Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="The Yakk, post: 4856052, member: 9988"] You might ask the same question about wall street traders, or reinsurance underwriters. Lots of reasons, here are the main two: 1. The individual on the beach in the Bahamas has a limited bankroll; not nearly enough capital to ensure a win in the long run, unless he is happy making $20 bets everywhere. The books don't win every bet; they make their money in the long run by having the best of it on most bets. No different than the blackjack table. But the book needs a lot of capital to sustain the losses that will inevitably happen. 2. The casino is [B]taking[/B] the bets, so they have the advantage of the vig on every bet. The genius on the beach is [B]making[/B] the bets, and has to overcome the vig before he can make a profit. I'm not sure what "directional players" are, but if you mean the average gambler then yes they lose in the long run because of 1) the vig, and 2) a deficit of analysis/information/discipline. To be a long-term winner, you need a hell of a lot of 2) in order to overcome 1). It is possible, by the way. The books call those bettors "sharps", and they try to avoid taking bets from them because they prefer to take bets from people who are at an information disadvantage. The sharps' research is as good or better than the books', which is a problem. If the business were simply a matter of getting a 50/50 handle, then why the hell should the books care about the sharps? Still, it's not surprising you find this hard to believe. The myth of the 50/50 vig-earning sportsbook has been ingrained in the gambling public for years. I think the books like it that way. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach