Some people must've lost a lot of money on the Red Sox game

[No coincidences]

You did not address what I said. I'll repeat it.

If what you said was true, why would people get booted constantly for chasing steam? Books should welcome it because they're throwing in fake moves (your logic).

First, I would like to know what qualifies you to say that people are "getting booted constantly for chasing steam" -- especially in today's marketplace. Proof?

Second, I would like to know what kind of $$$ and limits we're talking about.

Monday's games, as I pointed out in LT's thread, were a perfect example of how much of a crapshoot chasing steam can be these days. Look at the opening numbers vs. the closing numbers and tell me where killing the closing number would've gotten you.

I am not saying you can't grind out an overall, season-long profit blindly chasing steam. I will say that I do not believe it is as successful as it once was. And I will also contest the idea that "steam" is always created for legitimate reasons (injury news, big money on a given side, etc). Sometimes? Yes. Always? Not even close.

Monday, again, is a good example. Are you telling me the Tigers went from -155 to -195 just because of the lopsided action on Detroit? A 40-cent move? Or Arizona was being backed in such a way that it would justify that kind of swing? That "sharp" bettors were backing a washed-up Bronson Arroyo (flyball pitcher) at Wrigley Field? Or that there was really 20 cents of RLM in Oakland?

I would also argue that "steam" is sometimes false in that it is a perceived real move vs. someone buying down a side big to get a better number on the other team. So while a faux sharp may take pride in the fact that he got +120 on Arizona when it closed at +101, a real, legitimate, big-time winner is priding himself on the fact that he was able to get the Cubs at virtually even money at home against a flyball pitcher who should be throwing BP these days.

[No coincidences]

BTW, yis, the tax on playing the under here was heavy from the start. Look at the numbers from open at Pinnacle:

04/21 07:14 AM	9 +126	9 -139
04/21 04:15 AM	9 +130	9 -144
04/21 01:53 AM	9 +121	9 -134
04/21 12:02 AM	9 +118	9 -130
04/20 07:09 PM	9 +111	9 -123
04/20 06:04 PM	9 +111	9 -122
04/20 04:22 PM	9 +106	9 -117

I'm not saying Pinnacle was doing this intentionally, necessarily, to set up bettors who were hitting the under 9 overnight. They did collect a hell of a lot of juice on this particular play along the way, though.

[yisman]

First, I would like to know what qualifies you to say that people are "getting booted constantly for chasing steam" -- especially in today's marketplace. Proof?

It's happened to me at three books (rarely do it any more, for that reason) and I've heard many others say the same.

Look, if you don't believe books boot steam-chasers, there's nothing left to say.

Start a thread is the S&I forum and say people don't get booted for chasing steam. You'd be laughed off the board.

Several books have it written in their rules that they will kick you out for chasing steam.

The fact that this happens is proof that you're wrong. If you're going to ignore reality, there's nothing left to say. Again, go start a thread asking whether people get booted for chasing steam.

If I ran a book and did head fakes and jerked around with lines to mess with steam-chasers, I would never boot or limit them. I'd welcome the action.

[PaperTrail07]

[PaperTrail07]

Welcome every dime of it IMO

[yisman]

oh and the opener was -117 on under, the tax got heavier as they moved in reaction to the bets

[No coincidences]

It's happened to me at three books (rarely do it any more, for that reason) and I've heard many others say the same.

Look, if you don't believe books boot steam-chasers, there's nothing left to say.

Start a thread is the S&I forum and say people don't get booted for chasing steam. You'd be laughed off the board.

Several books have it written in their rules that they will kick you out for chasing steam.

The fact that this happens is proof that you're wrong. If you're going to ignore reality, there's nothing left to say. Again, go start a thread asking whether people get booted for chasing steam.

If I ran a book and did head fakes and jerked around with lines to mess with steam-chasers, I would never boot or limit them. I'd welcome the action.

Again, just because it happens in isolated instances, doesn't mean all steam is fake. I never said that. I'm just contesting the idea that all steam is real.

How long ago were you booted for chasing steam? And how much $$$ are we talking on these plays? And how do they qualify it as chasing? A 5 cent move late? A 10 cent move? A 30 cent move over the course of the day?

So you're telling me if I had put large sums of cash on the Tigers or Diamondbacks last night, books would be red-flagging me, limiting me or even booting me today?

I'm not even sure why we're deviating from the main contention I have here, which is that all big line moves fueled in legitimacy. Everything else we're discussing is somewhat of a red herring at worst, or a battle of semantics at best.

[No coincidences]

oh and the opener was -117 on under, the tax got heavier as they moved in reaction to the bets

You could look at it that way -- or you could look at it as the books were collecting as much juice as they possibly could on under backers when they realized it was a popular play (either by quality or quantity).

If I'm running a book and I'm fairly confident an over is going to hit relative to its opening number based on the information I have vs. what is available to the public, I'd juicing the other side and collecting the tax on its backers is a savvy strategic move -- if not a necessity. Why do you think Pinnacle waited so long to drop the total from 9 to 8.5?

[yisman]

Your main contention is that some line moves are fake.

This is disproved easily by the fact that books boot people for steam-chasing.

If I ran a book and did head fakes and jerked around with lines to mess with steam-chasers, I would never boot or limit them. I'd welcome the action.

This is not a red herring nor is it semantics, this proves that you are wrong. If you do not believe people get booted for chasing steam, then go ask in the S&I forum.

[No coincidences]

Your main contention is that some line moves are fake.

This is disproved easily by the fact that books boot people for steam-chasing.

If I ran a book and did head fakes and jerked around with lines to mess with steam-chasers, I would never boot or limit them. I'd welcome the action.

This is not a red herring nor is it semantics, this proves that you are wrong. If you do not believe people get booted for chasing steam, then go ask in the S&I forum.

You really like to speak in absolutes, don't you?

Don't you think books pick and choose who they boot for chasing steam, in much the same way they pick and choose when to give out faux line movement?

You have no idea how often books do/don't boot steam chasers, or how often, or why, or for what plays. I'm not saying it doesn't happen -- far from it -- but I am saying it doesn't happen unconditionally in the same way I'm saying line moves aren't legitimate unconditionally.

Is the idea of a book over-juicing a play to collect vig or offering fabricated moves on a given side not even a blip on your radar? You're saying that's not even a remote possibility, and line moves are truly as simple as induced action or tangible news/information at all times?

[yisman]

You really like to speak in absolutes, don't you?

Don't you think books pick and choose who they boot for chasing steam, in much the same way they pick and choose when to give out faux line movement?

You have no idea how often books do/don't boot steam chasers, or how often, or why, or for what plays. I'm not saying it doesn't happen -- far from it -- but I am saying it doesn't happen unconditionally in the same way I'm saying line moves aren't legitimate unconditionally.

lol. I know it has happened to people many times.

Again, quit throwing in red herrings and go make the thread. Ask if chasing steam gets you booted/limited and see what the responses are.

Until you do that, you're just obfuscating the issue.

[No coincidences]

lol. I know it has happened to people many times.

Again, quit throwing in red herrings and go make the thread. Ask if chasing steam gets you booted/limited and see what the responses are.

Until you do that, you're just obfuscating the issue.

Are you even reading my posts at this point?

I never said it didn't happen. Why are you so hung up on trying to counter an argument I never made in the first place?

Saying "I know it has happened to people many times" isn't even a point I am contesting.

Was your original intent in this thread to say someone must've hammered the under before the Boston/Baltimore game or not? That's what I'm trying to challenge -- that it may not necessarily be the case, and that not all line movement should be taken at face value. Somehow this morphed into a different debate that I'm not even interested in -- or disagreeing with, for that matter.

Let's break this down in simple terms:

You say line movement is strictly based on money wagered, injury news, etc. -- all things above par and real. At all times. Correct?

You also say if you chase steam, you will eventually get the boot from a book -- regardless of what kind of wave you're riding. Correct?

I am challenging both trains of thought. Not saying they're entirely wrong, but that there are definitely instances where books will move lines based nothing more than taking a stand on a number or collecting juice. I am also saying that books pick and choose who they jettison, rather than just dumping every bettor who chases steam without question.

[PaperTrail07]

Obv the books choose who they boot....why enforce a rule on a losing client...rules are only there to protect the book from payment..lol....they don't want to bite a hand that feeds....

Are you even reading my posts at this point?

I never said it didn't happen. Why are you so hung up on trying to counter an argument I never made in the first place?

Saying "I know it has happened to people many times" isn't even a point I am contesting.

Was your original intent in this thread to say someone must've hammered the under before the Boston/Baltimore game or not? That's what I'm trying to challenge -- that it may not necessarily be the case, and that not all line movement should be taken at face value. Somehow this morphed into a different debate that I'm not even interested in -- or disagreeing with, for that matter.

Let's break this down in simple terms:

You say line movement is strictly based on money wagered, injury news, etc. -- all things above par and real. At all times. Correct?

You also say if you chase steam, you will eventually get the boot from a book -- regardless of what kind of wave you're riding. Correct?

I am challenging both trains of thought. Not saying they're entirely wrong, but that there are definitely instances where books will move lines based nothing more than taking a stand on a number or collecting juice. I am also saying that books pick and choose who they jettison, rather than just dumping every bettor who chases steam without question.