How Australian corporate bookmakers balance their Books

[ozpak]

I don't gamble but I am not afraid to put $10 grand to $15 grand on any sports event where I can find minimum arb of 0.5%. As a result, I am restricted/banned on every single Australian Book. ***********************.

But I always wonder how corporate bookmakers balance their books? Because all they do is copy Pinnacle odds. As soon as odds change on Pinnacle, corporate bookmakers will change odds. Pinnacle change odds under weight of money but what's the criteria for these corporate bookmakers to change odds?

For example, in todays Rugby League match, odds for "Sydney Roosters" were shortening on pinnacle. Within 10-15 minutes, Tab, Ubet, Crownbet, Bet365 and other small books changed odds for "Sydney Roosters" from 2.8 to 2.45. I was able to place few thousands on Roosters at odds of 2.8 and 2.75. But What I don't get is how corporate books will balance their books from here. Say I put $5k on Bet365 at odds of 2.8 on sydney Roosters. Now odds on Pinnacle for Roosters changed under wight of money from 2.8 to 2.35. Bet365 changed odds for Roosters from 2.8 to 2.35 just because odds changed on Pinnacle. Does it not leave the Bet365 with an open position and with an unbalanced book?

[Optional]

I think you have answered your own question. If a book is simply mirroring Pinny odds then they probably aren't working on the methodology of trying to get balanced action on each market.

Also, please don't post about circumventing book rules.

[ozpak]

I think you have answered your own question. If a book is simply mirroring Pinny odds then they probably aren't working on the methodology of trying to get balanced action on each market.

.

A stupid question but unbalanced books doesn't lead these corporates to unprofitably in the long run?

[tsty]

A stupid question but unbalanced books doesn't lead these corporates to unprofitably in the long run?

No since they just ban all the sharp punters

[Ruifgalmeida]

It is impossible for a book to have balance action, they know that must people will go with the favorite, so they juice up the favorite line and make milions, easy.

[Optional]

A stupid question but unbalanced books doesn't lead these corporates to unprofitably in the long run?

Bookmaking is both art and science.

We could guess at each books methodology but chances are we would be wrong for most. It's unlikely many books work for balanced action on each market though. Too many other influences that would kill them if they tried to move independent of the rest of the market.

Most probably rely on the fact that the odds they pay on winners is far enough away from true value that over the long term they are 'guaranteed' a profit. (and as someone else said, banning sharps probably goes a long way to making it profitable too)

[tsty]

One of my mates who works for a book told me they double up on other bookies for their sharp AFL/Rugby punters

Which seems weird to me

I don't believe it but don't see why he would lie

[Jupiter333]

If they wanted to lesson their exposure, they could lay off with another book if their was some kind of agreement with each other.

Betfair did a survey of their punters at one time and found out of 80,000 punters, 3,000 of them were consistent winners, which equates to 3.75% of total bettors being winners. A low vig sportsbook would tend to attract smarter bettors as lessoning margin is something that intelligent people would do. That percentage of winners would be less than betfair's at a mug sportsbook.

For those sportsbooks, their view is going to be like the house in a casino, eventually the roulette wheel or craps table is going to manifest the house's advantage, and where there was a player advantage in the past with card counting blackjack players, that has been dealt with.

Of course in situation like parimutual racing where the take is off the top, or a situation like matchbook or betfair where their risk is zero, they don't care if someone is winning a lot of money.