Another A book that is only interested in square action

[mathdotcom]

CRIS

Square teaser limits: 15k
Sharp teaser limits: 5k

This is even at CRIS -120 for 6pt teasers

DSI

Square teaser limits: 15k
Sharp teaser limits: 1k

Yet another example of a book posting a line but basically only taking action on the square side. Throw CRIS in the same basket as 5D and Heritage.

Thumbs down

[Deuce]

They want to stay in business not give away money to nickle and dimers.

[mathdotcom]

Why don't they just offer all bettors only the side they want people to take? Hey Deuce... want to bet the Lions game? Here's the line:

Lions -5 -110
Colts +5 OTB
Lions O51 -110
Lions U51 OTB

How can a book be rated A or A+ when it engages in behavior that is illegal in Vegas?

Pretty sad when a book getting +110 on every bet can't make any money.
PS. I guess I should be happy, when I log into 5Dimes I don't even have a teaser screen anymore

[Emily_Haines]

Your right it just keeps getting worse and worse every year.

In addition with CBB totals since they can't win even against squares there all OTB

[boatboatboat]

What is the #1 thing anyone should want from a book?= Being able to get paid when they win.

What is the easiest way a book can make sure they have $ to pay winners?=limit winners.

Imagine the fallout if a SBR poster requested a payout and got told by a book "sorry, we just don't have the $ to pay you. We changed our rules and started letting guys play teasers, and they killed us. We knew they we beat us out of $1000's or dollars, but if we didn't let them play the teasers, they would have been mad. We didn't want them mad, and well............ now we can't pay you. I am sure you understand"

[Emily_Haines]

What is the #1 thing anyone should want from a book?= Being able to get paid when they win.

What is the easiest way a book can make sure they have $ to pay winners?=limit winners.

Imagine the fallout if a SBR poster requested a payout and got told by a book "sorry, we just don't have the $ to pay you. We changed our rules and started letting guys play teasers, and they killed us. We knew they we beat us out of $1000's or dollars, but if we didn't let them play the teasers, they would have been mad. We didn't want them mad, and well............ now we can't pay you. I am sure you understand"

That's the typical SBR shit answer.

Why can it never be that they need to hire guys that can set a better line?

[boatboatboat]

The "typical" answer is the correct answer.

The problem isn't the line, the problem is with parity being what it is, teasers are +ev when played right. Regardless of the line.

[benandjerry]

Bookmaker do the same thing, since they are of the same family?

I agree, its pretty shitty given the kind of vig they have... to anyone replying, have to limit winners to be able to stay afloat, they obviously make a ton of money in the long run if they're setting decent lines with that kind of vig. I could understand places that offer really low juice may have difficulties at times. But in most cases its not about "being able to pay players" but rather only maximizing their own profits.


boatboat, agree about that teaser part, but at least put a global limit on the damn things then. Actually, not sure I agree with it being -120 juice, but do understand with teasers in general.

[boatboatboat]

maximizing their own profits.

Something that any Bizz does.

[SBR_John]

Books are in business to make money, kind of like every other business. Insurance companies raise prices to high risk customers and books lower limits to players that put the book at risk. Increase your bet to the max in the middle of a single deck BJ game in vegas and they will stop and shuffle. Its simple risk control and it happens in just about every business to some degree.

[Emily_Haines]

Books are in business to make money, kind of like every other business. Insurance companies raise prices to high risk customers and books lower limits to players that put the book at risk. Increase your bet to the max in the middle of a single deck BJ game in vegas and they will stop and shuffle. Its simple risk control and it happens in just about every business to some degree.

Good God we can tell you vote "R" every election. What a crock of shit. Just one of them many reasons 99% of Americans hate the 1% because making good money is never enough, you have to make the most possible no matter who gets fuked over. Then you wonder why the GOP gets it's ass kicked every election.

[tto827]

Good God we can tell you vote "R" every election. What a crock of shit. Just one of them many reasons 99% of Americans hate the 1% because making good money is never enough, you have to make the most possible no matter who gets fuked over. Then you wonder why the GOP gets it's ass kicked every election.

Who exactly gets fukked over by a book limiting its risk? Don't say the players, because if you are that successful of a gambler, continuing to do so is being greedy and doing exactly what you say is bad.

[Sam Odom]

Emily is a 500 Dime player...

[Smoke]

What is the #1 thing anyone should want from a book?= Being able to get paid when they win.

What is the easiest way a book can make sure they have $ to pay winners?=limit winners.

Imagine the fallout if a SBR poster requested a payout and got told by a book "sorry, we just don't have the $ to pay you. We changed our rules and started letting guys play teasers, and they killed us. We knew they we beat us out of $1000's or dollars, but if we didn't let them play the teasers, they would have been mad. We didn't want them mad, and well............ now we can't pay you. I am sure you understand"

[Emily_Haines]

Who exactly gets fukked over by a book limiting its risk? Don't say the players, because if you are that successful of a gambler, continuing to do so is being greedy and doing exactly what you say is bad.

Since it is players against the book it can only be the players.

The books have every advantage but have to resort to stealing from winning players all in the name of making more money for themselves.

How about not giving bonuses to shitty players if you want more money.

[tto827]

Since it is players against the book it can only be the players.

The books have every advantage but have to resort to stealing from winning players all in the name of making more money for themselves.

How about not giving bonuses to shitty players if you want more money.

Shitty players burn through their bonus and make books money, why do you think books offer them? You're what, 40-60 years old and don't understand advertising and risk management and the roles they play in a good business model, so this discussion should probably end here.

[boatboatboat]

don't understand advertising and risk management and the roles they play in a good business model, so this discussion should probably end here.

Yup

[Emily_Haines]

Shitty players burn through their bonus and make books money, why do you think books offer them? You're what, 40-60 years old and don't understand advertising and risk management and the roles they play in a good business model, so this discussion should probably end here.

I think the books make good cash the way it is and I don't think they are in danger of going under. They claim this risk management crap like if they don't make these changes the player are going to bankrupt them when nothing could be further from the truth.

[tto827]

I think the books make good cash the way it is and I don't think they are in danger of going under. They claim this risk management crap like if they don't make these changes the player are going to bankrupt them when nothing could be further from the truth.

And I think the moon is made made of cheese. Doesn't matter what we think. Everyone wants more, it is human nature.

[Emily_Haines]

Yup

Your probably one of those guys that alerts the book when they have a line error. It's almost like you want the books to win. I guess I will just never get it. Tons of guys vote GOP every election even when these guys want to close down every betting site. Just makes no sense. Maybe the discussion should end here.

[boatboatboat]

Your probably one of those guys that alerts the book when they have a line error. It's almost like you want the books to win. I guess I will just never get it. Tons of guys vote GOP every election even when these guys want to close down every betting site. Just makes no sense. Maybe the discussion should end here.

When you see an obvious error do you bet it and hope they don't see you tried to make $ on an error?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Books are in business to make money, kind of like every other business. Insurance companies raise prices to high risk customers and books lower limits to players that put the book at risk.

And insurance is one of the biggest scams in the world.

Increase your bet to the max in the middle of a single deck BJ game in vegas and they will stop and shuffle. Its simple risk control and it happens in just about every business to some degree.

Incorrect. Has it happened before to harrass a possible card counter? Yes. Is it common? Absolutely not.

[Sam Odom]

Incorrect. Has it happened before to harrass a possible card counter? Yes. Is it common? Absolutely not.

Many joints will NOT allow a new player to enter the game (BJ) mid-single-deck

[MonkeyF0cker]

Many joints will NOT allow a new player to enter the game (BJ) mid-single-deck

Umm. That's irrelevant. Yes. You can't wong into single deck pretty much anywhere in Vegas. That's not even close to what John is suggesting.

[MonkeyF0cker]

The only thing that is being called out here is the disparity in limits. Make the limits equal and there is no problem. Want to limit risk? Don't be a scumbag about it.

[Mr. Teaser]

It's sad when Las Vegas Sportsbook's teaser odds are getting better than the offshore books.

[Sam Odom]

That's not even close to what John is suggesting.

why? John was speaking to 'risk control'

you think barring mid deck entry is NOT a risk control measure ?

[boatboatboat]

It's sad when Las Vegas Sportsbook's teaser odds are getting better than the offshore books.

Vegas doesn't give a bonus when you deposit.



When a book offers a "bonus" they have to recoup that somehow.

[Sam Odom]

Vegas doesn't give a bonus when you deposit.

Hard to get a drink coupon betting sports in Vegas

[rm18]

el cortez gives away a ton of drink tickets, i give them away to people who ask me for money on the streets

[Sam Odom]

rm18 , Sammy visits El Cortez each and every time he is in Vegas

Fond memories

[MonkeyF0cker]

why? John was speaking to 'risk control'

you think barring mid deck entry is NOT a risk control measure ?

It is MUCH different. Forcing a reshuffle isn't a RULE. The tables explicitly state that there is no mid-deck entry.

Changing the "rules" mid-deck is quite a bit different.

[Dark Horse]

SBR, I'm just throwing this out there, since you already have the audience. Why not hire a few guys to set up an exchange? I would be all yours and the usual problem of liquidity may not apply. It is the purest form of bookmaking, after all.

[RogueScholar]

Who exactly gets fukked over by a book limiting its risk? Don't say the players, because if you are that successful of a gambler, continuing to do so is being greedy and doing exactly what you say is bad.

Patently false.

In this business, no one works harder than the originator who successfully extracts value out of the market. They work harder than the book, because the book has the benefit of opening with low limits, seeing who's betting what and when and using that information to manage risk. They also work harder than SBR, who sucks an unconscionable amount of money off the top of most balance sheets in the industry in the name of customer acquisition. When you're willing to outwork and outsmart your way to success in a zero-sum game like sports betting, operating from the players' side of the counter and thus having to overcome the vig, there is no one who is more entitled to the rewards. If you're an advocate of pure capitalism, there should be nothing that makes you happier.

John and Tto should remember this concept from our recent political discourses, except back then you were calling it 'work ethic,' and not greed. Apparently they have a very subjective view of the matter, it's work ethic when the money is heading for their pocket, and greed when someone else is trying to lay claim to those same dollars.

Without a doubt it's the sharp player who gets bent over in these situations. There should be a big pile of money in the room everyday, the sum total of everything bet on losing wagers that day. In theory, the book should simply be taking its hold (the juice) and using all the rest of the dollars to pay out the day's winners. The problem arises when SBR stops by every night in their armored truck to collect their 30% of player losses, leaving not enough money to cover the winners. If the book had the same limits for them as they did for squares, they'd go bankrupt.

The math is simple, you can't pay two people (the winner and SBR) with the money from only one loser, unless you force the winners to accommodate SBR's cut by limiting them.

[Sam Odom]

Increase your bet to the max in the middle of a single deck BJ game in vegas and they will stop and shuffle.

Changing the "rules" mid-deck is quite a bit different.

There is no 'rule' as to when a dealer reshuffles a SINGLE deck game - Therefore there is no 'changing' of a rule


.