1. #71
    Maniac
    Maniac's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-12-11
    Posts: 667
    Betpoints: 8815

    Ok so this is a less relevant aspect of the story, but I find it amusing that they specifically mentioned the special bet they put up for an animal to run onto the pitch...and in tonights Blackburn/Wigan Premier League Match a chicken ran onto the field.

    There was a Venkys banner tied to it, so was obviously smuggled in by a fan and thrown on or near the pitch as some sort of protest -but I cant help but wonder if the guy who did it (or anyone else) bet on a chicken being the next animal to be on a football pitch

  2. #72
    rowand13
    rowand13's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-25-11
    Posts: 53

    Quote Originally Posted by cyberbabble View Post

    ‘The best result for us is usually a low-scoring draw, a nil-nil,’ says Dan.

    I don't know anything about soccer, but the bookie is telling me where to look for value bets. Bet with the bookie, against the punters. Bet the draw in matches with a low total line.
    I think squares are called punters in England.






    If he says so, then that should tell us all, that many top rated bookies do also gamble sometimes. I always wondered why would pinny often offer good prices for the OVER while offerring unattractive prices for the UNDER which I see them doing almost always in NBA games and possibly many other sports. It is clear to the naked eye that pinny's oddsmakers don't like to give good odds on the UNDER at all, percentage wise. This article mentioned that people usually like to take the OVER (on soccer) because they want something to happen rather than something to not happen which is true.

    And that explains why does sharp bookies usually offer attractive prices on the OVER and that the best result for bookies is usually a low-scoring game, which means that the final score usually does affect the sportsbook when it supposedly shouldn't, and that's why I think books do also gamble sometimes. If they were not, why would that senior trader from pinnacle (can't remember his name) who was interviewed by Peter Loshak in a video months ago, tell him more than once..... "there are games when their worst result would be the draw, while others when they would want only the draw to happen"?

    If they will not get an even balanced action on both sides which does often happen, then bookies will have to decide which side they would choose. Any thoughts?
    Last edited by rowand13; 05-08-12 at 06:30 PM.

  3. #73
    Duff85
    Getting ready for Japball
    Duff85's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-15-10
    Posts: 2,920
    Betpoints: 4007

    Quote Originally Posted by rowand13 View Post
    If they were not, why would that senior trader from pinnacle (can't remember his name) who was interviewed by Peter Loshak in a video months ago, tell him more than once..... "there are games when their worst result be the draw, while others when they would want only the draw to happen" ?
    As someone who spends a lot of time analysing prices - your first point makes no sense. Also comparing Will Hill and Pinnacle in terms of likely positions on games is lol. If you spend time looking at lines enough you'll find that Will Hill is often caught on one side, while Pinnacle will offer a price in the top three books on at least the other two options (if not all three). This means they are probably looking for very different results.

  4. #74
    wantitall4moi
    wantitall4moi's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-17-10
    Posts: 3,063
    Betpoints: 3834

    Despite the back and forth this is just another example of the A.D.D. generation of people who want it here and they want it now. Anything with nearly instant gratification is what kills people in the end. Its also why the stock market and these so called day traders have ****** up the whole wall street experience and why the market is so volatile. In the end the guys taking the commissions from these know nothings are the ones who will reap the benefits.

    Sure you'll be up here and there and maybe hit a 'big' score but the limitations are such that it is impossible to make a 'life changing' amount of money in a quick and easy fashion. As in you make one quick hitter, get rich, and get out. Live betting is obviously a HUGE money maker thats why so many books do it. They just get the odds from one place and clone them and then add even more juice. Nothing really new or surprising here.

    Even if books do get hurt on a game or two, or even a game or two, or put up a 'bad' number and get buried, they know eventually the guy that won is very likely to lose it all back and then some. These markets are just trading winners and losers and getting a commission for it. So losers reload and winners 'reinvest' (and eventually lose). That is why books do not need to gamble because they get money no matter what, and these live betting traders get it all and they get it fast. They could make up numbers and still make money. It is laughable that they make it out like it is super scientific. A smart guy can do it in his head which a lot of us still do, and then the so called math model finally figures it out and he had the answer way before. But I really think they used some license with their explanations and tried to make it sound more 'legit' than it probably is.

    If they had said "we wing it, sometimes we win sometimes we lose. We make up numbers and throw them on a screen with the biggest vig we think we can get away with. We dont care if a guy makes 10K today he will piss away 15 tomorrow. So we make that and the 10 or 12% we can get by overcharging on vig for every line we put up" I would have believed that just as much if not more so.

    The only real limitations these traders will see is the amount of money their players have to lose, because wit this a lot more people who might possibly have a chance at winning will end up losing everything a lot faster.

First 123
Top