The Fallacy of "Sharps"

[BigdaddyQH]

People who like to pretend that they know all about College Football often use the term "sharps" to describe bettors who wager large amounts of money and who are quite successful at it. Nothing can be further from the truth. The fact is that many sportsbook managers like to use that term to sucker players into making wagers on the sides they want. Here are two quotes from Ed Salmons, who was the head oddsmaker at the Super book in 2016, regarding 2016 wagers on various bowl games:

"The SuperBook took a limit bet on Ohio State -3 versus Clemson in mid-December. "That was definitely sharp," Salmons said. The SuperBook also took early action, characterized by Salmons as sharp, on Florida State +7, Stanford -3 and Pittsburgh -3.5."

The only team to cover those games was Florida State. So the alleged "Sharps" went 1-3 in those games. "Sharps do not go 1-3 in Bowl games. Bowl games are not like weekly conference games where teams know each other and are more prone to upsets.

Another very interesting stat is this. Jeff Stoneback, assistant sportsbook manager at the MGM Mirage, estimates "80 to 90 percent" of the money wagered on bowl games is placed on the day of the game. That means that it is impossible for ANYONE in here to know what the sharps are doing because they wait until the last minute to place their wagers. Anyone in here want to claim that they know who the "sharps" are and what teams they wager on?

[Ralphie Halves]

"Sharps" play numbers. Easiest way to think of it.

There's no perfect way to see where they're going, but the "Pros vs Joes" segment on Dave Cokin's show is pretty good. When one side has the majority of the bets, but the other side has the majority of the money, you can fairly assume the sharps are on the latter.

[BigdaddyQH]

"Sharps" play numbers. Easiest way to think of it.

There's no perfect way to see where they're going, but the "Pros vs Joes" segment on Dave Cokin's show is pretty good. When one side has the majority of the bets, but the other side has the majority of the money, you can fairly assume the sharps are on the latter.

Quite true, but "Sharps" are suppose to win. My example simply shows the difference between "Sharps" and "High Rollers", who are not expected to win. The term "High Rollers", used to describe people who wager large amounts of money, is often confused with the term "Sharps" and that is the way the books want it. If I told someone that a High Roller just placed a limit wager on a team, people would think that some guy just wagered a lot of money on that team. If I told someone that a "Sharp" placed a limit wager on a team, people would think that some guy WHO KNOWS his football just wagered a lot of money on a team. That may entice a person to either play the game, or make a larger wager than he was going to make on that game, which is exactly what the books want.

[gojetsgomoxies]

people overuse the expression.......... are there still very profitable large syndicates operating out of vegas? i'm assuming billy walters isn't so active these day (note that i don't actually know where he is these days. prison?)

[Fred The Hammer]

people overuse the expression.......... are there still very profitable large syndicates operating out of vegas? i'm assuming billy walters isn't so active these day (note that i don't actually know where he is these days. prison?)

My God they do!! I think its stupid. For instance...I've had a nice run with the bowl games for the last 4 years and I was studying Wyoming/Central Michigan pretty hard. I knew the MAC was weaker then normal and I'd seen Wyoming a few times. I couldn't get why CM was -1.5 or whatever it was at the time. Several people kept telling me that the "sharp" money was on CM, but couldn't explain why or how? Idaho borders Wyoming...it was like a home game for them and they killed them. I won on Wyoming but the talk about "sharp money" scared me off hitting it harder. Lesson learned

[BigdaddyQH]

Excellent post gentlemen. Another point to ponder. If, as many books claim, 80 to 90% of the action on any particular game comes down on the day of the game, one would have to assume that 80 to 90% of the alleged "Sharps" wait until the last minute to wager. That means that it would be impossible for people to know who these "Sharps" were wagering on. Billy Walters is starting a 5 year sentence in Federal Prison for insider trading. A couple of his friends who work for the Acme Group Trading Company (which is owned by Walters) are doing time for placing wagers for Walters, which is illegal if you do not disclose who you are making the wagers for and get caught.

[gojetsgomoxies]

it's especially bad when people disparage squares when in fact that's exactly what they are (as most of us are)...

another big laugh i get is when someone outlines all the reasons they like XXX team and people say "that's all discounted in the line" or "the bookies know all that" then when i see them make post they claim "auburn will be looking for revenge and is good at home". as if that's not "discounted in the line"

i think almost everything is considered by bookies and/or informed bettors as a whole but the real trick is to figure out a) the underlying reasons for these factors i.e. behavioural economics type styff; b) importance of such factors; c) interaction of the factors; d) basic feel; e) adding this one at the end, but understanding investor behaviour i.e. momentum vs. value

[gojetsgomoxies]

BigDaddy, thx for the info

Billy Walters obv. had a bunch of runners.... but he thought he'd structured it to get around the law i.e. i give you picks and $$$$, you pay me 90% of the net winnings.. i wonder if his acme runners got busted for the old model (making bets for billy's group) or law enforcment was able to bust his tranlucent financial structuring of his runners

probably some horrible grammar in that last paragraph. i apologize.

[gojetsgomoxies]

and obviously the money that billy gives you to bet as independent contractor is his money i.e. a low interest loan.

[CFB Junkie]

I have a rule that if a line moves more than 3 points from the opening line. My options are to play in the direction of the line movement or do not play the game at all. Fighting big line moves is a death trap!

[A Quant]

I agree with this completely. I am always amused when a bettor loses a game, and uses, "it was still the right side"--- no. It wasn't.

Big money bets do not equal sharp. Plenty of rich folks with dumb money.

And "sharps" are few and very far between, and has been pointed out, you're not going to know what number they are looking for because once the play is made, odds are you're not going to get it.