Well I am sure the people in there will be betting somewhere, just may not be as much money as they started with before. The season basically ends for their group at the end of the basketball season and then they can take out profits, pull out altogether, go get more money, etc. Its quite possible that some got out and others took some money out, its all their choice once a year. Besides most of what happens with the group is a result of the vast amount of money they move. If they had the same people at the helm but their BR was only $100,000 no one would know or care who Bill Walters was. I personally don't think they are that much more talented than other groups or solo handicappers, but having millions of dollars and hundreds of outs to use sure makes the job easier.
You know what is funny, last year, at this same time there was a rumor on sting's GAmbling 911 site that Walters would not be betting football, in fact it has been a rumor the last 3 Augusts!!! He will be betting with both hands, not only is he succesful but he is a Degenerate Gambler, win or lose he will be back!
How much of the money being wagered is considered sharp and how much is the public's action, as a percentage?
I'm sure that it varies by sport, and I also wonder how much of the moves on totals is sharp, or does the public generally play more totals than those you'd consider sharp?
It may be quite a bit different from book to book, and I appreciate any opinions. I know what a lot of it is here, but I'm interested in hearing what it is THERE.
I'm sure that it varies by sport, and I also wonder how much of the moves on totals is sharp, or does the public generally play more totals than those you'd consider sharp?
It may be quite a bit different from book to book, and I appreciate any opinions. I know what a lot of it is here, but I'm interested in hearing what it is THERE.
http://www.therx.com/nm/templates/article.asp?articleid=1143&zoneid=2
NOVER’S NEWS AND NOTES 8/8/03 - Stephen Nover
It’s time to empty the notebook on a few loose items.
Leading off the notes is an entry about the Las Vegas Club, a hotel in downtown Las Vegas. If you're looking to make a college future book wager there, or bet on any UNLV games, you'll have to go to another sports book.
The Nevada Gaming Control Board requested the Las Vegas Club not take action on anything involving UNLV, according to Larry Richards, race and sports book director at the Las Vegas Club. The hotel can't even book college futures until after the Rebels are eliminated.
The reason involves Las Vegas Club owner Mel Exber, who was a generous donor to UNLV and one of Las Vegas’ most innovative bookmakers going back to the 50s. Now here's the kicker. Exber passed away in May of 2002. Guess it doesn't pay to be charitable.
Apparently there was a building endowment at UNLV that the casino partially funded. So a few months after Exber died, the state regulatory body asked the casino not to book UNLV games.
I understand the Palms Hotel in Las Vegas not being able to book NBA contests because its owner's family also owns the Sacramento Kings. But preventing the Las Vegas Club from accepting whatever small UNLV action that might come its way is just paranoia.
A good source reports that Billy Walters' betting group lost so much money on basketball this past season they may not do football.
He said it was ironic that many sports books didn't take the group's basketball action because they would have scored big.
Remember the controversy a few weeks ago involving Betcbs.com and several bettors about the mistake line rule? At the time, Betcbs CEO Dave Johnson said he would come out with specific rules for each sport defining what constitutes a mistake line. Johnson and staff are still working on writing this.
"The official parameters around the rule will be released right before football," Johnson said.
Anything that can help eliminate this grayest of gray areas would be a huge plus for the industry.
Looking to make an NFL future book wager in Las Vegas? If you care about value, you may want to avoid the many Leroy's properties. Some of their odds are appalling, even by Vegas standards.
For instance, Leroy's has the Vikings at 6/1, the 49ers at 10/1, the Colts at 12/1, the Bears at 15/1 and Texans at 80/1.
By comparison, the Vikings are 25/1 at the Hilton properties, the 49ers are 25/1 at Coast hotels and Binion's Horseshoe, the Colts are 30/1 at Coast and Hilton, the Bears are 58/1 at Coast and the Texans are 200/1 at many different books.
The best odds I could find in Vegas on some legitimate Super Bowl contenders include; the Buccaneers 8/1 at Hilton hotels, the Rams 9/1 at Station Casinos, the Dolphins 10/1 at Las Vegas Club and Raiders 12/1 at Coast properties.
Among middle shots with decent odds were; the Packers 16/1 at Station Casinos, the Titans 24/1 at Coast and Seahawks 50/1 at Las Vegas Club.
NOVER’S NEWS AND NOTES 8/8/03 - Stephen Nover
It’s time to empty the notebook on a few loose items.
Leading off the notes is an entry about the Las Vegas Club, a hotel in downtown Las Vegas. If you're looking to make a college future book wager there, or bet on any UNLV games, you'll have to go to another sports book.
The Nevada Gaming Control Board requested the Las Vegas Club not take action on anything involving UNLV, according to Larry Richards, race and sports book director at the Las Vegas Club. The hotel can't even book college futures until after the Rebels are eliminated.
The reason involves Las Vegas Club owner Mel Exber, who was a generous donor to UNLV and one of Las Vegas’ most innovative bookmakers going back to the 50s. Now here's the kicker. Exber passed away in May of 2002. Guess it doesn't pay to be charitable.
Apparently there was a building endowment at UNLV that the casino partially funded. So a few months after Exber died, the state regulatory body asked the casino not to book UNLV games.
I understand the Palms Hotel in Las Vegas not being able to book NBA contests because its owner's family also owns the Sacramento Kings. But preventing the Las Vegas Club from accepting whatever small UNLV action that might come its way is just paranoia.
A good source reports that Billy Walters' betting group lost so much money on basketball this past season they may not do football.
He said it was ironic that many sports books didn't take the group's basketball action because they would have scored big.
Remember the controversy a few weeks ago involving Betcbs.com and several bettors about the mistake line rule? At the time, Betcbs CEO Dave Johnson said he would come out with specific rules for each sport defining what constitutes a mistake line. Johnson and staff are still working on writing this.
"The official parameters around the rule will be released right before football," Johnson said.
Anything that can help eliminate this grayest of gray areas would be a huge plus for the industry.
Looking to make an NFL future book wager in Las Vegas? If you care about value, you may want to avoid the many Leroy's properties. Some of their odds are appalling, even by Vegas standards.
For instance, Leroy's has the Vikings at 6/1, the 49ers at 10/1, the Colts at 12/1, the Bears at 15/1 and Texans at 80/1.
By comparison, the Vikings are 25/1 at the Hilton properties, the 49ers are 25/1 at Coast hotels and Binion's Horseshoe, the Colts are 30/1 at Coast and Hilton, the Bears are 58/1 at Coast and the Texans are 200/1 at many different books.
The best odds I could find in Vegas on some legitimate Super Bowl contenders include; the Buccaneers 8/1 at Hilton hotels, the Rams 9/1 at Station Casinos, the Dolphins 10/1 at Las Vegas Club and Raiders 12/1 at Coast properties.
Among middle shots with decent odds were; the Packers 16/1 at Station Casinos, the Titans 24/1 at Coast and Seahawks 50/1 at Las Vegas Club.
ATX,
Thank God finally someone that brings up something really interesting.
If there would not be any squares in the sports betting market, then simply there cannot be any winners either. At least I cannot think of a situation, in which everyone can get richer. There simply got to be losers and winners.
Think of a bookmaker that is offering 20-cent line bets on a given sport that can only have two possible outcomes, A or B. That same bookie is so sharp that he is offering the true odds identical to a casino game like Baccarat, so sharps do not bet there and 100% of the money is being assigned as being money that belongs to losers. Of course then still to minimise the risk he would like to get money on both sides, but knowing that he is offering true prices, he does not worry, if his book remains unbalanced, as he knows that he will win in the long run. The bookie in question here is then making 5% on his turnover.
A smaller book in the Caribbean with lets say 10 people working for it should make at least some US$25000 a month gross profits on the betting to survive? I am just trying to make an estimated guess here. If they were making 5% on turnover, then it means that their turnover should be some US$500k a month. It would not surprise me, if in the past many books survived on less turnover based on a bias in their prices that worked out to their advantage. In a free market looking at it some (new) bookie will think: He, That book is making money. I want his dumb clients. The only way he can get them is by offering a better price. Even though the clients are dumb, they are not that dumb to understand that a better price is a better price. If the new book is no sharp at all, he then will have to offer a better price on both A and B to get as many clients as possible from the other book. If he manages to take over all the clients, this will make some squares become little sharps and at the same time it will attract many new sharps. Personally I think that this added sharp money is much more than the added square money of those that think that they are sharp, but even if this is not true, still if all books were to offer the same prices, but one offers a lower take-out than the other, then the one with the lower take-out will have a higher percentage of sharp money than the one with the higher take-out. Be aware that a book can get a 100% squares by offering a very high take-out, but is not likely to have anymore clients then.
I agree it would be very interesting, if books would be prepared to give us long-term figures of their cash-flow like which percentage of the loser money has gone to winning players and how much the books take themselves. These figures are not only interesting in regards towards conventional bookies, but also for the tote (like) bookies. We know that BetFair i.e. takes a guaranteed 2-5% from all players. And the Hong Kong Jockey Club on the horses has a guaranteed 17.5-25%. And even with such a high take-out they still have consistent winners.
Thank God finally someone that brings up something really interesting.
If there would not be any squares in the sports betting market, then simply there cannot be any winners either. At least I cannot think of a situation, in which everyone can get richer. There simply got to be losers and winners.
Think of a bookmaker that is offering 20-cent line bets on a given sport that can only have two possible outcomes, A or B. That same bookie is so sharp that he is offering the true odds identical to a casino game like Baccarat, so sharps do not bet there and 100% of the money is being assigned as being money that belongs to losers. Of course then still to minimise the risk he would like to get money on both sides, but knowing that he is offering true prices, he does not worry, if his book remains unbalanced, as he knows that he will win in the long run. The bookie in question here is then making 5% on his turnover.
A smaller book in the Caribbean with lets say 10 people working for it should make at least some US$25000 a month gross profits on the betting to survive? I am just trying to make an estimated guess here. If they were making 5% on turnover, then it means that their turnover should be some US$500k a month. It would not surprise me, if in the past many books survived on less turnover based on a bias in their prices that worked out to their advantage. In a free market looking at it some (new) bookie will think: He, That book is making money. I want his dumb clients. The only way he can get them is by offering a better price. Even though the clients are dumb, they are not that dumb to understand that a better price is a better price. If the new book is no sharp at all, he then will have to offer a better price on both A and B to get as many clients as possible from the other book. If he manages to take over all the clients, this will make some squares become little sharps and at the same time it will attract many new sharps. Personally I think that this added sharp money is much more than the added square money of those that think that they are sharp, but even if this is not true, still if all books were to offer the same prices, but one offers a lower take-out than the other, then the one with the lower take-out will have a higher percentage of sharp money than the one with the higher take-out. Be aware that a book can get a 100% squares by offering a very high take-out, but is not likely to have anymore clients then.
I agree it would be very interesting, if books would be prepared to give us long-term figures of their cash-flow like which percentage of the loser money has gone to winning players and how much the books take themselves. These figures are not only interesting in regards towards conventional bookies, but also for the tote (like) bookies. We know that BetFair i.e. takes a guaranteed 2-5% from all players. And the Hong Kong Jockey Club on the horses has a guaranteed 17.5-25%. And even with such a high take-out they still have consistent winners.
thanks, acw.
I still have a lot of questions, I suppose many of them are too specific to be answered. For a long time I have felt that on some events a bookmaker will move his line according to action. On others he moves it to correspond to certain sharp action. On others he doesnt move it at all. On a smaller number of events I feel that the line is actually moved backward against public action in order to bait even more of the clueless public to take the wrong side. These scenarios make sense (to me) and they are dependant on a given event using the premise that some events are stronger or more valuable than others--the probability distribution can be very strong to a specific number on certain games. In other words, a sharp bookmaker using his tools determines that a playoff game will be decided by exactly 7 appx 60-65% of the time, with it being more probable that the favored team wins by MORE than 7 rather than less. Let's say the market is selling -7 and the underdog is a public darling that the public cant put enough money on, and 68% of the public is taking the wrong side. Now wouldnt a sharp, well funded book take it down to -6.5 to lure even more of the public into its shop from competitors knowing that the long term profit on this strategy outweighs the risk?
I'm not saying this happens very frequently, but I have noticed that on many of my larger wagers the public is all over the other side (say -7) yet the line moves opposite (to -6.5)--especially off of key numbers. I guessed that maybe a lot of sharp action saw things similarly and with its clout moved it, but I HARDLY EVER see any of that action HERE in the situations that I stated above.
I havent gotten much sleep lately, and this might not make a whole lot of sense, and it's much easier to show an exact example when I see it which will be soon in the NFL. I just dont buy the fact that every book wants even action, why would they? Being well funded is critical, b/c they are essentially gambling against the public and on the strength of their number, and the public does win as anything is possible in a sporting event.
Any add'l thoughts?
I've been doing this same thing on a much smaller scale for a while, as an experiment. During the NBA finals for example I was selling most of the games 2-3 points different than the market, and I sold OAK at a pick'em for the Superbowl. It ended up 95% one-sided on the wrong team every time, but even if I had won just 30% of these games I would have done great. I dont book as a profession, it's just an experiment, but maybe someday I'd be interested in setting up offshore.
I still have a lot of questions, I suppose many of them are too specific to be answered. For a long time I have felt that on some events a bookmaker will move his line according to action. On others he moves it to correspond to certain sharp action. On others he doesnt move it at all. On a smaller number of events I feel that the line is actually moved backward against public action in order to bait even more of the clueless public to take the wrong side. These scenarios make sense (to me) and they are dependant on a given event using the premise that some events are stronger or more valuable than others--the probability distribution can be very strong to a specific number on certain games. In other words, a sharp bookmaker using his tools determines that a playoff game will be decided by exactly 7 appx 60-65% of the time, with it being more probable that the favored team wins by MORE than 7 rather than less. Let's say the market is selling -7 and the underdog is a public darling that the public cant put enough money on, and 68% of the public is taking the wrong side. Now wouldnt a sharp, well funded book take it down to -6.5 to lure even more of the public into its shop from competitors knowing that the long term profit on this strategy outweighs the risk?
I'm not saying this happens very frequently, but I have noticed that on many of my larger wagers the public is all over the other side (say -7) yet the line moves opposite (to -6.5)--especially off of key numbers. I guessed that maybe a lot of sharp action saw things similarly and with its clout moved it, but I HARDLY EVER see any of that action HERE in the situations that I stated above.
I havent gotten much sleep lately, and this might not make a whole lot of sense, and it's much easier to show an exact example when I see it which will be soon in the NFL. I just dont buy the fact that every book wants even action, why would they? Being well funded is critical, b/c they are essentially gambling against the public and on the strength of their number, and the public does win as anything is possible in a sporting event.
Any add'l thoughts?
I've been doing this same thing on a much smaller scale for a while, as an experiment. During the NBA finals for example I was selling most of the games 2-3 points different than the market, and I sold OAK at a pick'em for the Superbowl. It ended up 95% one-sided on the wrong team every time, but even if I had won just 30% of these games I would have done great. I dont book as a profession, it's just an experiment, but maybe someday I'd be interested in setting up offshore.
Shrink,
Your wrong about Billy, Walters is taking football season off this year, not becasue he lost a couple of units in basketball , but because he is burnt out, he said he may play a few college totals here and there but not full time like in the past, part of the reason is everyone is cutting his limits.
Your wrong about Billy, Walters is taking football season off this year, not becasue he lost a couple of units in basketball , but because he is burnt out, he said he may play a few college totals here and there but not full time like in the past, part of the reason is everyone is cutting his limits.
On a smaller number of events I feel that the line is actually moved backward against public action in order to bait even more of the clueless public to take the wrong side.
Let's still call this a promotional activity. You give a specific example in the NFL. I know nothing about that sport, so it may make sense. On the European football you will find books that do similar things. They go so far that they allow arbitrage with other books, in which case you get a book to book fight being matched by the ordinary punter who then actually acts like a book. Doing this for a long time automatically shows which books are smart and which ones are not.
It ended up 95% one-sided on the wrong team every time
You have a nice bunch of lunatics that you are dealing with!
Here in Indonesia on the European football I quote Macauslot prices to a friend. Obviously if he likes the other side of what I like (most of the time), then I can take a position against him, but I cannot play around with the prices too much, as he has other places to bet. To make it even worse he will often put me against his other out to get a better price of me, which effectively only gives me a small advantage or sometimes the price he wants to have is at the break even level, in which case I do not want to be bothered doing even the admin of it.
Let's still call this a promotional activity. You give a specific example in the NFL. I know nothing about that sport, so it may make sense. On the European football you will find books that do similar things. They go so far that they allow arbitrage with other books, in which case you get a book to book fight being matched by the ordinary punter who then actually acts like a book. Doing this for a long time automatically shows which books are smart and which ones are not.
It ended up 95% one-sided on the wrong team every time
You have a nice bunch of lunatics that you are dealing with!
Here in Indonesia on the European football I quote Macauslot prices to a friend. Obviously if he likes the other side of what I like (most of the time), then I can take a position against him, but I cannot play around with the prices too much, as he has other places to bet. To make it even worse he will often put me against his other out to get a better price of me, which effectively only gives me a small advantage or sometimes the price he wants to have is at the break even level, in which case I do not want to be bothered doing even the admin of it.
All these so called BW experts, I have met him once or twice, through a guy that knows him extremely well.
If anyone knew the whole truth about how he made most of his initial money, and how many years he as actually shown a profit from sports gambling the legend would definately be far less than it is. It makes for good forum fodder though.
If anyone knew the whole truth about how he made most of his initial money, and how many years he as actually shown a profit from sports gambling the legend would definately be far less than it is. It makes for good forum fodder though.
acw,
It looks like it happens more times on European soccer that one might suspect. However a big question I have: is that because of the sharp action or because of the "sharpness" of the book itself ? I suspect it's because of both factors.
As for instance today was a game in German Bundesliga II: Alemannia Aachen - Mainz (2-2). While something like 70% of the public were on Aachen, still the odds in Pointbet on Aachen moved from 2.00 -1/4 to 1.85 level.
Was it because of sharp action or not ?
Anyway, if the things work this way then who cares ?
It looks like it happens more times on European soccer that one might suspect. However a big question I have: is that because of the sharp action or because of the "sharpness" of the book itself ? I suspect it's because of both factors.
As for instance today was a game in German Bundesliga II: Alemannia Aachen - Mainz (2-2). While something like 70% of the public were on Aachen, still the odds in Pointbet on Aachen moved from 2.00 -1/4 to 1.85 level.
Was it because of sharp action or not ?
Anyway, if the things work this way then who cares ?
Anyway, if the things work this way then who cares ?
I do.
What I simply want to find out is if it pays to remain a player not having to take a side that one does not like or whether it is better to be a bookie knowing that the public will bet on the wrong side and effectively even gives you a better price that way.
In the old days when there was no BetFair and the Asian market was not that exposed yet, being a British bookie was the best. The way they operated was that they took what they liked to take and rejected what they did not like. Being a sharp one had no other choice than becoming a bookie. In Asia this is being seen as a highly unethical practise, so markets here have to be much more balanced than elsewhere and effectively bookies only take a very small (too small in my point of view) percentage of their money movement.
I do.
What I simply want to find out is if it pays to remain a player not having to take a side that one does not like or whether it is better to be a bookie knowing that the public will bet on the wrong side and effectively even gives you a better price that way.
In the old days when there was no BetFair and the Asian market was not that exposed yet, being a British bookie was the best. The way they operated was that they took what they liked to take and rejected what they did not like. Being a sharp one had no other choice than becoming a bookie. In Asia this is being seen as a highly unethical practise, so markets here have to be much more balanced than elsewhere and effectively bookies only take a very small (too small in my point of view) percentage of their money movement.
Its not about how much they win from year to year. And I can tell you they aren't telling you the whole story. BW and his crowd have ways of minimizing their perceived win as it doesn't do them good to be recognized, as I am sure you can imagine. Part of the problem about trying to infer things from a particular year is that football is rather limited in trials. It is impossible to know your true long-term winning percentage with just a year's results as the season is too short to determine that. There are flash in the pan guys that win 65% one season and get convinced they are good at it and the next 3 years its back down to earth. You are right though, BW and his crowd aren't the best pickers in the game, but they were able to get the most money behind them and with that the most outs and with those two very powerful combinations were able to beat many books out of many dollars. In the end that is the name of the game. After all the best handicapper in the world, the guy who could have the best grasp of the game might be betting $50 a game or even worse not even wagering. I used to know a guy that could clean the clocks of bookmakers in our little office pool, he was over 60% for 5 straight years on the NFL. When pressed as to why he wasn't betting real money on it he swore that once he put real money on it he would lose money. So you really don't know who is the best talent or who deserves that kind of accolade, but in this business we only count one thing, total money won and for that BW's group was far and away the best for a long time and they still are a formidable opponent.
acw,
The comparison you described with British/Asian bookie is like comparing a small shop with a big supermarket, the supermaket can afford to have better prices and have 1% of net profit per product, the thing a small shop is simply unable to do. So if you're a bookie and you want to attract $ you have to behave rather like a supermarket and not like a small shop.
So basically it's supply and demand law like everywhere.
Returning to the European football topic: I can see that at least in online books the sharp action almost always equals to big $, it's rare to find a recreational gambler betting high amounts. These are the habits of soccer-betting public online.
So it looks like the line movements in books that do balance their action like Pointbet are excusively from big $ (big in comparison to the book's limits of course) sharp action.
Of course other books like Centrebet just drop down the odds to avoid any action at all on the sides likely to win.
The comparison you described with British/Asian bookie is like comparing a small shop with a big supermarket, the supermaket can afford to have better prices and have 1% of net profit per product, the thing a small shop is simply unable to do. So if you're a bookie and you want to attract $ you have to behave rather like a supermarket and not like a small shop.
So basically it's supply and demand law like everywhere.
Returning to the European football topic: I can see that at least in online books the sharp action almost always equals to big $, it's rare to find a recreational gambler betting high amounts. These are the habits of soccer-betting public online.
So it looks like the line movements in books that do balance their action like Pointbet are excusively from big $ (big in comparison to the book's limits of course) sharp action.
Of course other books like Centrebet just drop down the odds to avoid any action at all on the sides likely to win.
wantitall4moi said:
Want, I have alot of respect for you, but you are completely LOST when it comes to BW. he wins for funs. no BOOKIE on this planet ever beat him. I promise you onething I know all the big ones too. when he uses the bathroom, he leaves more in the toilet then most has ever seen in a lifetime. you smart how can you beat a man that lays 4 on a game that goes to 5 and 5.5 or if he takes 3 on a game that goes to two. if you are trying to figure out how he wins you will be trying to figure that out the rest of your life. you cant beat this guy, dont believe me ask your friends or neighbors or the people that REALLY know.
