[danshan11]

KVB, glad you are here please explain to me how a sportsbook makes money and how they handle action, please

[danshan11]

I have a simple question for anyone
how can you run a roulette table or sportsbook if you dont know the probability before you take bets?

[u21c3f6]

I have a simple question for anyone
how can you run a roulette table or sportsbook if you dont know the probability before you take bets?

IMO, the mistake that you are making is trying to compare roulette (that has fixed odds) with a sports book (that does not have fixed odds). Since you previously wrote that you didn't want to discuss this anymore, I will leave it here.

Joe. I am currently in Japan (Osaka area) watching Monday morning football! Anyone else?

[danshan11]

IMO, the mistake that you are making is trying to compare roulette (that has fixed odds) with a sports book (that does not have fixed odds). Since you previously wrote that you didn't want to discuss this anymore, I will leave it here.

Joe. I am currently in Japan (Osaka area) watching Monday morning football! Anyone else?

ok thanks

[KVB]

KVB, glad you are here please explain to me how a sportsbook makes money and how they handle action, please

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...l#post23537283

[danshan11]

that was a lot of reading of nothing. most of your posts are very long winded and dont say anything. You think sportsbooks are a stock tip and I dont think it works like that BUT more importantly I dont care how they really operate except for the simple fact that they profit from beating the line and that is what I think we all should try and do, unfortunately in order to have a winner you need a loser so .....

anyway KVB your methods are flawed
you post about tendencies and streaks that is flawed
it does not matter what your research fund shows if you pick Team A, you are a loser, if you pick Team B, you are a loser, long term, only way to win is to consistently beat the line over a huge sample size and that is what books do and that is how they are year after year profitable, they do not care if you pick winners or losers, most only care if you take away their only true advantage and that is beating the line. If and very small if, a book limits or closes someones account (99 out of 100) it is for beating the line consistently and NOT winning

its ok dont be upset lots of people including me are flawed. I hope to everyday learn a little more, you should try to do the same thing. Teaching and learning is the best way, but preaching and not listening is also flawed.
and please watch your talking down to me, you have no cause and it is not necessary

[tsty]

IMO, the mistake that you are making is trying to compare roulette (that has fixed odds) with a sports book (that does not have fixed odds).

the real world is very predictable

it's just hard to compute at this stage

there will definitely come a time where we can predict the future extremely accurately with enough information and a strong enough computer

[KVB]

that was a lot of reading of nothing...

You really don't want a clue, do you?

That "lot of reading and nothing" answered the question you asked directly and exactly. I stopped reading your post after that first sentence.

If you can't see the answer to your question, then keep trying until you do. That was written for the most simplistic of readers in mind.

I've been doing this meaningfully and for a living for a very, very long time, on both sides of the counter. I talk to people every day that beat all these markets, year in and year out. It's a long term game and there are plenty of us that win regularly.

You won't find them in your books.

[danshan11]

You really don't want a clue, do you?

That "lot of reading and nothing" answered the question you asked directly and exactly. I stopped reading your post after that first sentence.

If you can't see the answer to your question, then keep trying until you do. That was written for the most simplistic of readers in mind.

I've been doing this meaningfully and for a living for a very, very long time, on both sides of the counter. I talk to people every day that beat all these markets, year in and year out. It's a long term game and there are plenty of us that win regularly.

You won't find them in your books.

usually whoever has to say they are cool, usually well you know.
You are a long term professional bettor that lives off of sports betting, actually betting not selling "contrarian funds" or other crap?

[danshan11]

and please share some knowledge any knowledge something that says you know one thing about sports betting, there is nothing I have read you wrote that helps your argument and if you did write something please guide me to it.

[peacebyinches]

Very interesting viewpoints laid out here, but let’s take a deep breath KVB and danshan, no need for personal attacks... we are disagreeing over the nuances of handicapping, not healthcare reform or the death penalty or something like that... you guys are both very smart as far as I can tell. I may disagree with both of your views but still want to hear your perspectives on the matter. Anyways...

I found your old post interesting KVB, and I think I agree with the majority of it, and would like to get more into this bookie, player, market, line-maker relationship. Ultimately I view handicapping as a player vs. market (meaning all other players) relationship and I think you are in agreement. But one thing that I don’t buy is the line adjustments based on “sharp” money. From what you said, it seems like you are implying that books are in a way, ‘buying information’ by accepting wagers from “sharps”, then taking a position that information. I would actually love if this was true, but if you get into the nitty gritty details of tackling this specific problem, how often are you going to find that a long term gain (for the books) is possible to achieve after reasonable constraints are imposed on both the model and interpretation. Do you know anything regarding how 1. Sharp money can be differentiated from “non sharp money”? (I am going to assume that this is done non-parametrically unless you know of parametric examples where this can be done) And 2. The use of such knowledge, on our end, to exploit this; especially given the added vulnerability this opens up on the books end and 3. Whether these vulnerabilities are acccounted for when setting up the model from (1) and whether or not this changed dynamically afterwards?

I understand that those are some pretty specific sounding inquiries, but any insights you have on the process would be useful as hell. From some simplified, and of course hypothetical scenarios I can imagine, all solutions begin to fall apart once some appropriate priors are included.

[peacebyinches]

Also, think I get what you are implying when you bring up the idea of a “fair” line, danshan, but could you clarify specifically what being a “fair” line implies, in your opinion?
And is a “fair” line indicative of the outcome of the game it is applied to? If you do argue that the “fair” line is indicative of the outcome or at the very least there is a correlation of the line (opening, closing, or any point in between) and outcome? And finally, is this primarily explained by the model that set this “fair” line, or primarily by variables outside the of the model?

Sorry if you have answered some of these questions before, since they are not exactly novel lol. I ask because from what you have described in previous posts and your statement here:

if the line was not fair they would not take bets on it, even with the juice

(which I strongly disagree with, btw) I think we are getting at the root of where our thought processes diverge.

[Bsims]

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...l#post23537283

Good post.

[danshan11]

Good post.

it is a really good post but he simplifies juice as part of a wager, you see the book is not risking 1600 to make 2800, the book is risking 1600 to make 1600 just like you that other money is already their profit from the juice.
if I beat you at hand 1 and am up 50 and i bet 100 now, I am not risking 50 to make 100, I am risking 100 to get 100 but anyway, he makes it sound like they have this crazy advantage and the only advantage they have is the juice

[danshan11]

I think most major bettors can agree that the line is very fair. what is fair you ask, fair is ATS 50-50 over a huge sample size.
if the line closes at -6.5 that would mean over 1000s and 1000s of games +6.5 would win 50% of the time and -6.5 would win 50% of the time. My argument is this ( I am not very smart but I got a little common sense) if I had a roulette wheel at a casino and it had 37 spots it could land and I had to pay winners at 35 to 1, I would want people to spin that wheel all day, wouldnt you? but now lets say the number of spots on the wheel was some days 32 and some days 40 and I still had to pay out 35 to 1, I might not want to run that business too long, would you? That is my argument for sports betting and how accurate the line has to be. Sports betting works like this they know its actually 35 to 37 spots on the wheel ( very accurate fair line) so they pay out 35 to 1 and charge a 5% commission(vig). They do not know which number will come up nor do they care, they know its between 35 to 37 possibilities and they charge a fee (vig). IF they did not know how many spots on the wheel( line was not fair), they, just like me and you, they would not be sure it is profitable and they would not run the business anymore.
the line is fair and you got to beat the line to win because nobody knows who is going to win which games

[Alfa1234]

Interesting (new) podcast with Pinnacle head trander Marco Blume.

Around 27mins he specifically states they move the line more if a sharp player places a bet.
https://soundcloud.com/pinnacle-podc...ehind-the-odds

[danshan11]

yes they spend more on bettor tracking than modeling games for sure. I mean really how hard is it to set a baseline, it takes minutes but the details come from sharps!
-120 is easy but -127 is hard hard hard and sharps give it to them for less than juice!

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Around 27mins he specifically states they move the line more if a sharp player places a bet.

Only rational to take more notice of the sharp money.

[danshan11]

Only rational to take more notice of the sharp money.

yeah but man I really have my doubts about how much sharp money there really is. I mean its way smaller than the 1% people are spitting out all day!

[HeeeHAWWWW]

yeah but man I really have my doubts about how much sharp money there really is.

Dunno, and pinnacle certainly aren't going to tell you. Obviously there's an upper limit or they'd never make money.

One big area for them has always been arbing against soft books. In that case the client is happy to take -EV at pinnacle.

[semibluff]

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-talk/3050399-equal-action-right-action-lol-didnt-read.html#post23537283

This is pretty much what I wanted and tried to say but this is posted more clearly and far more eloquently. I would like to say that if the money is 60% on 1 side of the line then the true line is probably -116, +116 rather than +100, +100. What the book is trying to avoid is 70% of the money being on 1 side of the line. If it is then in the quoted post the book is risking 2600 to win 3600 at +138.4 rather than 1600 to win 2600 at +162.5. If 70% of the money is on 1 side then the true line might well be -130, +130. There lies the problem. The book probably is still getting good value on the bet but even at +138.4 on a +130 bet the book doesn't want to effectively be betting what could be in excess of full Kelly because the book will eventually suffer the variance that all gamblers suffer and get into cash flow problems with a string of unfavourable results. For a tiny fraction of the book's total worth the book will accept being in a +138.4 on a +130 bet situation, but no book wants to gamble with its own future.

[Jayvegas420]

Saloon this

[tsty]

He also says they "hold their ground" when they get pounded which is factually incorrect

lol@believing anything from company scumbags

[tsty]

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-talk/3050399-equal-action-right-action-lol-didnt-read.html#post23537283

This is pretty much what I wanted and tried to say but this is posted more clearly and far more eloquently. I would like to say that if the money is 60% on 1 side of the line then the true line is probably -116, +116 rather than +100, +100. What the book is trying to avoid is 70% of the money being on 1 side of the line. If it is then in the quoted post the book is risking 2600 to win 3600 at +138.4 rather than 1600 to win 2600 at +162.5. If 70% of the money is on 1 side then the true line might well be -130, +130. There lies the problem. The book probably is still getting good value on the bet but even at +138.4 on a +130 bet the book doesn't want to effectively be betting what could be in excess of full Kelly because the book will eventually suffer the variance that all gamblers suffer and get into cash flow problems with a string of unfavourable results. For a tiny fraction of the book's total worth the book will accept being in a +138.4 on a +130 bet situation, but no book wants to gamble with its own future.

if by "book" you mean pinnacle then that's true

every other book doesn't move their lines until pinnacle does

[Alfa1234]

He also says they "hold their ground" when they get pounded which is factually incorrect

lol@believing anything from company scumbags

Actually it's not incorrect. How else would you explain them taking a big loss on some games (e.g. they lost 7 figures on Belgium VS England in the world cup)? If they merely used the weight of money and kept dropping the odd they were getting pounded on, that could not happen as all the value of 1 side would be gone and the money flow would stop on that side. Bigger games where they "know" the line is correct, they keep taking money on 1 side without that being 100% reflected in the line. The line may drop a little bit, but not much sometimes resulting in a huge lopsided balance for that game.

And why you still use bookies or place bets at all is beyond me if you even call Pinnacle traders "scumbags", I'm 100% sure they've never treated you unfairly.

[KVB]

usually whoever has to say they are cool, usually well you know.
You are a long term professional bettor that lives off of sports betting, actually betting not selling "contrarian funds" or other crap?

and please share some knowledge any knowledge something that says you know one thing about sports betting, there is nothing I have read you wrote that helps your argument and if you did write something please guide me to it.

That's all you want to do is argue and those that read when I'm teaching concepts over the years know that I don't tolerate trolling when we're trying to be serious.

You are never being serious, you are trolling. I know there are many posters that have learned from our discussions and threads and I also know are other posters who would like to learn from valuable sources.

Posters who are trolling like you inhibit that process, force me to repeat the same simple things over and over, and just plain get in the way of the more serious posting.

I'm not dealing with a "know it all" who asks questions all the time, and won't accept even mathematically sound answers. You are operating on false assumptions about the market, and about me.

Get out of the Think Tank, you have ruined and still are ruining it.

Go fight with posters in some other sub Forum, if that's all you're trying to do.

I am not coming a back into this thread.

[Bsims]

I agree, Think Tank value has fallen.

[danshan11]

ok, I will stay out of it folks! have a good one!

[tsty]

Actually it's not incorrect. How else would you explain them taking a big loss on some games (e.g. they lost 7 figures on Belgium VS England in the world cup)? If they merely used the weight of money and kept dropping the odd they were getting pounded on, that could not happen as all the value of 1 side would be gone and the money flow would stop on that side. Bigger games where they "know" the line is correct, they keep taking money on 1 side without that being 100% reflected in the line. The line may drop a little bit, but not much sometimes resulting in a huge lopsided balance for that game.

How do you know how much they lost on a game? You don't. You just take their word for it.

They will always move the line regardless. It would be a huge mistake on their part to hold the line at any point even if they know the line is correct. It would be a massive -EG play for them.

[Alfa1234]

How do you know how much they lost on a game? You don't. You just take their word for it.

They will always move the line regardless. It would be a huge mistake on their part to hold the line at any point even if they know the line is correct. It would be a massive -EG play for them.

Yes I take their word for it. If they know the line is correct, it's not a massive -EG play for them, they still have their juice and it will even out over time. They often get lopsided action on bigger games and don't move the line that much. As discussed above, unbalanced action is profitable over time because of the juice. It evens out. Why would they give away EV on a game by moving a line they know to be correct?

[tsty]

Giving away EG is worse than giving away EV lol

If they do it like you said then they could go broke very easily

Their whole formula is based around EG

[peacebyinches]

Yes I take their word for it. If they know the line is correct, it's not a massive -EG play for them, they still have their juice and it will even out over time. They often get lopsided action on bigger games and don't move the line that much. As discussed above, unbalanced action is profitable over time because of the juice. It evens out. Why would they give away EV on a game by moving a line they know to be correct?

I get what you’re saying, but this implies that about 50% of the games where lopsided action is accepted, the public is on the wrong side, and that the lopsided action is not devastatingly significant. Even if 50% of the time the public is collectively on the wrong side, a decent streak where the public holds 80% of the action is going to be rough for a book’s earnings. It is just so much safer to balance the action as best as they can, since this is guaranteed earnings for the book, not a ***fingers crossed that we are on the winning side*** situation. Books stay in business because they are not gambling like we are.

[danshan11]

I think its really hard to get even money on so many options, I dont know the facts if someone does share it but I just think even reading posts that people usually tend to be on one side of a game.

[peacebyinches]

Some posts by a few people on one forum are far from a representative sample of the total action placed on any game, I definitely would not use that as a guide. I also do not trust any of the information books provide stating that “the public nailed the books on the ‘Team 1 vs team 2’ game”. I wonder why they would make such claims, hmmm.... definitely not to encourage more wagers from the public... right? unless you’re the sportsbooks head accountant that info seems hard to get, but I’d definitely be curious to hear from some of Bovada’s accountants

[danshan11]

I did not say it was a science test with accurate results, I said it hardly seems feasible to get equal action on games, when you have pregame announcers saying The Rams are the best team since 1968 and they have scored more in the 1st quarter than the rest of the NFL combined and they are located in the largest city in the US. I think it would be hard to get equal action on that game.
Rams Vs Jags rams 6 game win streak largest market in the US against the Jags 4 game losing streak starting qb benched last week and smallest market in all pro sports, where do you think the money is going to be, even?

if they set a good line it should end up fairly even
80% small bets on LA and 20% large sharp bets to eat up the overage from the 80% caused movement, something like that is probably typical.