Do the books try to trick us?

thebestthereis · 10-19-10, 04:49 PM

numerically impossible to have even money on both sides, close maybe but not equal. books take risks for sure and need certain sides.

uhuhahah · 10-19-10, 05:13 PM

not equal meaning the fix will be in.

ferndog · 10-19-10, 05:37 PM

Put yourself in the bookies place. You are managing money so you have to avoid getting hit big...he does get hit big but he also hits big....where he makes his money is when there is heavy action one one side & that side loses....so if he thinks he needs to trick you to avoid a big loss or to hit big....believe me i think he will do whatever it takes

Z_Wipf · 10-19-10, 05:43 PM

Of course they do. They will give you extra points if they know it will bring in money on the wrong side

BernardMadoff · 10-19-10, 05:48 PM

Mostly wrong answers.

dume walker · 10-19-10, 06:11 PM

From my understanding, books set a line (actually most of them follow a line set by an expert like Roxy Roxborough or by the casinos or offshore books that put out the first lines. Used to be the guys at the Stardust who pretty much set the opening lines. Not sure who it is now who sets the opening lines.) based on stats and personal knowledge of what they believe various teams will do and what they feel will get equal action on both sides. They then offer these opening lines to a few sharps and make adjustments to those lines based on how the sharps bet before those lines are ever offered to us. The adjustments made after that are based on further actions by sharps they respect. Rarely do they switch a line based on public money. As I wrote in a post on another thread, books might receive 250K in action from the public and not move the line an inch whereas they might move their line immediately based on a 10K bet by a sharp they respect.

ESPN's Chad Millman has a weekly column in the NCAAF section of ESPN online that usually comes out on Thursdays (I believe) in which he interviews the heads of various casino sports books who tell why they moved the lines on certain games. Covers also has a section that does the same thing; has a sports book manager explain why they made certain line moves. Fascinating stuff. And, yes, to a certain extent they are gambling; not just brokering bets with equal action on both sides. But they are doing so based on their own expertise as well as fine-tuning that comes from adjustments made in reaction to pro bettors. And as you can imagine by the fact that the lines on the big favorites -- Ohio State, South Carolina against Kentucky, Alabama against South Carolina, et. al. -- all went down during the week, inviting more action on those big faves which then had "shocking upsets", the books are doing very well with this process. Those "shocking upsets" were shocking to everybody but the pros who had statistical models or historical trends governed by 8 to 10 different parameters (how does a 6 win team coming off a 20 point home win fare when going on the road to a 1-5 ATS team coming off a 10 point or greater loss in a night game when the spread is 6 or more points; I'm making this up to give you a sense of the models they use) over a big enough sample size with results in the 60% or more range so that they had real strong reasons to believe the results would play out in their favor. Data mining. Statistics. Historical trends. These are the edges the books and the pros have that allow them to gamble, but gamble with "the best of it" and win in the long run.

Uncle Harv · 10-19-10, 06:37 PM

Wow. Great info Dume Walker! I knew their system was impressive, but if they are analyzing statistical models like that, no wonder they are so hard to beat. So its not like they set out to trick Joe Public week to week, they just know their model will produce profitability on their side when its all said and done. Which is why they arent worried when they "take a hit." Im totally starting to realize that its not just about analyzing the game itself, but its taking the oddsmakers system into account when analyzing line movement as well. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the reply.

CLASSIC ROCK · 10-19-10, 07:17 PM

Good stuff dume walker that's the way it works!

ferndog · 10-19-10, 11:06 PM

Tough to beat the bookies when they have system that wins in the long run....so the small player might be able to win but you have to be damn good & pretty lucky....look at lines that come out & make you wonder why is the line the way it is....bookies will have info on a team performing well in a situation & the average better will say why is this team favored....well they are favored for a reason.

texhooper · 10-19-10, 11:09 PM

yeah, dume, "shocking upsets" rarely go against sharp line movement. that was a nice read there.

dume walker · 10-19-10, 11:30 PM

Thanks, Tex. GL on all your picks this weekend.

dume walker · 10-19-10, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Uncle Harv

Wow. Great info Dume Walker! I knew their system was impressive, but if they are analyzing statistical models like that, no wonder they are so hard to beat. So its not like they set out to trick Joe Public week to week, they just know their model will produce profitability on their side when its all said and done. Which is why they arent worried when they "take a hit." Im totally starting to realize that its not just about analyzing the game itself, but its taking the oddsmakers system into account when analyzing line movement as well. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the reply.

Yeah, this is something I mentioned in another thread that was about RLM. I've learned to be very wary of what to me is a double red flag. And by that I mean when a line on a team opens lower than you think it should be (first red flag); the "too-good-to-be-true" line. And then that line goes down further still (second red flag). The examples are again Ohio State and South Carloina last week; Alabama and Auburn the week before; and Michigan State this week. Line on MSU (playing Northwestern) opened at -7, which some posters thought was a gift. Not even 48 hours later that line's dropped to -5. Which tells me sharps are all over it. Interestingly enough, ESPN Scouts Insider review of the game, in which experts analyze offenses and defenses of both teams, peg MSU by just 3. Which is not to say MSU won't blow N'Western out. Nobody knows for certain how these games will go. But it tells me to stay the hell off MSU.

And you're right. The books aren't too worried about taking a hit on one game. As long as the percentages are on their side based on statistical analysis -- their own and that essentially done by proxy for them by sharp bettors -- they know they'll win in the long run, just as they do at blackjack, craps, etc. I should say they know they'll win in the long run against the public. Not against the sharps (unless they have a gambling problem where they start to blow their discipline and chase), which is why they limit their action to 5K a game or so. To me, letting the sharps play that much is kind of like the fee they pay for adjusting their lines to the sharps' play. And they know they'll get it on the other side, from the public, collecting the 10% vig as well.

ACCBlitz · 10-20-10, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by dume walker

From my understanding, books set a line (actually most of them follow a line set by an expert like Roxy Roxborough or by the casinos or offshore books that put out the first lines. Used to be the guys at the Stardust who pretty much set the opening lines. Not sure who it is now who sets the opening lines.) based on stats and personal knowledge of what they believe various teams will do and what they feel will get equal action on both sides. They then offer these opening lines to a few sharps and make adjustments to those lines based on how the sharps bet before those lines are ever offered to us. The adjustments made after that are based on further actions by sharps they respect. Rarely do they switch a line based on public money. As I wrote in a post on another thread, books might receive 250K in action from the public and not move the line an inch whereas they might move their line immediately based on a 10K bet by a sharp they respect.

ESPN's Chad Millman has a weekly column in the NCAAF section of ESPN online that usually comes out on Thursdays (I believe) in which he interviews the heads of various casino sports books who tell why they moved the lines on certain games. Covers also has a section that does the same thing; has a sports book manager explain why they made certain line moves. Fascinating stuff. And, yes, to a certain extent they are gambling; not just brokering bets with equal action on both sides. But they are doing so based on their own expertise as well as fine-tuning that comes from adjustments made in reaction to pro bettors. And as you can imagine by the fact that the lines on the big favorites -- Ohio State, South Carolina against Kentucky, Alabama against South Carolina, et. al. -- all went down during the week, inviting more action on those big faves which then had "shocking upsets", the books are doing very well with this process. Those "shocking upsets" were shocking to everybody but the pros who had statistical models or historical trends governed by 8 to 10 different parameters (how does a 6 win team coming off a 20 point home win fare when going on the road to a 1-5 ATS team coming off a 10 point or greater loss in a night game when the spread is 6 or more points; I'm making this up to give you a sense of the models they use) over a big enough sample size with results in the 60% or more range so that they had real strong reasons to believe the results would play out in their favor. Data mining. Statistics. Historical trends. These are the edges the books and the pros have that allow them to gamble, but gamble with "the best of it" and win in the long run.

Great post there ^

I've actually been thinking about this the last few days Harv. There are so many angles I swear I could go cross-eyed.

I'm really starting to question whether or not books adjust to public bets, or it's merely a misconception by the gambling community. This weekend, I plan on saving the betting stats and trends from a few games (some with RLM, some without) to really see if/when/why the books adjusted their numbers.

dchecks · 10-20-10, 04:46 AM

Dume awesome insight! The Wynn is the Casino that puts out the first lines of the week for football. College lines come out early Sunday afternoon and NFL late Sunday night for the upcoming week. The Wynn limits the max bet on Sunday for the sharps but like Dume said its like a fee or a gauge on where the line should be for the week. Sometimes they get the line correct right off the bat and sometimes they have to keep adjusting it until the sharps stop laying down money. Take the the Steelers last week vs. the Browns. The Wynn had the line open at -10 and the Wynn was peppered with plays until they moved line to -10.5 then -11 and so on until it got to -13.5, and the big money stopped coming in. The real money is made the minute the lines are posted and the Sharps take advantage of what they feel are mistakes by the books. The normal guy making a bet on Saturday morning of the game is at huge disadvantage, doesnt mean he won't win but he for sure has no edge.. With that said Keep Fighting and Good Luck to all of us!!!!

thebestthereis · 10-20-10, 07:29 AM

Roxy Roxborough lives in Asia, he sets no lines in Vegas right now, and on other note the Stardust imploded a while back and if anyone is in the rubble they too cannot set any lines either from my understanding. That being said most books in Vegas follow the offshore guys.

Serbone · 10-20-10, 10:34 AM

Don't give the bookies too much credit as it relates to setting the lines.
They are good, but it is a crapshoot, too.
Think.
How many games come down to the LAST TEAM to score a FG or TD?
For example, this weekend, NFL, off the top of my head, NE, Sea, Mia, Pitt, Jets, SF, Minn, Wash, all covered with final score.
And then there are freak plays, kickoff returns, blocked punts, holding penalties after a 30 yd gain, fumble returns, interceptions, lousy pass interference calls or no-calls, QB injuries, etc, etc.
Bookies laugh their asses off as we treat it like a science.
They collect the juice either way in the long run.
(By the way, Oklahoma - 2.5 @ Missouri... I would have expected 7, maybe 8 pts... bookies want you to take Oklahoma IMO...)

dume walker · 10-20-10, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by thebestthereis

Roxy Roxborough lives in Asia, he sets no lines in Vegas right now, and on other note the Stardust imploded a while back and if anyone is in the rubble they too cannot set any lines either from my understanding. That being said most books in Vegas follow the offshore guys.

That's why I said "used to set the lines" in regards to both Roxborough and The Stardust.

dume walker · 10-20-10, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by dchecks

Dume awesome insight! The Wynn is the Casino that puts out the first lines of the week for football. College lines come out early Sunday afternoon and NFL late Sunday night for the upcoming week. The Wynn limits the max bet on Sunday for the sharps but like Dume said its like a fee or a gauge on where the line should be for the week. Sometimes they get the line correct right off the bat and sometimes they have to keep adjusting it until the sharps stop laying down money. Take the the Steelers last week vs. the Browns. The Wynn had the line open at -10 and the Wynn was peppered with plays until they moved line to -10.5 then -11 and so on until it got to -13.5, and the big money stopped coming in. The real money is made the minute the lines are posted and the Sharps take advantage of what they feel are mistakes by the books. The normal guy making a bet on Saturday morning of the game is at huge disadvantage, doesnt mean he won't win but he for sure has no edge.. With that said Keep Fighting and Good Luck to all of us!!!!

Great post, dchecks. Yeah, I wasn't sure who set the lines now. Interesting to hear it's the Wynn.

One other thing I'd like to put out for discussion here and that addresses Harv's original question about are the casinos trying to "trick" us with the lines they put out. To sucker us into bad bets. This relates to the notion of what many people here refer to or warn about as "trap games". As in don't bet that line no matter how tasty it might look. It's a trap. And the thinking about that comes off as though the casinos somehow set that lower line to lure bettors in and take their money cause they somehow know the other team is going to win. It might seem that way in the end to the gambler who bets on the favorite and loses but, from what I've tried to psyche out, that's not really how it is. The "trap" is really in the lack of knowledge of the bettor who does not know why it is that line is so low.

Let me use an example... Take the Ohio State game last week against Wisconsin. The line opened at around -5. It then came down to about -3 after the sharps who knew Wiscy might win outright pounded the hell out of it. If the casinos were going to work a "trap" they would go the other way. They would say, "hey, you know the real edge on this based on all our analysis is Ohio State -5. But Ohio State is such a public fave and they have such a big fan/alumni base that would bet on them no matter what the spread. So let's raise it to -7. We'll still get all that public money in and have a 2 point edge." That would be the true manipulative casino trap. But it doesn't work that way because, from what I've been able to glean is that it's the sharps who keep the casinos cleaving to a true line. The sharps' models and analysis say that Wiscy really can win this game outright. But since we're sharps and we won't bet unless we have a mathematical advantage, we won't play unless we can get Wisky +3. We want that key number 3. We want that field goal edge. So they pound that orginal -5 down to -3. If the casinos had tried to set a trap for all the blind faithful OSU bettors at -7, the sharps would have descended like locusts and hit the hell out of it till, again, the casinos had to lower it to -3. This is what I mean about the sharps and all their analytical models keeping the casinos honest.

Where the "trap" comes in is in the minds of square bettors who look at that -3 and think it's too good to be true. They don't have the knowledge of the sharps or the access to the same models they do. So they jump on that -3 line thinking Ohio State will roll. Ohio State loses and they say, oh man, the casinos trapped me. No, they didn't. It was your own lack of knowledge that trapped you.

BTW, checks, love your avy. That's from the scene where Caan is on a sizzle. Every bet he makes wins. He's looking at an 18 on a hand of blackjack. Dealer has something like a 6 for an upcard. Caan says "gimme the three." Dealer can't believe it's such a dumbass move. Calls out to his pitboss and deals Caan the card. It's a 3, giving Caan 21. Dealer then turns his own cards and deals himself to 20 which would have busted Caan's 18. At the end of which Caan turns to his gf Lauren Hutton and says, that's it. The streak's over. The director (blanking on his name at the moment. but he's also a big gambler) set that shot so the lights look like a halo over Caan's head. Like he's blessed. Which during that streak he it comes across like he is. In full "can't lose" mode.

I think your log line should be "gimme the three".

Uncle Harv · 10-20-10, 12:34 PM

Great insights guys, fascinating stuff.