books got buried today

ApricotSinner32 · 01-14-12, 10:38 PM

I disagree.

I'd be willing to bet majority of books needed 49ers big and patriots atleast moderately.

Mikail · 01-14-12, 10:41 PM

Books not losing much today IMO Action was split on the Saints/49ers game. Majority on Saints spread and 49ers ML. For some reason people hammered the Broncos ML and spread. So if anything the books are doing well today.

No coincidences · 01-14-12, 10:45 PM

Doubt it.

Not much volume on totals anyway, and the sides were basically split today -- both ML and spread. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the Saints at -3.5 or -4 was the top bet of the day.

Louisvillekid1 · 01-14-12, 10:46 PM

easy 4-0 day on nfl....

excepting the same tomorrow

paranoyd androyd · 01-14-12, 10:46 PM

books didn't lose today at all you're an idiot

Mikail · 01-14-12, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

I'd be willing to bet the Saints at -3.5 or -4 was the top bet of the day.

and you'd win that bet.

DOMINATER · 01-14-12, 10:50 PM

they get hit when the favorite win ,as far as totals who the hell knows

chase hardy · 01-14-12, 11:28 PM

I said locals too. I know several and they all lost. Home team has covered every game in playoffs. Never good for local

jjgold · 01-15-12, 12:08 AM

Tough to say

Any pro bettor could of had both sides

Squares could of been in Denver

spankie · 01-15-12, 12:09 AM

i won $39 men, buried the books.

No coincidences · 01-15-12, 12:19 AM

Books exist to balance bets out as much as possible. Nothing more.

If you don't think they did that today, then I can't help you.

Landscaper · 01-15-12, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Books exist to balance bets out as much as possible. Nothing more.

If you don't think they did that today, then I can't help you.

U can't help anyone u fool

dynamite140 · 01-15-12, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Books exist to balance bets out as much as possible. Nothing more.

If you don't think they did that today, then I can't help you.

Is this comment coming from someone who complain about totals getting fixed in the last minute? And the fact that you keep saying many plays look like sucker bets and so called fishy line and traps?

You say if you don't think they fixed the total in that nba game, then I can't help you. Yet now you make a comment like this where books exist to balance bets out?

So they exist to balance bets out on games you don't bet on but there are fixes only in the games you bet on where you lose?

That pretty much sums up no coincidences.

ApricotSinner32 · 01-15-12, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Books exist to balance bets out as much as possible. Nothing more.

If you don't think they did that today, then I can't help you.

If that were the case why wouldn't all books operate like exchanges and just collect commission? That's basically what you're saying they want to do anyway. Nocoin it may be best if you just don't share your opinions you're making a fool outta yourself.

No coincidences · 01-15-12, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by ApricotSinner32

If that were the case why wouldn't all books operate like exchanges and just collect commission? That's basically what you're saying they want to do anyway. Nocoin it may be best if you just don't share your opinions you're making a fool outta yourself.

Ideally, books want as close to equal action as possible on a given game. That rarely happens -- especially in a high-profile matchup -- so they have to make adjustments accordingly (typically through juice). However, the ultimate goal is equal action and collecting on the vig.

Tell me why I am wrong about that.

Mikail · 01-15-12, 01:56 AM

Books do take positions all the time on games. Not just making money on juice alone.

No coincidences · 01-15-12, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Mikail

Books do take positions all the time on games. Not just making money on juice alone.

I don't deny the fact that they lean certain ways on given games, but at its core and from a macro standpoint, the ultimate goal is still equal bets and collect the vig.

PAULYPOKER · 01-15-12, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by chase hardy

books got buried today I'd say most locals and offshore got killed. Easy overs again. People chasing and pounding new England. It's just too easy.

The only public play that won so far was the Giants...........Fact............

ApricotSinner32 · 01-15-12, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Ideally, books want as close to equal action as possible on a given game. That rarely happens -- especially in a high-profile matchup -- so they have to make adjustments accordingly (typically through juice). However, the ultimate goal is equal action and collecting on the vig.

Tell me why I am wrong about that.

Even if they make the side being pounded -115 that still means if 55% of the money or higher was on that side they'd still need it. I can gurantee you most books are not worried about having equal action. Let me guess you read that in a sportsbetting book by king yao and since he said it that means it's true? Books don't need even action to be the most profitable and it's just about impossible to do. Like I said if all books wanted to do was collect a % they would just act as an exchange not book bets.

No coincidences · 01-15-12, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by ApricotSinner32

Even if they make the side being pounded -115 that still means if 55% of the money or higher was on that side they'd still need it. I can gurantee you most books are not worried about having equal action. Let me guess you read that in a sportsbetting book by king yao and since he said it that means it's true? Books don't need even action to be the most profitable and it's just about impossible to do. Like I said if all books wanted to do was collect a % they would just act as an exchange not book bets.

Who is king yao?

So if balancing out bets on a given game based on the line they post isn't the first priority of a book, what is Patty?

I didn't say collecting on the vig is "all they wanted to do." I just said that is the main focus. It's not always that simple, but that's the general idea.

People assume that when the public wins the books get buried. That's a misnomer.

Inkwell77 · 01-15-12, 04:30 AM

Sharp Books did not have a good day, that is a fact. Square books probably did well.

First game most books probably made money, but many sharps were on Niners ML and I also would imagine most sharps had Niners teased up.

Second game obviously the sharp books got killed on the side result. Need quite a few $100 and $50 bets to make up for a few $110,000 bet on Pats.

Books probably made some money on the totals.

Quagmire27 · 01-15-12, 04:41 AM

my guess, locals did very well with the aints, even in the bay area there was a very strong aints lean, so many anti-9er raider fags and just plain ole 9ers non-believers, should have been a gold mine for the bookie. patty-cakes, not sure, they probably gave some back...

The Kraken · 01-15-12, 04:46 AM

Bunch of guys in here acting like they know how books run. What a fukkn circus this place has become.