[KVB]

...The bigger boys though like Pinnacle have more of a managed risk approach which KVB explained perfectly with the simplistic example in the other thread. It is just a matter of how much risk tolerance the book wants to have.

Grease either doesn't read my posts or is just trolling. He pretends that the simplistic answer is too hard for him and claims it's true for others.

Just trolling.

I've told him simply how it goes, yet he keeps asking. I tell him to read the posts, the link, the conversation yet he keeps asking. I told him what waste of time he is being, yet he keeps trolling.

He should understand that the book isn't choosing between collecting a vig and taking a position. It can and does do both, even at the same time.

But no, he has to word the answer his way and insist on some tailored answer, thinking his perspective has all the answers. This blinds him from understanding anything new, despite his own knowledge being wrong.

Can't take him seriously because it always ends up being a waste of time.

It's sad and unfortunately his ego will likely be one of many things that keeps him from learning how to bet on sports.

The sad part is that it takes away from others being able to learn.

The funny part is that he just got buried by two posters in this thread, when neither you or me meant any ill will. I guess some readers like that kind of stuff.

[RoyBacon]

Pinny offering NE -3 +104. Small scalps out there with that line.

On the books side they will have a lot of ML on Atl in the +140 area and a lot on NE -3.

Not out of the question to see some 2.5's pop up but there are going to be a lot of anxious bookies out there if it does.

[Snowball]

grease, the offshores play off the Vegas line, but each is internally unique,
and they will trade between themselves, some of them are connected.
I was only talking about Las Vegas, and the notion of equal action only
in relation to US dollar exposure. Nobody cares about the number of bets.
Due to the nature of the risk mitigation process, a 1-3% variable is acceptable
as that is easily within the confines of the house commission.
Larger imbalances, meaning larger exposures to a side are avoided as best
as possible. The lines will move if the action taken on one side grows
outside the permissible variable. Vegas always seeks equilibrium and
dollar amounts always drive line movement, although other pertinent
factors also can force adjustments such as breaking news.
If someone tells you dollar volume does not drive lines, and Vegas
does not seek equilibrium, just ignore them.

[grease lightnin]

I haven't done a deep search yet but Sports Insights just did an article that addresses the topic.

Why Hasn’t the Super Bowl 51 Spread Moved Yet?

Thanks LT.

But I am still skeptical. As I said previously, I suspect Sports Insights and these spokespeople for the books are trying to mislead bettors. Why would they just give people the formula to bet like a pro?

In some ways, that article read like a KVB post. It said sharps are all over ATL, (the team that looks like a public play) yet Pinnacle has already juiced the Pats, and they anticipate a move to -3.5. I just have a hard time believing it.

You have articles and statements from sports books to back your view, and all I have is skepticism and knowledge of similar markets. But I am curious... you have been following this philosophy for a long time... have you calculated your ROI over the long term? Do you mind sharing this?

[grease lightnin]

grease, the offshores play off the Vegas line, but each is internally unique,
and they will trade between themselves, some of them are connected.
I was only talking about Las Vegas, and the notion of equal action only
in relation to US dollar exposure. Nobody cares about the number of bets.
Due to the nature of the risk mitigation process, a 1-3% variable is acceptable
as that is easily within the confines of the house commission.
Larger imbalances, meaning larger exposures to a side are avoided as best
as possible. The lines will move if the action taken on one side grows
outside the permissible variable. Vegas always seeks equilibrium and
dollar amounts always drive line movement, although other pertinent
factors also can force adjustments such as breaking news.
If someone tells you dollar volume does not drive lines, and Vegas
does not seek equilibrium, just ignore them.

Yeah that makes sense to me. A 1-3% variable is far from the illustration KVB gave where a book set up a +168 bet for themselves. Am I correct in my thinking here?

[LT Profits]

Thanks LT.

yet Pinnacle has already juiced the Pats, and they anticipate a move to -3.5

No, Pinny has ATLANTA +3 -115, Pats -3 +104.

[grease lightnin]

Grease either doesn't read my posts or is just trolling. He pretends that the simplistic answer is too hard for him and claims it's true for others.

Just trolling.

I AM interested in the topic, so I am not JUST trolling. But I AM trolling YOU.

You are politely condescending to everyone on the board with every post you make. It is sickening to me.

You claim to have "esoteric" knowledge. You act like you are in The Knights Templar of the gambling world.

Gimme a fuggin break.
Why don't you start a thread and track your plays? Prove your claim to have "esoteric knowledge"?

[Snowball]

Yeah that makes sense to me. A 1-3% variable is far from the illustration KVB gave where a book set up a +168 bet for themselves. Am I correct in my thinking here?

You'd have to point me to his +168 description, I don't know what to say
about that, the reason why I started this thread is I suspected that the
late line will move toward the Pats. I expect a load of Pats bets
coming in that are not in Vegas equations yet, we'll see if it happens
next week.

[grease lightnin]

No, Pinny has ATLANTA +3 -115, Pats -3 +104.

ok... from the article:


"That said, we have seen some adjustments with Pinnacle moving from New England -3 (+102) to New England -3 (-104). Although they don’t want to move off a key number, they have adjusted the juice to encourage action on Atlanta."

[LT Profits]

ok... from the article:


"That said, we have seen some adjustments with Pinnacle moving from New England -3 (+102) to New England -3 (-104). Although they don’t want to move off a key number, they have adjusted the juice to encourage action on Atlanta."

Guess things have changed a tad in 2 days since article was written

[grease lightnin]

You'd have to point me to his +168 description, I don't know what to say
about that, the reason why I started this thread is I suspected that the
late line will move toward the Pats. I expect a load of Pats bets
coming in that are not in Vegas equations yet, we'll see if it happens
next week.

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/foru...l#post23537283

[Snowball]

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/foru...l#post23537283

total nonsense.

[grease lightnin]

total nonsense.

Thank you.

[LT Profits]

total nonsense.

Um, no it is not, it makes perfect sense. Each book must know what its risk tolerance is, for the smaller mom and pop shops it is close to 0 and they need to react faster (or find a bigger partner to lay off excess action).

[grease lightnin]

Um, no it is not, it makes perfect sense. Each book must know what its risk tolerance is, for the smaller mom and pop shops it is close to 0 and they need to react faster (or find a bigger partner to lay off excess action).

Here is a post I found from another forum:

For years most sportsbetting authorities have said that books want equal action and are content with collecting the juice. I have been skeptical of this as I'm sure many others have. Just seems like some games are traps and sucker bets. Finally someone has admitted this. In the January edition of Casino Player magazine they did an interview with the race and sportsbook manager Of Red Rock Resort, Jason McCormick. Asked if they try to get equal action on the games he replied:

"This is just not a realistic goal. There is no way to get equal action on every game. About half of the games have higher decisions. If we lose a majority of those decisions, it's a tough weekend. If we win key games our hold could be in the 12 to 15 percent range. For the season we hope for a 7 to 10 percent hold."

He went on to say they do try to get equal action on big games like the Super Bowl where there is a huge volume and the juice will still net a large profit with minimal risk.

This was not shocking to me but very interesting in that I've never heard someone in power actually admit that they take some risk on certain games by trying to get one sided action.

So... if they win key games, best case scenario--their hold is 12 to 15%... in KVB's illustration the hold would be nearly double that at 23%... so in turn, the downside would be double as well... and his illustration was a -110 bet. I am sure that they need parlays and teasers to get to their number of 12 to 15%. It just doesn't add up.

All due respect, LT, but there is no way books are taking this much risk.... unless they are fixing games.

[RangeFinder]

It is you who is repeating a fallacy bought by the marketplace. It's not that bettors don't know things, it's just that so much of what they know is wrong. I've tried to help with that truth.

Here's one example...




















http://www.sportsbookreview.com/foru...l#post23537283

KVP, you are one of the very few that go along the way that I do. Understanding how the whole structure of oddsmaker, bookmaker, players and the how and why books hang the numbers they do is essential to making profits.

If you go through some of my threads, I touch on your very points when posting about what action books are taking. I don't go into detail because from what I understand, if you go through too many paragraphs the folks here won't understand, so I keep it short.

Would love to have a beer with you sometime, or coffee if you don't drink. I love talking about stuff like this and can never stop learning.

[LT Profits]

Here is a post I found from another forum:




So... if they win key games, best case scenario--their hold is 12 to 15%... in KVB's illustration the hold would be nearly double that at 23%... so in turn, the downside would be double as well... and his illustration was a -110 bet. I am sure that they need parlays and teasers to get to their number of 12 to 15%. It just doesn't add up.

All due respect, LT, but there is no way books are taking this much risk.... unless they are fixing games.

Not really, the book will always have the edge odds wise because of the vig. For instance, let us say the Super Bowl line is -3 at -110 odds both ways, with $1.6 million wagered on Pats and $400K wagered on Falcons (so 80% of money on NE). If Pats cover, book pays out 1,600,000/1.10 = 1,454,545 and collects 400.000 for loss of ($1,054,545). If Falcons cover, book pays out 400,000/1.10 = 363,636 and collects 1,600,000 of win of $1,236,364. So if the book could stomach risking 1,054,545 to win 1,226,364, it is getting +117 on Falcons +3. A book like Pinny could live with that (although their odds would be lower due to the reduced juice there).

[grease lightnin]

Not really, the book will always have the edge odds wise because of the vig. For instance, let us say the Super Bowl line is -3 at -110 odds both ways, with $1.6 million wagered on Pats and $400K wagered on Falcons (so 80% of money on NE). If Pats cover, book pays out 1,600,000/1.10 = 1,454,545 and collects 400.000 for loss of ($1,054,545). If Falcons cover, book pays out 400,000/1.10 = 363,636 and collects 1,600,000 of win of $1,236,364. So if the book could stomach risking 1,054,545 to win 1,226,364, it is getting +117 on Falcons +3. A book like Pinny could live with that (although their odds would be lower due to the reduced juice there).

Yes, I meant the downside risk in KVB's example would be double what the downside risk would be if they got a best case 12 to 15% hold. Ex- KVB's downside risk is 14.5% with an upside hold of 23%, where the downside for a 12% hold would only be 7.2%. And it would actually be less than that because of more heavily juiced parlays/teasers etc.

All of this boils down to the question of whether books make their money from the vig, or gambling. I believe it is the vig. Hell, if you just look at JJ's spreadsheet (literally chucking darts) you can see that.

[byronbb]

grease, the offshores play off the Vegas line, but each is internally unique,
and they will trade between themselves, some of them are connected.
I was only talking about Las Vegas, and the notion of equal action only
in relation to US dollar exposure. Nobody cares about the number of bets.
Due to the nature of the risk mitigation process, a 1-3% variable is acceptable
as that is easily within the confines of the house commission.
Larger imbalances, meaning larger exposures to a side are avoided as best
as possible. The lines will move if the action taken on one side grows
outside the permissible variable. Vegas always seeks equilibrium and
dollar amounts always drive line movement, although other pertinent
factors also can force adjustments such as breaking news.
If someone tells you dollar volume does not drive lines, and Vegas
does not seek equilibrium, just ignore them.

I doubt it. The Bronco-Hawks SB line of -3 was totally wrong and books were gambling. If you have +110 on a outcome greater than 50% seeking to lay this off in some sort of risk aversion manner is a waste of money and bad business.
Then there is this super bowl.

[Snowball]

byronbb, do you really believe that offshore books are sharing their internal data with
the public ? anyway, again, my posts in this thread are about Las Vegas, who sets
the line which offshores dance around.

[getlucky2win]

Vegas couldnt set a line to save their life. they gets their lines from offshore. they watching don best on computer in casino books and move on air if pinny, bookmaker, and others move the line.

[KVB]

...Vegas always seeks equilibrium and
dollar amounts always drive line movement, although other pertinent
factors also can force adjustments such as breaking news.
If someone tells you dollar volume does not drive lines, and Vegas
does not seek equilibrium, just ignore them.

Vegas can and will move lines back and forth simply to create action, when necessary or appropriate.

It's amazing how much people know in this thread.

It's just that most of what they know is wrong.

Let me guess, you don't work in the gambling industry but work somewhere where you have a good perspective.

Some gamblers can't and won't learn.

Remember, Vegas in it for the long term, not short term game by game basis.

There is a long term, never forget that.

[grease lightnin]

KVB, do you work for a Vegas sportsbook? Or have you ever in the past?

[Smoke]

Vegas can and will move lines back and forth simply to create action, when necessary or appropriate.

It's amazing how much people know in this thread.

It's just that most of what they know is wrong.

Let me guess, you don't work in the gambling industry but work somewhere where you have a good perspective.

Some gamblers can't and won't learn.

Remember, Vegas in it for the long term, not short term game by game basis.

There is a long term, never forget that.

[Snowball]

Vegas can and will move lines back and forth simply to create action, when necessary or appropriate.

I never said they don't create action. "creating action" is the same as seeking equilibrium !

This debate started when you suggested that Vegas chooses sides, that they are willing to
absorb dollar imbalances. I'm not talking about Pinny or other offshores who may or may not
be totally legit, or responsible to a corporate body and/or licensed to operate in their respective
domains. Many offshore books are not licensed and don't even carry escrow. Those who are
licensed and required to carry escrow are the most reliable and professional.
Concerning Vegas they are all major corporations now, it's not like the 1960s. They are
responsible to their shareholders and would face lawsuits if they were in the betting game,
instead of working profit from the spread. I said they mitigate risk as best as possible.

This is a Superbowl, there is typically a lot more public betting on Superbowls. Much of
that action is taken by locals. Your professional locals are connected to organized crime.
These locals are more tech savvy now and most but not all have their own websites
for taking bets, part of umbrella operations. Local action is often regional based on
fans and casual bettors. This action is late because the casual barroom bettors will
often place bets right up to the kickoff at the spur of the moment. Just because it's
infrequent action does not mean it's small, no, it is actually very large. There are
guys who don't bet but 1-2 times a year and will unload many thousands on single
games. I knew a pro (real pro) who only made a handful of bets per year. He's retired
in Italy now. This guy walked away with mountains of scarola, he's done with
it and never has to bet again.
When a local takes too much action on one side (picture New England..
I can tell you that 80% or more of the bets made in New England will be for the Patriots,
especially at -3. Same for Florida and New York. The outfit is not going to sit on a huge loss
if the Pats win so they unload the imbalance to other places, Vegas being the most traditional place,
although today there is some transfer possible to the top-line legal establishments
worldwide. If my expectation is correct there will be late line movement toward the
Pats due to this activity. Regardless, what I'm saying is correct, even if there is no LM
due to Falcons bettors stepping up to the plate. I know its true because friends of mine
were involved in these activities and I know how it works. There are runners, there are
ten percenters .. and I will not post about this again. Ciao.

[gauchojake]

I never said they don't create action. "creating action" is the same as seeking equilibrium !

This debate started when you suggested that Vegas chooses sides, that they are willing to
absorb dollar imbalances. I'm not talking about Pinny or other offshores who may or may not
be totally legit, or responsible to a corporate body and/or licensed to operate in their respective
domains. Many offshore books are not licensed and don't even carry escrow. Those who are
licensed and required to carry escrow are the most reliable and professional.
Concerning Vegas they are all major corporations now, it's not like the 1960s. They are
responsible to their shareholders and would face lawsuits if they were in the betting game,
instead of working profit from the spread. I said they mitigate risk as best as possible.

This is a Superbowl, there is typically a lot more public betting on Superbowls. Much of
that action is taken by locals. Your professional locals are connected to organized crime.
These locals are more tech savvy now and most but not all have their own websites
for taking bets, part of umbrella operations. Local action is often regional based on
fans and casual bettors. This action is late because the casual barroom bettors will
often place bets right up to the kickoff at the spur of the moment. Just because it's
infrequent action does not mean it's small, no, it is actually very large. There are
guys who don't bet but 1-2 times a year and will unload many thousands on single
games. I knew a pro (real pro) who only made a handful of bets per year. He's retired
in Italy now. When a local takes too much action on one side (picture New England..
I can tell you that 80% or more of the bets made in New England will be for the Patriots,
especially at -3. Same for Florida and New York. The outfit is not going to sit on a huge loss
if the Pats win so they unload the imbalance to other places, Vegas being the most traditional place,
although today there is some transfer possible to the top-line legal establishments
worldwide. If my expectation is correct there will be late line movement toward the
Pats due to this activity. Regardless, what I'm saying is correct, even if there is no LM
due to Falcons bettors stepping up to the plate. I know its true because friends of mine
were involved in these activities and I know how it works. My last post on this subject.

[KVB]

This thread just keeps going backwards.

[JayLA]

Good thread.
Do we really think we see 2.5?

[Barnes & Whine]

Moneyline is going down a few cents for Atlanta at my book. Spread is juicing for Atlanta as well. Where is this -3.5 you are talking about? Don't assume anything yet. Vegas has the winner already, they know who is going to win this game.

[Barnes & Whine]

Guys, 66% of action on New England -3, no line move

52% of ML action on Atlanta, and it moves down.

Think people.

[Smoke]

Moneyline is going down a few cents for Atlanta at my book. Spread is juicing for Atlanta as well. Where is this -3.5 you are talking about? Don't assume anything yet. Vegas has the winner already, they know who is going to win this game.

dude just stop

[Barnes & Whine]

Dude, like no.

[Smoke]

Dude, like no.

The game is played on the field. Vegas doesn't know the outcome.

[Snowball]

Vegas odds and timestamp are on the net here:
http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/las-vegas/

What the offshore books do is their business, they are looking
at their own backdoor data based on their own clientele.

Still a chance of a move later tomorrow afternoon.

[dante1]

Interesting anecdote to add, doesn't really add much evidence to either side but it is true and I think interesting. As some of you know I spent a few decades running a small to mid size book for a gentleman that the Philadelphia Inquirer at the time called the "biggest mafia bookmaker and gangster in NE Pa." Yeah, they had him on the front page full page and supplemental pages after that. The irony of this article it was total BS, he ran a relatively small operation and had no mafia connections at all. Zero. I know this because those 20 some years I worked for him, never once did any wise guys appear or was their any evidence of mafia connections at all. Never did he say hey we got make a payoff to these guys. It simply wasn't true. His operation had maybe at its peak 75 to 100 pro and college football bettors and much less during base and baskets. He also had a large hall that included card games and horse betting with 3 or 4 tv's and instant paybacks to winners. He made great money during football season and I can't remember any football season in which we lost money. Bookies always complain that they lost this week or that week and 99% of the time they are lying. I ran the book when his partner became too old and it was an interesting time, it is amazing how much money a small book will and can make. At the end of a Sunday a deep wooden drawer where I worked was filled with money. Money that I simply tossed in and managed after the games started.

You see this deal was a bit different than most books. You needed to come in make your wager, write it on a slip and give the slip to me. i would collect the money, record the wager in a journal and file the slip. If it was an early game and you win you can collect your money before the 4pm games and wager again. Same thing happened again for the evening game. So the book had 3 chances at your money, which means you lose. In all those years maybe, maybe one set of brothers ended up winning two or three years--tops. There were no winners guys.

Before I started working for this guy we had another two bookies, partners that handled really serious action. These guys had the big boys, the big boys liked to bet over the phone. You know big shots, the type that would play 200 to 300 a game and play a dozen games. Losers, all of them, and these are the type of players that you don't like because first they can hurt you, and second you will lose them because few people can lose the kind of money that that type of player loses. So it is a lose lose for the bookie. The best player for the bookie is the guy that bets 50 or even 25 a game and bets a ton of games. He doesn't lose too much, unless he loses them all and he keeps coming back. You can beat a guy like that for 4 or 5 thousand every football season and he returns. The guy that loses 5 to 20 thousand a week, quits or sticks you and he is a bad risk for the bookie. Breaking bones is basically BS, it is one of the few ways bookies get arrested. Unless you are mobbed up and that is a different story.

Here I think is the interesting part that has a tiny bit to do with this thread. A very good friend of these two big time bookies told me a story that one of them every once in a while when they were very heavy on a game instead of calling in the side they were heavy on would actually take a shot and call in the opposite side. You see most local bookies have what is called a lay off man. If I was too heavy on two or three games I would call the lay off man and play those three heavy games maybe 1000 each. To even off the action. We evened off the action because we didn't want one or two games to beat us for the day. Now this guy might have 15 or 20 thousand too heavy and instead of laying some of that off he would actually bet the other side on a hunch. No real plan just a hunch. The story was relayed to me that his partner loved when he would do that and in fact he swears that they won those games more than they lost. I would have serious heart pains watching that game. But, these guys when they finished purchased businesses and a hotel and one even moved to California and retired.

So, no real system, and just a couple local guys, but in those days even a small book can make some serious money. Those days are gone for small town and local books. Still get action but not much, and often the guys left that want to have a local are sometimes people that can't be trusted.