 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Laughed when i read this post since it is so untrue. It is not about getting even action in one game. it is about getting even action in the LONG TERM. If you pay out 97% you will be profitable in the long term. Does not mean books dont lose in a months. It is called variance but the long term winning.Originally Posted by illAdelph
Lines can be wrong at times sometimes to low sometimes to high. Juice is what books make money off. Pinnacle has low juice but has a big turnover.
You forgot about Money management. A good handicapper who doesn't practice smart bankroll management will go broke long before a bad handicapper who uses Kelly Criterion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
It would in no way be the same as closing a book and just sportsbetting.
For example:
Side A has $80000 wagered on it.
Side B has $20000 wagered on it.
Average Line is -105.
Scenario 1:
Side A wins.
The book makes $20000*.05(A.K.A the juice)=$1000 from the juice alone.
They also win $60000 from the wager for a net of $61000.
Scenario 1:
Side B wins.
The book makes $20000*.05(A.K.A the juice)=$1000 from the juice alone.
They then lose $60000 from the wager for a net of -$59000.
They are wagering $59000 to win $61000, therefore the line the book would end up getting is +103.339 and the line you are getting is -105.
Now how much does 8.339 cents equate to?
-105 is 51.22% to break even.
+103.333 is 49.18% to break even.
51.22%-49.18%=2.04%
Now lets make the scenario less extreme. How about the book gets 66% of bets on one side and 34% on the other side.
Side A has $66000 wagered on it.
Side B has $34000 wagered on it.
Average Line is -105.
Scenario 1:
Side A wins.
The book makes $34000*.05(A.K.A the juice)=$1700 from the juice alone.
They also win $32000 from the wager for a net of $33700.
Scenario 1:
Side B wins.
The book makes $34000*.05(A.K.A the juice)=$1700 from the juice alone.
They then lose $32000 from the wager for a net of -$31400.
They are wagering $31400 to win $33700, therefore the line the book would end up getting is +107.325 and the line you are getting is -105.
Now how much does 12.325 cents equate to?
-105 is 51.22% to break even.
+103.333 is 48.23% to break even.
51.22%-48.23%=3.533%
Not only do they get a GREAT line on each game that no one else can get, they can bet huge limits unlike everyone else. Good luck trying to place 50k+ on games when the book knows and if you are a profitable bettor in a reasonable amount of time.
I'd love to be able to get a free 3.533% edge on all my wagers. Most people consider hitting 55% extremely hard to do and that is considered good profit. that 3.533% edge mean you would essentially be hitting that 55% mark blindly picking like a monkey.
This is such a joke, it's not even funny. Borderline trolling.
About 19% of games end within +/-3 points of the spread. So about 9.5% of games end within +/-1.5 points of the spread (3 point range)
Last edited by pro-style; 02-07-12 at 02:34 PM.
I dont buy in to the whole traplines blahblah. I am a soccer bettor and soccer is way bigger market than basketball is. From soccer almost all hcp's make sense. If there would be traplines in basketbal they should be around in every sport. Well in soccer they arent.
Bookies make profit because they make sharp lines. If too much money is bet on one side they up the hcp. The next time such a match will take place they open on a higher hcp. Sometimes they are wrong sometimes they are right. Sure they like to win more than they lose but at the end the juice is what makes them a profitable company on the longterm. Being reliable on winning or losing is not a sound strategy
Me some friends and investors have done some resarch to create our own bookie. Juice and lots of turnover is what makes up for a reliable business model. Although we were quite far licensing issues would arise.
Also I realize that this requires books to find spots where the market perception is wrong, but it is in no way the same as shutting down shop and betting the games.
This is the reason why just blindly betting against the market %'s does not work. If a book has more money wagered on one side, they in theory get a better line than the bettor blinding going in and fading the public. The bettor gets -105 and they get +103. That can be the difference in value and no-value.
Imagine how much the books rakes when the line is -110.
You sucked on your thumb and decided to fabricate a story with 0 facts
Greed is whats burries you.
I think that this is too complicated for theone. Let me try to break it down.
There are 100 monkeys betting bananas on the ape race.
80 square monkeys bet 1 banana each on Ape 1. 80% of the bets (and $80) are therefore on Ape 1
20 sharp monkeys bet 10 bananas each on Ape 2. 20% of the bets (and $200) are therefore on Ape 2.
The wagers are in at 80/20%. But the 20% bet more bananas. Because they're rich. And smart. And awesome.
However, this does not mean that there are traps.
Really? Peanuts?
Well sir, you are worse than a "noobie" to the game. You still don't get it and I'm guessing you aren't a "noobie". That's way worse IMO.
I'll do some more math to try and educate.
Lets say there is $700,000 on one side and $300,000 on the other.
If the average line is -105 they make $300,000*0.05=$15,000 off juice alone. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME.
Now they have $400,000 wagered on a side.
Say there side wins 60% of the time. $400,000*0.6=$240,000. $400,000*0.4=$160,000. They are netting $80,000 on average for each "wager".
To think that they are even hitting 60% and/or have 70% of the money one one side is just fool's talk. There are too many sharp bettors in this game to ever allow this to happen. I'm giving you BEYOND EXTREME values to help your argument.
How many of these so called "traps" are there? Maybe 1 in 10 wagers? So now you have 10 games where they make money on juice and the random 10th game where they have this trap where they just make oodle's of money.
10*$15,000=$150,000 of juice on the board.
So, nearly 50% of their revenue is peanuts.... yup.
If you change the numbers to like 58% of the MONEY (NOT BETS) is on a side and they win 55% of the time, this so-called "trap" revenue is far outweighed by those peanuts.
I'd rather be a noobie, atleast the noobie has a reason to be wrong.
Last edited by pro-style; 02-07-12 at 03:09 PM.
pro-style.. what are you like a human calculator lol
bottom line is there are no such thing as trap lines. vegas tries to set a line to be bet both ways... thats there intention.
No, I'm just bored. I should just go and play golf or something, but this is what I'd rather do when I get some free time I guess.
Vegas wants the most money wagered on a game as possible. Hence, they make more money off juice.
These so-called trap games are just the bookies way to get more money wagered. If you have all the squares pounding one side cause they think it's the LOTY, you will have all the sharps pound the other. This is creating a TON of action on the game because it is bringing out both the sharps AND squares. The whole concept of "VEGAS IS TRYING TO TRICK US SO THEY CAN WIN ALL OUR MONIES" is just silly. They do win your money. It's through juice and the sharps win the rest of your money.
For every square that bets $100 dollars on a game there is a sharp that is willing to throw down thousands. If there are 70% of people on a fool's side of a game it can easily be outweighed by all the sharp bets.
There is a reason they release the %of bets and not the %of the money on a side. It's to get people to bet.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying books are NEVER exposed. They are. It's not always intentional and it isn't because they are trying to gamble to make money. There maybe exceptions here and there, but this isn't the majority.
pro-style should change his name to abacus.
so vegas wants even action on games this is what your saying correct ? they would rather there be 50 5 bet on the fav and 50 5 bet on the dog. besides one side be 60 % 40% cause then make there juice . other people are saying vegas dont care about the juice . this is what they want... they dont wanna be at risk they rathwer just have big action on both sides . and for that reason they set a line to try to get favorite and underdog action . this is why there are no trap lines , if they wanted to set a trap line then they cant expect anything close to even action !
It's not that cut-n-dry.
Think about it. If there are 70% of the bets coming in on a side, what does that tell you? It tells you that the 70% of bets are on a side. It does not tell you how much money they have on a side. To assume they are exposed on a bet means you are making an ASSUMPTION completely based on the logic that every bet is equal in terms of dollars. They don't release the actual amount of money that is on either side for a reason, there is no point.
Say the book realizes that there is a game that the public will just get completely wrong. There are some factors that are going to play a role and they know the squares will not realize this.
How do you approach this situation?
You have three options.
Option 1 it is to release the TRUE LINE so they are going to make money off juice and have to deal with the swings up and down. Sharps lay-off cause they know there is no value. So you just have a bunch of squares betting this line and getting the TRUE LINE. If everyone gets the TRUE LINE they make money only off juice and incur a lot of variance, since everyone is only betting one side, but each side will hit 50%.
Option 2 it is to release the SLIGHTY OFF THE TRUE LINE so now you have all your squares still boner betting this bad bet PLUS you have all your sharps soaking up the value that these noobs are leaving on the table.
You can give your squares -1 or -4 they don't care. It's OKC!!!!!!!!!!
Option 3 it is to release the WAY OFF THE TRUE LINE and the book gets to GAMBLE ON THIS AWESOME TRAP. They would make the most money in this scenario because they are getting 70% of the money on one side and the other side is hitting a crazy 60%!!! In this situation you assume there are no good bettors out there ready to pounce on this opportunity.
Which Option is the best?
Option 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But wait, the funny thing is... Option 3 doesn't exist!
There are too many smart bettors out there to just allow the book to destroy the public w/o them. They are going to jump on in the action too. They soak up some of the inefficiency in the market. There are more of these guys than you think, because they don't post on this forum. They just quietly make their money.
Which leaves you with Option 2 clearly being the best so they can maximize what they make in juice. In this scenario you have both the squares and sharps betting.
In a perfect world they would love to have Option 3, but it rarely exists for them.
Last edited by pro-style; 02-07-12 at 04:27 PM.
You guys are making this way too complicated. The books follow a two step process:
1. Calculate a true line using all of the information that they have available to them, which is usually a lot more information than we have. Let's say they calculate the true line for the Heat at -16.
2. They analyze what the public's likely reaction would be to a line. If they post the true line, how will the betting public react to it? How will the "average" better see the line? They might figure that -16 would get too much action on the Cavs, because the spread is just so big that the average bettor will think the team getting points will hit. So, even though they think the Heat is likely to win by 16, it isn't likely enough to happen to justify the flood of money coming in on the Cavs. Over the long haul, the book would lose money, because the Cavs will win just enough to make it -EV. So, the book adjusts the line to where they think public perception will get the rake a little more even as a cushion in case the Cavs pull it off. A line of -13 will encourage more wagers on the Heat, while still getting more money on the Cavs, which is who the book thinks won't be able to cover.
It's really not that complicated. It's a two-step system of analyzing both the game and the public. Over time, they make much more money doing this than they would by just trying to get even money on both sides of all bets. No bookie is ever going to get rich taking nothing more than the vig. Sure, that's good revenue, but the real money is in expert analysis of both the game and the betting public.
This is absurdly generic.
1. Calculate a true line using all of the information that they have available to them, which is usually a lot more information than we have. Let's say they calculate the true line for the Heat at -16.
A lot more than what we have? Really? How do you know this? They may have be able to ANALYZE the information better than almost everyone, but they have the same information as us. It's not like the NBA and teams release special reports packaged for the bookies. All major sports leagues want to shut down every sportsbook on the planet. Maybe there are these special agents that gather this top secret information we don't get... doubtful. Either way... this is an ASSUMPTION/GUESS with nothing to back it up.
Do you even understand what you are saying here?2. They analyze what the public's likely reaction would be to a line. If they post the true line, how will the betting public react to it? How will the "average" better see the line? They might figure that -16 would get too much action on the Cavs, because the spread is just so big that the average bettor will think the team getting points will hit. So, even though they think the Heat is likely to win by 16, it isn't likely enough to happen to justify the flood of money coming in on the Cavs. Over the long haul, the book would lose money, because the Cavs will win just enough to make it -EV. So, the book adjusts the line to where they think public perception will get the rake a little more even as a cushion in case the Cavs pull it off. A line of -13 will encourage more wagers on the Heat, while still getting more money on the Cavs, which is who the book thinks won't be able to cover
If they post the true line, how will the betting public react to it? How will the "average" better see the line? They might figure that -16 would get too much action on the Cavs, because the spread is just so big that the average bettor will think the team getting points will hit. So, even though they think the Heat is likely to win by 16, it isn't likely enough to happen to justify the flood of money coming in on the Cavs.
This fails logically on soo many levels, I don't even know if I should bother explaining why...
How can it be a true line, but then not hit enough to be 50%?
Pleas re-read what I posted...
A true line means that if you put -105 on each side of the bet THE ONLY PERSON THAT WINS IS THE PERSON TAKING THE BET
This "two step process" is about as LOL as you can get.
Here's a rare inside glimpse into how the lines are actually made:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...9&sportCat=ncb
If you read between the lines in that article there's no question in my mind they try to make trap lines. Others may read it differently.
That article really doesn't say much about these so-called "trap lines".
The definition of this these "trap scenarios" is being misconstrued.
The idea that the book places lines to theoretically place a wager and trap ALL the bettors is more than likely very rare.
If a line is released, there is nothing that stops other bettors to soak up the value from the trap. I've mentioned this over and over in my previous posts. Take a minute to read them and maybe you will understand. I don't work for a book or have inside knowledge, but for everything I've said I have laid out support using LOGIC.
For example:
If the book releases this "trap" and all the boneheads come out and start drinking the kool-aid, this can easily be offset by all the sharps. It's not the book that's soaking up all the inefficiency in the market, its the SMART bettors. If 80% of bets come in on a side and they are all $100 dollar bets and 20% of bets come in on the other side and they are all $400 dollar bets, the book does not have a "wager" on a team. Whenever people look at a line and say "TRAP LINE THE PUBLIC IS ALL OVER THIS, THE BOOKS ARE GOING TO CRUSH THE PUBLIC", it's not the books that are crushing the public, it is the SMART bettors. This is an ideal situation for the book because this creates a game that has more action than normal, which equals more profit from juice.
If a book is exposed on a team, it is more than likely because they screwed up on the line and now have to eat the variance and the possibility of getting stuck on a bad line.
These so called "trap games" require the inefficiency in the market to still be there at the closing line and that is just not the case nowadays.
The people that believe that the books are constantly placing these huge wagers by trapping the sharps and squares are probably the same people that believe the U.S government is hiding aliens somewhere.
Also, this may come as a shock to you, but just because it is from ESPN doesn't mean shit. The amount of material there that is completely idiotic is LOLworthy.
Pro Style,
The article doesn't say too much about trap lines but I said you have to read between the lines in that article. People can interpret things in different ways of course. I don't want to change your opinion, it might be best for you to just leave threads like this to people who believe that traps exist? You can't argue a belief system you know.
pro-style is only saying true things. Could not agree more. Wish i had as much free time as pro-style to explain it so detailed
What you say is true. I think the bookies are more than glad if people believe trap lines exist. I dont think they will ever say they dont exist/ Even if they do a lot off people will not believe them. The diea of traps will make quite some people leaning one way go in the other direction.
Reply With Quote