[princecharles]

I hear two different answers all the time, wondering which is more applicable.

A) Offering a big dog take back sticks the book with heavy exposure for a relatively inexpensive shot by the player.

Or

B) Offering a really big caulk favorite ML (ie NBA 15> points / NFL 14> points) will allow 'easy money' to be made by players investing a large chunk of thier bankroll in one of these 'gimme' games.

Obviously both answers are flawed, and many smart players will assert correctly that books 'love' both sides of heavy ML action. For one thing the spread between lay and take back is huge.

So help me understand why a popular book like BetIslands for example doesn't play in that sandbox?

Thanks

[Harmy G]

Either they are big pussies, or they didn't make rules in their rollover requirements not to include such bets as part of a rollover. So instead of offering the bets and restricting rollover usage, they just don't offer them.

[LordVodka]

One reason I din't like betislands.

[princecharles]

Either they are big pussies, or they didn't make rules in their rollover requirements not to include such bets as part of a rollover. So instead of offering the bets and restricting rollover usage, they just don't offer them.

I appreciate the response, but I don't think so.

What exactly are they afraid of that makes them pussies for not offering the ML's?

And I see books all the time have simple stipulations in thier roll over and freeplay T & C's that spell out clearly how big of a ML will be allowed.

[indio]

Obviously both answers are flawed, and many smart players will assert correctly that books 'love' both sides of heavy ML action. For one thing the spread between lay and take back is huge.

The "spread" between the lay and the payback on heavy ML's result in much lower hold rates, and rarely get balanced action.

Which has more house take? A -800/+600 line, or a -250/+200 line? Answer, the -250/+200 line.

How much theoretical hold on a -2000/+1000 line? Answer: 4.15%, still less than a -250/+250 line

I believe these types of games often end up with expanded liability for books catering to recreational bettors because the money line chalks are used in parlays, and the double digit dog is used in teasers, usually leaving the book with massive 17-25 pt spreads that they can lose on.

Four -500 ML favorites are often parlayed for +107 by the players, while those same games (baskets for an example) can see the dogs sweethearted to +18 by them.

Do you know the bookmaker hold on a -4000/+2000 line is 2.27%? That's less than a -160/+140 line.

If successful books aren't hanging heavy ML, you can rest assured they have a reason for it.

[rm18]

one thing that could give the book problems is guys who parlay the high ML's to other games to get over the betting limit on the other games

[Maniac]

one thing that could give the book problems is guys who parlay the high ML's to other games to get over the betting limit on the other games

That is likely another reason, though again a lot of books now have rules regarding players using "bankers" like this to get around limits.

[princecharles]

The "spread" between the lay and the payback on heavy ML's result in much lower hold rates, and rarely get balanced action.

Which has more house take? A -800/+600 line, or a -250/+200 line? Answer, the -250/+200 line.

How much theoretical hold on a -2000/+1000 line? Answer: 4.15%, still less than a -250/+250 line

I believe these types of games often end up with expanded liability for books catering to recreational bettors because the money line chalks are used in parlays, and the double digit dog is used in teasers, usually leaving the book with massive 17-25 pt spreads that they can lose on.

Four -500 ML favorites are often parlayed for +107 by the players, while those same games (baskets for an example) can see the dogs sweethearted to +18 by them.

Do you know the bookmaker hold on a -4000/+2000 line is 2.27%? That's less than a -160/+140 line.

If successful books aren't hanging heavy ML, you can rest assured they have a reason for it.

Wow. Great response. If your numbers are correct I see a point here, however still not clear on why books would pass on that business that would bring more of other action in. Wouldn't even have to be a loss leader, as according to your calcs their hold would be akin to what they are currently offering anyway.

[Ruifgalmeida]

one thing that could give the book problems is guys who parlay the high ML's to other games to get over the betting limit on the other games

bookies love those kind of parlays.

[princecharles]

See that's what I always hear.
Books love guys who bet heavy fav ML's, especially those who parlay a few of them to a -110 play.
Very little bang for the buck for players, coupled with more shots the book has to beat you you with one upset.

[princecharles]

Justin7,
You did a video a while back on parlaying big ML fav's, and how this was a big -EV.
Could you toss in your opinion to my orig post please?