[Gaze73]

Answer: because they're clueless. Every single day there are players or teams opening as dogs and closing as favs just because of the flow of money. Even the mighty Pinnacle sometimes opens a market and the price moves significantly within the first hour. Like when Fognini opened at 2.45 vs Zverev and people pounded him into favorite at 1.87. If the books can't price the 4th round of a goddamn grandslam correctly and be off by a mile, that's proof the odds makers are prone to huge mistakes, and so is the market.

[Otters27]

If you can find who has the mental edge

[Poisec]

Answer: because they're clueless. Every single day there are players or teams opening as dogs and closing as favs just because of the flow of money. Even the mighty Pinnacle sometimes opens a market and the price moves significantly within the first hour. Like when Fognini opened at 2.45 vs Zverev and people pounded him into favorite at 1.87. If the books can't price the 4th round of a goddamn grandslam correctly and be off by a mile, that's proof the odds makers are prone to huge mistakes, and so is the market.

What is this match?

[moojoo]

Answer: because they're clueless. Every single day there are players or teams opening as dogs and closing as favs just because of the flow of money. Even the mighty Pinnacle sometimes opens a market and the price moves significantly within the first hour. Like when Fognini opened at 2.45 vs Zverev and people pounded him into favorite at 1.87. If the books can't price the 4th round of a goddamn grandslam correctly and be off by a mile, that's proof the odds makers are prone to huge mistakes, and so is the market.

Its not that easy as you put it.

[fried cheese]

Answer: because they're clueless. Every single day there are players or teams opening as dogs and closing as favs just because of the flow of money. Even the mighty Pinnacle sometimes opens a market and the price moves significantly within the first hour. Like when Fognini opened at 2.45 vs Zverev and people pounded him into favorite at 1.87. If the books can't price the 4th round of a goddamn grandslam correctly and be off by a mile, that's proof the odds makers are prone to huge mistakes, and so is the market.

i dont really follow tennis much, but why should fognini be a favorite? hes 1-3 vs zverev and only getting older. are you just assuming 1.87 is the correct price?

[slapshot]

not only money moves the line.....new information moves it too.

[Poisec]

i dont really follow tennis much, but why should fognini be a favorite? hes 1-3 vs zverev and only getting older. are you just assuming 1.87 is the correct price?

Zverev was having a crap year, had personal issues (girlfriend dumped him + issues with his manager). Fognini won the 1st Masters title of his career, almost won a set 6-0 against Nadal.

By the way Zverev beat Fognini in that match.

[Gaze73]

What is this match?

Warrington vs Accrington.

[Gaze73]

not only money moves the line.....new information moves it too.

Information like missing players or injury moves the price immediately by a big %, but when money flows all day on one side that can't be info unless everyone except the books has the info.

[jjgold]

if it was so easy nobody would work

[slapshot]

you definitely have a point......especially on lower leagues......but it's fairly well established at this point that tremendous value can be found on obscure leagues/sports.....small amounts of money can move the line a lot as books know they are they are clueless.

but take the 4 major us sports and big soccer leagues in europe....the books have a very good idea about what's going on.

[cashin81]

Taunton v Cheltenham on friday.... Taunton started as +125, kicked off at -2000
won 7-0.

I think cheltenham played Leicester the next day, but thats the biggest drop ive ever seen.

[cashin81]

oh there was an argentina frienldy as well yesterday

talleres cordoba v central cordoba, home side were -2000 opening price, went to around -110 lol

drew 1-1 - no idea what that was about

[jjgold]

cannot beat books

[Poisec]

Warrington vs Accrington.

Ok.
The screen shot you posted is not the Pinnacle line though. Pinnacle opened Warrington at 1.61, and at the time Im typing this it's 1.56.

Bet365 opened around 3.50 but it's not a sharp bookie at all, same for 1xbet, Marathon, etc.

[lonnie55]

I cannot beat books

ftfy

[asiagambler]

Warrington vs Accrington.

Accrington plays in League One which is the 3rd tier of English football. Warrington plays in the 7th tier which means their team is entirely amateur. Add to that, this is a friendly so what do you imagine the limits are for a game like this?

Books aren't "sharp" in these markets because they don't have to be, nor do they care.

Liquidity is king. You will never find these kind of moves in the EPL, NFL, NBA, etc. unless we're dealing with injuries. This is exactly why when a key player(s)'s health is in question, books will oftentimes wait before posting a line or will post one with reduced limits.

[stevenash]

Information like missing players or injury moves the price immediately by a big %, but when money flows all day on one side that can't be info unless everyone except the books has the info.

In this day and age information (data) is critical, yes.

Also I learned a long time ago don't let a line or total get your off your selection. I you like a side, than bet the side. Don't let the lined mind fuk you.

For the most part the books are sharper than you and me, having said that there are so many baseball teams and players and tennis players it's impossible for even the books to keep on top of. The big bettor needs to find an angle or an edge to beat the book. Remember information is king.

[caramba]

Bookmakers consists of people who are smart with odds and those who aren't (which is why markets are sometimes wrong), just like their customers. But books have the odds on their side and a higher percentage of smart people compared to their customers so in the long run they will win. Of course as a smart individual you can still beat the bookies and take advantage of their weaknesses.

[BigdaddyQH]

if it was so easy nobody would work

Spot on JJ. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of you people are LOSERS. If you were not, you would not be slaving away trying to make a buck in the outside world, so you can lose it on some wager. Gaze, if you are so smart, how come you have not won millions by now? How come you, in fact, have lost money overall in your career? How come the books have all the money and you don't? If you are so sharp, then just shut your mouth and post all of your winning plays.

[stevenash]

Source Wall Street Journal:

But how often do gamblers really win? What are the chances that a gambler will win on a single day or over a longer period? Don't bother to ask the casinos. Although they gather vast quantities of data about their customers for marketing purposes, including win and loss tallies for many regulars, casinos keep such information a closely-guarded secret.

Now, thanks to an unprecedented trove of public data detailing the behavior of thousands of Internet gamblers over a two-year period, The Wall Street Journal can provide some answers.

On any given day, the chances of emerging a winner aren't too bad—the gamblers won money on 30% of the days they wagered. But continuing to gamble is a bad bet. Just 11% of players ended up in the black over the full period, and most of those pocketed less than $150.

The skew was even more pronounced when it came to heavy gamblers. Of the top 10% of bettors—those placing the largest number of total wagers over the two years—about 95% ended up losing money, some dropping tens of thousands of dollars. Big losers of more than $5,000 among these heavy gamblers outnumbered big winners by a staggering 128 to 1.

The analysis comes from a database containing anonymous records of 4,222 Internet gamblers who wagered on at least four days on casino-style games of chance such as blackjack, roulette and slots.

[caramba]

The skew was even more pronounced when it came to heavy gamblers. Of the top 10% of bettors—those placing the largest number of total wagers over the two years—about 95% ended up losing money, some dropping tens of thousands of dollars. Big losers of more than $5,000 among these heavy gamblers outnumbered big winners by a staggering 128 to 1.

That's a crazy stat. You'd think only those who know what they are doing bet those kind of sums. I of course know that's not the case but still. Gambling addiction is a sad and scary thing.

[cashin81]

Source Wall Street Journal:

But how often do gamblers really win? What are the chances that a gambler will win on a single day or over a longer period? Don't bother to ask the casinos. Although they gather vast quantities of data about their customers for marketing purposes, including win and loss tallies for many regulars, casinos keep such information a closely-guarded secret.

Now, thanks to an unprecedented trove of public data detailing the behavior of thousands of Internet gamblers over a two-year period, The Wall Street Journal can provide some answers.

On any given day, the chances of emerging a winner aren't too bad—the gamblers won money on 30% of the days they wagered. But continuing to gamble is a bad bet. Just 11% of players ended up in the black over the full period, and most of those pocketed less than $150.

The skew was even more pronounced when it came to heavy gamblers. Of the top 10% of bettors—those placing the largest number of total wagers over the two years—about 95% ended up losing money, some dropping tens of thousands of dollars. Big losers of more than $5,000 among these heavy gamblers outnumbered big winners by a staggering 128 to 1.

The analysis comes from a database containing anonymous records of 4,222 Internet gamblers who wagered on at least four days on casino-style games of chance such as blackjack, roulette and slots.

doesnt really apply.

[swordsandtequila]

Accrington plays in League One which is the 3rd tier of English football. Warrington plays in the 7th tier which means their team is entirely amateur. Add to that, this is a friendly so what do you imagine the limits are for a game like this?

Books aren't "sharp" in these markets because they don't have to be, nor do they care.

Liquidity is king. You will never find these kind of moves in the EPL, NFL, NBA, etc. unless we're dealing with injuries. This is exactly why when a key player(s)'s health is in question, books will oftentimes wait before posting a line or will post one with reduced limits.

[icon]

In this day and age information (data) is critical, yes.

Also I learned a long time ago don't let a line or total get your off your selection. I you like a side, than bet the side. Don't let the lined mind fuk you.

For the most part the books are sharper than you and me, having said that there are so many baseball teams and players and tennis players it's impossible for even the books to keep on top of. The big bettor needs to find an angle or an edge to beat the book. Remember information is king.

THIS.

[Optional]

That's a crazy stat. You'd think only those who know what they are doing bet those kind of sums. I of course know that's not the case but still. Gambling addiction is a sad and scary thing.

People who bet more are less risk averse. Either from being bigger gamblers than average, or from having more money than average, so losing is less of a fear. And losing more often is in line with the odds.

In the context of casino games anyway.