lost money on the Big Game over the last 10 years.

This year's $93,889,840 handle tops the $87,491,098 wagered on the Green Bay Packers' win over the Pittsburgh Steelers in last year Super Bowl XLV.

But it still trails the $94,534,372 bet on the Steelers' win over the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowl XL in 2006, before the bottom dropped out of the U.S. economy and a lingering economic recession wiped out millions of jobs.

Of course, the nearly $100 million bet legally on the Big Game is just a fraction of the money that actually changed hands. Billions of dollars were bet on the game online, across offshore sports books and in office pools and betting boxes.

 

[GFX]

“We ended up winning a ham sandwich,” said Lucky’s sports book director Jimmy Vaccaro. “We won the first and second halves. We would have won real big if it would have come any other way than the Giants and under.”

So if the result was the exact opposite they would have won BIG
Meaning, the result they got resulted in a BIG LOSS, because the oposite of a big win would be a big loss, right?

LOL they can spin this all day, report figures from the gambling commission etc, it's still all lies

 

[TheChathamPontiff]

“We ended up winning a ham sandwich,” said Lucky’s sports book director Jimmy Vaccaro. “We won the first and second halves. We would have won real big if it would have come any other way than the Giants and under.”

So if the result was the exact opposite they would have won BIG
Meaning, the result they got resulted in a BIG LOSS, because the oposite of a big win would be a big loss, right?

LOL they can spin this all day, report figures from the gambling commission etc, it's still all lies

Exactly, dude. It's all a pack of lies. Vegas lost significantly on this Super Bowl, but they have the benefit of not having to actually disclose this fact to the public. I'll never understand the -3 for New England. I am the sucker that took the bait, but I am one of the very few.

 

[GFX]

Most of what we learn about NFL football tells us never, ever look at the last game and make a lot of conclusions one way or the other.

Even though the Giants won 5 straight, the Pats had won 10 straight games and so the books, imo, took a gamble making the Pats a favorite but did so believing that their record would balance the action for them.

They did not expect the "qualitative" interpreation from the public...basically that everybody watched the games and realized, the Giants are not an abberation and they are not just on a "hot streak", they are playing a stepped up game now.

I call it the "New School" of NFL football. No longer does winning all your regular season games or doing it consistently guarantee a team of success. Before 10 years ago, how many teams LOST the Conference Championship if they were the home team with a bye? Almost none (sometimes they don't cover, but they almost always won). Today is different.

Because all that matters is who is playing their best at the end of the season, kind of like baseball.

Houston was playing the best ball of the entire AFC if you ask me, but lacked the right QB to lead them because of injuries. If Houston were healthy for the playoffs including their QB, I actually think we might have seen a completely different result in the SB.

 

[Gritsn'Gravy]

Most places did grind out small profits. Jimmy V is one of the biggest dirtbags in the city. Guy would sell his mother for a buck. Saw the figures from place I work during exec report outs and the win was an average slot day win. The casinos held quite high in tables over the weekend so that is why they are happy.

 

[Robstradamus]

If this guy lost would he just come out and openly admit it?

 

[Maris9]

Don't tell Maris! The action was closer to even than you think!!!

Don't tell The Chatham Pontiff the Giants won....Since there was no way that could happen, being as there was more money on them!


We still going round and round on this bro? I said all week that there was obviously "more" money on the Giants (you could go to numerous places and see that, which I clearly stated).

I just didn't agree that:
a) It was as crazy lopsided as people were making it out to be ; or
b) That it f@cking mattered. I still felt that the + points was easily the best way to go, as the game was a complete tossup.

And by game time, just as I said, the action DID balance out a little. I didn't say it would go even, but I did say, all week, that it wasn't going to be crazy crazy lopsided.

 

[Maris9]

So many Giant bettors took the ML the books could not have done"alright".

You'd think this was common sense, but evidently not.

It was also "common sense" though all week that a play on the Giants was not very smart because of all the "love" they were getting.

 

[TheChathamPontiff]

It was also "common sense" though all week that a play on the Giants was not very smart because of all the "love" they were getting.

Maris, my good man. I was one of the few that was on NE -3, and as you know, all of the Giant love accounted for less than 1% of my rationale in backing NE.

I can't prove it, but I believe Vegas was hammered on the side and ML Sunday. I'm not getting into a discussion of props, futures, casino table action, etc. In a vacuum, the books took a significant hit on the side and ML. We can argue about about much props and futures accounted for the total handle, but it's useless because we'll never know.

 

[Maris9]

One of the "few"? What you think like 6 people were on NE?

You're still overdramatizing the gap between people on NE, and people on NY.
60/40 is nothing crazy, and that's what I saw everywhere I looked. I was asked all week to prove the things that I was saying, and I tried to do that to the best of my abilities. But it goes both ways. It's time for the people claiming this gargantuan gap to start showing some of their proof.

 

[McCrazy]

I read at a couple of places that duing the lead up to the Super Bowl the bets were coming in 2 on the Giants for every 1 on the Pats (67% to 33%). But that reversed completely on Sunday, when the majority of the money is bet for the Super Bowl. I'm sure enough money came in on the Pats, otherwise you would have seen the line drop closer to game time to encourage money on the Pats. I'm guessing they didn't drop it down because they didn't want to create too much of a middle opportunity. Most people seemed to think this was a 3 point game. Opening at +3.5 for the Giants and then dropping to -1 or -1.5 on the Pats would have been a bad middle for them (although it would have worked in their favor).

I'm a bit skeptical about this 5 million dollar profit, but I'm sure Vegas came out on top, they always do.

 

[McCrazy]

From the Chicago Tribune

(Reuters) - Super Bowl gambling in Nevada rose to its highest level in six years and the state's sports books cashed in when the New York Giants edged the favored New England Patriots in Sunday's National Football League (NFL) title game.

The value of bets placed in Nevada's 184 sports books was $93.9 million, up 7.3 percent from the $87.5 million wagered on last year's Super Bowl between Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers, according to the Nevada Gaming Control Board.

Sports books in Nevada kept a combined $5 million from Super Bowl bets, or 5.4 percent of the total wagers placed, unaudited figures showed. That was up significantly from the $724,176 they pocketed last year when the Packers beat the Steelers.

Casinos in Las Vegas were initially hoping for a Patriots win in Sunday's championship game but a slew of late bets for New England over the weekend altered their allegiances.

"It definitely switched on us," Jay Rood, vice president of the race and sports book at MGM Resorts International, which operates 10 sports books on the Las Vegas Strip, told Reuters in a telephone interview on Tuesday.

"We took nothing but Giants money for the two weeks leading up to the game and basically game day everybody jumped on (New England quarterback Tom) Brady and the Patriots."

The Giants entered the game as slight underdogs but pulled out a 21-17 win to capture their second Super Bowl title in four years.

Every year, the NFL's championship game creates a gambling frenzy in Nevada that is considered by some to be a bellwether for the broader U.S. economy.

The value of bets wagered this year was the highest since a record $94.5 million was bet when the Steelers beat the Seattle Seahawks in 2006.

 

[McCrazy]

The key line in the above article is "unaudited figures showed".

 

[TheChathamPontiff]

The key line in the above article is "unaudited figures showed".

"We took nothing but Giants money for the two weeks leading up to the game..."

Thank you Mr. Rood.

 

[Maris9]

"We took nothing but Giants money for the two weeks leading up to the game and basically game day everybody jumped on (New England quarterback Tom) Brady and the Patriots."

Why not post the entire comment right there? That's what I don't get about you man, you are continuously only presenting the parts that fit your argument, as opposed to the entire story.

Take that last part he said, and factor in that approx 80% of the money bet on the Super Bowl comes in within the last two days before the game, and it's not hard to see that the action got evened out at least a little.


I know we're never going to see eye to eye on this, and really my main point all week was just that it didn't matter how many we're on which side, the game was a toss up and thus the points were probably the right way to go. But what's the purpose of posting the first thing that guy said without the rest of it?

 

[juice9]

Vegas lost but puts i different spin on it! How much would have they made if the pats won. Huge difference that tells you how many where on the giants.
Does there figures add in the cost of all the staff and other expenses? that coment is for the guys that think vegas wants it 50/50 sides so they can collect the juice.

 

[Maris9]

After factoring in Props (which now make up 40-50% of the total Super Bowl take), and bets made on the Total, the action bet on the side of the game is not the overwhelming portion of money wagered on the Super Bowl that it used to be.

Would they have made more money if NE had won?....Sure.
Can they still come out ahead even though NY won?....Absolutely.

 

[TheChathamPontiff]

Why not post the entire comment right there? That's what I don't get about you man, you are continuously only presenting the parts that fit your argument, as opposed to the entire story.

Take that last part he said, and factor in that approx 80% of the money bet on the Super Bowl comes in within the last two days before the game, and it's not hard to see that the action got evened out at least a little.


I know we're never going to see eye to eye on this, and really my main point all week was just that it didn't matter how many we're on which side, the game was a toss up and thus the points were probably the right way to go. But what's the purpose of posting the first thing that guy said without the rest of it?

I knew you were going to point this out and I should've responded in advance. You and I began debating this a week before the Super Bowl. I was claiming at that time that the money coming in on the side and ML favored the Giants much more than the 60/40 65/35 you were advocating...at that time. It was closer to 80/20 in the days leading up to the game and you didn't want to hear of it. I understand the final numbers, but we started this debate well before Sunday.

 

[McCrazy]

Vegas lost but puts i different spin on it! How much would have they made if the pats won. Huge difference that tells you how many where on the giants.
Does there figures add in the cost of all the staff and other expenses? that coment is for the guys that think vegas wants it 50/50 sides so they can collect the juice.

The figure in the article is simply the profit from the bets placed with the books and does not take into consideration other factors like overhead for paying staff and other expenses. That being said though, it also doesn't take into account all the extra revenue generated by the influx of tourist in Las Vegas for Super Bowl weekend. It is estimated that an extra 100 million dollars was spent in Las Vegas compared to any other weekend. The Super Bowl is always going to be a win for Vegas regardless of the outcome of the game and the total take by the books.

 

[Maris9]

I knew you were going to point this out and I should've responded in advance. You and I began debating this a week before the Super Bowl. I was claiming at that time that the money coming in on the side and ML favored the Giants much more than the 60/40 65/35 you were advocating...at that time. It was closer to 80/20 in the days leading up to the game and you didn't want to hear of it. I understand the final numbers, but we started this debate well before Sunday.

No dude, you've been off this whole time. During our debate the week before the Super Bowl, I clearly stated I understood the Giants were "currently" getting hit heavy, but that there was still tons of money left to come in (80-90%) - And that it would, in the end and by game day, not be the huge massive discrepancy that some were claiming it would be all the way to the end.

*I even posted that bookmaker stating that early it was very heavy Giants, but that they were still awaiting 80-90% of the money to come during the 2 days before the game. The bookmaker quote even said, "Ask me in 20 minutes, and it could be totally different."
Meaning very little (of the final Super Bowl take) was actually in.
I made the post clearly stating I understood. So your wrong.

And since I knew your only comeback here would be some "show me post!" or "prove it!" bullshit (because that's all you cried all damn week), I even found the quote for you.

Here's the post....6 days before the Super Bowl....clearly showing I understood what was going on with the early money, but that it was just too early for it to scare me....since such a high percentage was left to come in. So your wrong again, and still having trouble in this discussion.

From 1/31

Veteran Vegas bookmaker Jimmy Vaccaro, who has been booking Super Bowls since the mid-70s, estimates 90 percent of the total handle bet on the Super Bowl will be placed on Saturday and Sunday.

“Right now, the money looks about 60/40 in favor of the Giants,” said Vaccaro, sportsbooks director at Lucky’s, “but if you call me back in 20 minutes that could have changed. We really don’t know anything yet.”

So I ask....only what I did in my previous post....


WHY POST THIS ?! (with lame follow up):

"We took nothing but Giants money for the two weeks leading up to the game..."

Thank you Mr. Rood.

When the quote quite clearly was:

"We took nothing but Giants money for the two weeks leading up to the game and basically game day everybody jumped on (New England quarterback Tom) Brady and the Patriots."