Jazz- The computer wouldnt know what hit him in time to adjust, a guy who is a complete square, who has lost 1.5 mill last year betting and is allowed to bet 50k a game can be apprached by Billy, use those limits and make a quick score before the program knew what happened. Just like a robot can drive a car and be programmed to go on green and stop on red, but guess what sometimes humans run red lights and when a light is green if you just go becasue "programmed" to go, you will crash.
I just happened to find this. I'm not sure if it's relevant to this thread.
http://www.acesplaces.com/irving.htm
http://www.acesplaces.com/irving.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chips:
Jazz- The computer wouldnt know what hit him in time to adjust, a guy who is a complete square, who has lost 1.5 mill last year betting and is allowed to bet 50k a game can be apprached by Billy, use those limits and make a quick score before the program knew what happened.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How could a "live" BM adjust any better than a computer in this situation. The line-moving algorithms can have flags go off when someone is betting off their normal betting pattern, for larger amounts than normal, etc.
What Jazz is saying (and I agree 100%) is that you can write a program that could do the job of a good linesman, but it would take a TON of work, research, refining, etc.
Jazz- The computer wouldnt know what hit him in time to adjust, a guy who is a complete square, who has lost 1.5 mill last year betting and is allowed to bet 50k a game can be apprached by Billy, use those limits and make a quick score before the program knew what happened.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How could a "live" BM adjust any better than a computer in this situation. The line-moving algorithms can have flags go off when someone is betting off their normal betting pattern, for larger amounts than normal, etc.
What Jazz is saying (and I agree 100%) is that you can write a program that could do the job of a good linesman, but it would take a TON of work, research, refining, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sportsadvisory:
I just happened to find this. I'm not sure if it's relevant to this thread.
http://www.acesplaces.com/irving.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
very sketchy site... I was trying to see who this group was. when you click the small "xx" on the bottom of the page, you get:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Makers of WART STICK and CORN STICK!
WART STICK and CORN STICK are the only wart, corn and callus removers on the market today
sold in EASY TO USE STICK FORM!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WTF?
I just happened to find this. I'm not sure if it's relevant to this thread.
http://www.acesplaces.com/irving.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
very sketchy site... I was trying to see who this group was. when you click the small "xx" on the bottom of the page, you get:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Makers of WART STICK and CORN STICK!
WART STICK and CORN STICK are the only wart, corn and callus removers on the market today
sold in EASY TO USE STICK FORM!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WTF?
haha,
that site isnt too sharp for someone trying to sell cutting edge software.
Thats like a guy selling office chairs and sits you down on a stool.
If I didnt know better I'd say Pinnacle has computer help. Some games I'm sitting here on 2 computers at hlf time working 2 keyboards on one single hlf time bet and they are all over it with 30 other games going on and they still beat me. I just cant picture 20 bookmakers all scrambling at once and getting it right.
that site isnt too sharp for someone trying to sell cutting edge software.
Thats like a guy selling office chairs and sits you down on a stool.
If I didnt know better I'd say Pinnacle has computer help. Some games I'm sitting here on 2 computers at hlf time working 2 keyboards on one single hlf time bet and they are all over it with 30 other games going on and they still beat me. I just cant picture 20 bookmakers all scrambling at once and getting it right.
As many of you already know, PINNACLE'S main guy is sharp as a whip and he used to be part of the original computer group...
When I visited their office on a few occasions, I was VERY IMPRESSED at what I saw...
It's truly like poetry in motion...
They may have the market beat not only as bookmakers, but as gamblers, too...
Although I am a big fan of Walters as a sports bettor, I am VERY impressed with the main guy at Pinnacle, too...
THE SHRINK
When I visited their office on a few occasions, I was VERY IMPRESSED at what I saw...
It's truly like poetry in motion...
They may have the market beat not only as bookmakers, but as gamblers, too...
Although I am a big fan of Walters as a sports bettor, I am VERY impressed with the main guy at Pinnacle, too...
THE SHRINK
A talented bookmaker KNOWS his customers and moves more off of the person who is behind the bet, rather than purely the amount bet...
Shrink,
Do you do any consultancy stuff for some books? And is this what you then tell them?
If so and if they listen to you too, then I think we will see a few more casualties very soon!
I call this discrimination amongst your clients. One of the main things I have (painfully) learnt not to do in life: to discriminate.
Shrink,
Do you do any consultancy stuff for some books? And is this what you then tell them?
If so and if they listen to you too, then I think we will see a few more casualties very soon!
I call this discrimination amongst your clients. One of the main things I have (painfully) learnt not to do in life: to discriminate.
acw, it is common knowledge that every successful bookmaker decides how far to move the lines based on who makes the bet. this goes back decades and decades. I disagree with you in that I think that the better the bookmaker knows his customer base, the better off he will be in the long run. You perspective here is totally wrong when it comes to sports betting. If a bookmaker moved the same amount off of everyone, he would diminish his profit astronomically. Have a good night, and i wish i was at Sha tin.
acw,
Do I do SOME consulting work for sports books with regards to their numbers?
YES...
BUT, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant....
I would NEVER DISCRIMINATE against a customer, but I do VALUE some people's opinions a lot more than I do others who may be betting higer amounts of coin on the same game...
If BW bets 5k into my book, I would move the line more than if Joe Q Public bet 10k on same game...
THE SHRINK
Do I do SOME consulting work for sports books with regards to their numbers?
YES...
BUT, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant....
I would NEVER DISCRIMINATE against a customer, but I do VALUE some people's opinions a lot more than I do others who may be betting higer amounts of coin on the same game...
If BW bets 5k into my book, I would move the line more than if Joe Q Public bet 10k on same game...
THE SHRINK
Jazz-
The "tracking system" method you describe is an "empirical" method that would involve a lot of statistics. Analyzing those statistics into something useful would probably take a PhD in statistics. The sample size from a single book may not be even large enough for this approach.
The research for tracking stuff like this for WallStreet was done by thousands of PhD's over decades (and they are still learning). Also, they had a lot more data. A decent size book takes 10,000 bets a week. A big book takes maybe 100,000 to 200,000 per week. WallStreet deals in billions of transactions each day.
Jazz, by your argument, a person could develop a perfect handicapping program from just a pile of data. In reality, you need HUMAN experts to train the system and give it enough basic tips/tricks to keep it on course.
Automatic line moving software would still require significant input from the bookmakers (particularly how to weigh "respected" players and how loose/tight to make the moves).
The problem is exceedingly difficult and most bookmakers I've met would NEVER let you put in rules that they didn't understand themselves. It took me years to convince some that you could have 2-team and 4-team 10-point big teasers (not just the standard 3-team big teasers). The problem was that they didn't understand how to compute the payout odds, and used only the standard odds written on a stone tablet somewhere.
The "tracking system" method you describe is an "empirical" method that would involve a lot of statistics. Analyzing those statistics into something useful would probably take a PhD in statistics. The sample size from a single book may not be even large enough for this approach.
The research for tracking stuff like this for WallStreet was done by thousands of PhD's over decades (and they are still learning). Also, they had a lot more data. A decent size book takes 10,000 bets a week. A big book takes maybe 100,000 to 200,000 per week. WallStreet deals in billions of transactions each day.
Jazz, by your argument, a person could develop a perfect handicapping program from just a pile of data. In reality, you need HUMAN experts to train the system and give it enough basic tips/tricks to keep it on course.
Automatic line moving software would still require significant input from the bookmakers (particularly how to weigh "respected" players and how loose/tight to make the moves).
The problem is exceedingly difficult and most bookmakers I've met would NEVER let you put in rules that they didn't understand themselves. It took me years to convince some that you could have 2-team and 4-team 10-point big teasers (not just the standard 3-team big teasers). The problem was that they didn't understand how to compute the payout odds, and used only the standard odds written on a stone tablet somewhere.
The Pinnacles, Grandes, Olympics of the World could never go automated but the BODOGs, Gamedays, VIPs, etc. could in a heartbeat and be more profitable.
All they would need to do is spyder a sharp line like Pinnacle's and all the squares would think they were stealing. This automated book would have monster decisions and be on the right side more than 50% of the time just like every scalper I know can't keep money in Pinnacle. Just remember 11 is bigger than 10 and the square shops would increase their hold % by 2 maybe 3 points.
All they would need to do is spyder a sharp line like Pinnacle's and all the squares would think they were stealing. This automated book would have monster decisions and be on the right side more than 50% of the time just like every scalper I know can't keep money in Pinnacle. Just remember 11 is bigger than 10 and the square shops would increase their hold % by 2 maybe 3 points.
BUT, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant....
No misunderstanding here!
So what if some day this 10k player becomes smart! And do not say that that will never happen!
I can give you a perfect example where it all started to go wrong several years ago in England on the horses. At some stage this brilliant guy comes from some other country, has a close look at English racing and discovers that certain horses are running at 7-1, which in his point of view should be a 4-1 shot and the other way round he sees horses running at 4-1 that simply have no chance of winning at all. In other words this guy has a huge advantage on the racing. He starts playing and starts winning. In England in those days they had the policy that if you are winning, your account had to be closed. This guy as a consequence got all his accounts with each single bookmaker closed. So what to do? You are a winner, but the books say: “Sorry, we only want bets from losers”. Now bookmakers in my point of view are not very smart and should not be very smart! Take a look around at those that are even so much more stupid to post on this forum and you get it all. But lets continue the story of this so-called smart guy that entered English racing. He needed to get on. BetFair did not exist yet. What he did, was very smart. He approached losers. Normally you want losers to be around, because they pay you as a winner, it is the bookmakers job to get that money transferred from the losers to you as a winner and take a little commission out of it, but in England the cvnts only wanted to gamble themselves against losers. A different situation needs a different approach, so this guy started to get his bets on through losers! Of course these losers that could get on very big, because of their history, loved becoming a winner. Those that know English racing well have seen some big books on the track go one by one! And BetFair has killed them completely.
You know what bookmakers should do? They should try to get their books closed and no more than that! So far in the Caribbean I only see Pinnacle trying to do that. On the European football Indosoccer and Macauslot are doing a very good job on that in Asia. And obviously BetFair has created some nice solution. All others are simply gamblers and I do not mind gambling against them, as long as they pay!
No misunderstanding here!
So what if some day this 10k player becomes smart! And do not say that that will never happen!
I can give you a perfect example where it all started to go wrong several years ago in England on the horses. At some stage this brilliant guy comes from some other country, has a close look at English racing and discovers that certain horses are running at 7-1, which in his point of view should be a 4-1 shot and the other way round he sees horses running at 4-1 that simply have no chance of winning at all. In other words this guy has a huge advantage on the racing. He starts playing and starts winning. In England in those days they had the policy that if you are winning, your account had to be closed. This guy as a consequence got all his accounts with each single bookmaker closed. So what to do? You are a winner, but the books say: “Sorry, we only want bets from losers”. Now bookmakers in my point of view are not very smart and should not be very smart! Take a look around at those that are even so much more stupid to post on this forum and you get it all. But lets continue the story of this so-called smart guy that entered English racing. He needed to get on. BetFair did not exist yet. What he did, was very smart. He approached losers. Normally you want losers to be around, because they pay you as a winner, it is the bookmakers job to get that money transferred from the losers to you as a winner and take a little commission out of it, but in England the cvnts only wanted to gamble themselves against losers. A different situation needs a different approach, so this guy started to get his bets on through losers! Of course these losers that could get on very big, because of their history, loved becoming a winner. Those that know English racing well have seen some big books on the track go one by one! And BetFair has killed them completely.
You know what bookmakers should do? They should try to get their books closed and no more than that! So far in the Caribbean I only see Pinnacle trying to do that. On the European football Indosoccer and Macauslot are doing a very good job on that in Asia. And obviously BetFair has created some nice solution. All others are simply gamblers and I do not mind gambling against them, as long as they pay!
Java: "Jazz, by your argument, a person could develop a perfect handicapping program from just a pile of data. In reality, you need HUMAN experts to train the system and give it enough basic tips/tricks to keep it on course."
You make some good points, Java, but nowhere did I say it would be perfect. To my knowledge, no one has designed a perfect expert system, for a very easy reason to understand: humans themselves do not act in a perfect manner. Look around the books out there and tell me of one who is perfect - no one is. I agree with the point that you would need human experts to train the system, in fact that's what I meant when I said you'd need to follow experts around if they couldn't impart their knowledge in a way you could understand, but do you honestly think mass bookmaking is such a complex and arcane art (or at least the part concerned with taking bets and cash management) that only a BOOKMAKER is capable of understanding it?? I don't, and that's no disrespect to the bookmakers.
Also: "The problem is exceedingly difficult and most bookmakers I've met would NEVER let you put in rules that they didn't understand themselves."
Well, probably true, but you wouldn't need to talk to most bookmakers, just a few good ones. Who says they wouldn't understand the rules, once they have an incentive to? And that incentive I believe would again only come from legitimate corporations in a future that sees legalized bookmaking in the U.S., who would want at minimum a system in place to act as a 'check and balance' initially against a manager, in order to (and let's be honest) prevent problems with a rogue manager in collusion with beards or others. They'd probably think of it as an 'eye in the sky', but the true usefulness of it would come when they'd see more profits than before. Expert systems are fully capable of 'learning', and when they encounter a pattern they do not already know a rule for, they can automatically take a game OTB while the manager then checks out the problem.
The original question posted was "but why arent the lines completely controlled by the inflow of money with software adjusting lines accordingly?", it definitely wasn't "why do humans have any role in bookmaking or running the business?". Human experts always have a role in anything in which an expert system operates, it's just that the nature of their input changes, to the extent that the expert system can handle the tasks that CAN be automated.
Finally, here are the reasons I think this hasn't been done yet - because of inertia and resistance to change inherent in those who would stand to lose status, lack of funds, fear and distrust (as you pointed out). I honestly don't think it's because the technology cannot be developed to do it.
You make some good points, Java, but nowhere did I say it would be perfect. To my knowledge, no one has designed a perfect expert system, for a very easy reason to understand: humans themselves do not act in a perfect manner. Look around the books out there and tell me of one who is perfect - no one is. I agree with the point that you would need human experts to train the system, in fact that's what I meant when I said you'd need to follow experts around if they couldn't impart their knowledge in a way you could understand, but do you honestly think mass bookmaking is such a complex and arcane art (or at least the part concerned with taking bets and cash management) that only a BOOKMAKER is capable of understanding it?? I don't, and that's no disrespect to the bookmakers.
Also: "The problem is exceedingly difficult and most bookmakers I've met would NEVER let you put in rules that they didn't understand themselves."
Well, probably true, but you wouldn't need to talk to most bookmakers, just a few good ones. Who says they wouldn't understand the rules, once they have an incentive to? And that incentive I believe would again only come from legitimate corporations in a future that sees legalized bookmaking in the U.S., who would want at minimum a system in place to act as a 'check and balance' initially against a manager, in order to (and let's be honest) prevent problems with a rogue manager in collusion with beards or others. They'd probably think of it as an 'eye in the sky', but the true usefulness of it would come when they'd see more profits than before. Expert systems are fully capable of 'learning', and when they encounter a pattern they do not already know a rule for, they can automatically take a game OTB while the manager then checks out the problem.
The original question posted was "but why arent the lines completely controlled by the inflow of money with software adjusting lines accordingly?", it definitely wasn't "why do humans have any role in bookmaking or running the business?". Human experts always have a role in anything in which an expert system operates, it's just that the nature of their input changes, to the extent that the expert system can handle the tasks that CAN be automated.
Finally, here are the reasons I think this hasn't been done yet - because of inertia and resistance to change inherent in those who would stand to lose status, lack of funds, fear and distrust (as you pointed out). I honestly don't think it's because the technology cannot be developed to do it.
Man, this is one of the best threads I have ever read here at RX. Many very good points - and all made without any flaming!
The best points, IMO, have been by Jazz and Drunkguy. I really have to agree with DG when he asks "How could a "live" BM adjust any better than a computer in this situation?" I mean, really. Are you saying a computer can be duped, but a live BM couldn't? I also agree with Oscar when he points out that "the BODOGs, Gamedays, VIPs, etc. could (go automated) in a heartbeat and be more profitable." I would add SIA to this list, too, with almost all squares as the customer base.
Great topic, great answers. Definitely need more threads like this here.
The best points, IMO, have been by Jazz and Drunkguy. I really have to agree with DG when he asks "How could a "live" BM adjust any better than a computer in this situation?" I mean, really. Are you saying a computer can be duped, but a live BM couldn't? I also agree with Oscar when he points out that "the BODOGs, Gamedays, VIPs, etc. could (go automated) in a heartbeat and be more profitable." I would add SIA to this list, too, with almost all squares as the customer base.
Great topic, great answers. Definitely need more threads like this here.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Railbird:
The human mind is much greater than any computer, this is why Russian chess players beat the best computers, this is why computers can not create classic oil paintings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Humans have evoloved for thousands of years, computers have evolved for 50. They will equal, and perhaps surpass our intelligence some day in a pure logical sense.
There is no logic or fact involved with a classic oil painting, so that will have to be left to the queer artists. As for anything fact related (equations, logic, etc ..) I think the computer will be superior.
The human mind is much greater than any computer, this is why Russian chess players beat the best computers, this is why computers can not create classic oil paintings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Humans have evoloved for thousands of years, computers have evolved for 50. They will equal, and perhaps surpass our intelligence some day in a pure logical sense.
There is no logic or fact involved with a classic oil painting, so that will have to be left to the queer artists. As for anything fact related (equations, logic, etc ..) I think the computer will be superior.
What you guys are referring to is already being done to an extent. Some stores program their computer to mirror line changes from CRIS or Oly. Other stores employ a clerk to mirror these line changes. Stores like this can do this because they aren't concerned what their decisions are since anyone who wins will be shown the door anyway. These stores, however, would be more profitable if run by a knowledgeable BM.
A store that takes bigger action from ALL players could never be run by a computer. Too much feel and instinct are needed for all the reasons mentioned by drunk, jazz, etc...
Just my opionion. Hope it helps.
Lenny
A store that takes bigger action from ALL players could never be run by a computer. Too much feel and instinct are needed for all the reasons mentioned by drunk, jazz, etc...
Just my opionion. Hope it helps.
Lenny
I think you could create a computer to do this but I think the approach some have listed may be flawed? Instead of looking at it as to how to handle moving the line. You need to find a way to figure out who the sharps will take before they bet, when you can figure that out you will be getting somewhere. As Shrink pointed out, lines makers like the guys at pinnacle are pretty sharp, I think a large part of that is being able to anticipate who the sharp action will be on before the bet is placed.
Bookmaking clearly requires alot of skill, intuition and experience to consistently come out ahead. Most don't have these attributes so they try to copy those that have.
For those operators who are not skilled in linemaking they may be better off using the model used by Betfair et al.
The system on the betting exchanges sets a line simply by the laws of supply and demand. Bets are matched at a particular number so long as the demand is there. If there is too much demand the number will drop too little and it will rise.
The exchange is never gambling on the outcome of the event as they simply keep a small % of the winnings of each bet. Looking at the amounts matched on some of these exchanges this results in large profits for the exchange allowing them to keep operating and improve their product for the consumer.
Winning accounts are never closed as they are not harming the exchanges bottom line. In contrast to some bookmakers those bettors with a genuine edge are rewarded and are allowed to continue trading.
However there will always be a market for those who are skilled in the art of bookmaking.
For those operators who are not skilled in linemaking they may be better off using the model used by Betfair et al.
The system on the betting exchanges sets a line simply by the laws of supply and demand. Bets are matched at a particular number so long as the demand is there. If there is too much demand the number will drop too little and it will rise.
The exchange is never gambling on the outcome of the event as they simply keep a small % of the winnings of each bet. Looking at the amounts matched on some of these exchanges this results in large profits for the exchange allowing them to keep operating and improve their product for the consumer.
Winning accounts are never closed as they are not harming the exchanges bottom line. In contrast to some bookmakers those bettors with a genuine edge are rewarded and are allowed to continue trading.
However there will always be a market for those who are skilled in the art of bookmaking.
