Betting lines

[whaler11]

Good lord is that naive.

Just because you can bet a dime on a game from your computer in the privacy of your room or home, does not make it safer than 'traditional' gambling. Couldn't be further from the truth. Never mind the viewpoint you might about what removing the actual need for human interaction in gambling, if you ascribe to the concept that gambling is a disease equal with say - alcoholism or drug abuse.

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm just an internet message board poster.

Here's what a former NYC governments securty bonds, and hedge fund manager is doing in Las Vegas, when it comes to sports books.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/taking-risks-making-odds/

"Sports book operators make most of their money charging a small commission on bets. They then try to match a bet on any given game with an opposite wager, essentially neutralizing the risk of that bet. If they can’t, operators typically try to change the money line, making it more attractive for bettors to vote on the other team."


Online betting? They can screw around with the lines all they want, jsut the way you young people think it's "normal" now. And there is no regulation. The closest thing to regulation, is the thing that you are b(tching about, that thankfully our country leadership has been pushed to put in place, to protect our citiczens both from themselves ndn from others. Professional tennis is ducked up now because of it. Italian soccer? oh jeez, never mind.

Thanks Tom.

Yes the lines online and in Vegas are always so different. Oh wait they are always within a half point of each other everywhere legitimate. Weird.

 

[whaler11]

Good lord is that naive.

Just because you can bet a dime on a game from your computer in the privacy of your room or home, does not make it safer than 'traditional' gambling. Couldn't be further from the truth. Never mind the viewpoint you might about what removing the actual need for human interaction in gambling, if you ascribe to the concept that gambling is a disease equal with say - alcoholism or drug abuse.

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm just an internet message board poster.

Here's what a former NYC governments securty bonds, and hedge fund manager is doing in Las Vegas, when it comes to sports books.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/taking-risks-making-odds/

"Sports book operators make most of their money charging a small commission on bets. They then try to match a bet on any given game with an opposite wager, essentially neutralizing the risk of that bet. If they can’t, operators typically try to change the money line, making it more attractive for bettors to vote on the other team."


Online betting? They can screw around with the lines all they want, jsut the way you young people think it's "normal" now. And there is no regulation. The closest thing to regulation, is the thing that you are b(tching about, that thankfully our country leadership has been pushed to put in place, to protect our citiczens both from themselves ndn from others. Professional tennis is ducked up now because of it. Italian soccer? oh jeez, never mind.

Thanks Tom.

Of course you know that most point shaving scandals came to light because of irregularities discovered by legal gambling. Your solution to something that needs regulation seems to be less regulation. Somehow illegal gambling is safer to the public than legal gambling. Of course this structure you praise has no problem letting people play slots and the lottery which has a much lower expected return than sports gambling - but thank God they are protecting us from a game where the house has a 2% advantage and letting us play games where the house has a 30% advantage. Thank God!

 

[Devland]

A few years back, during a pre-Super Bowl week, there was an interview on one of the news stations with a Las Vegas bookmaker. He stated that his job was to get 50% of the money on both sides so that his casino doesn't take a big hit. I know nothing about this back alley and internet stuff. Things may have changed over the years, I don't know. Being retired, I stay away from gambling. Too much risk for me.

 

[sportsart]

I'm thinking 2 posters in this thread need to get a room. I'll kick in the first $5.

 

[whaler11]

Well by ticket count there are 67% of tickets on Cincy tonight. If the goal was 50-50 why did the line only move from 3.5 to 4.5?

Tomorrow it's 72% on Utah. Line opened at 7. Has gone DOWN to 6.5.

Arkansas State has 88% of bets. FIU 85% SDSU 84% UNC 82% USC 82%.

Eagles have 75%. New England 84% Houston 82%.

There are 15 more NFL games and 10 of them have 60+ on one side.

If the goal is 50/50 why are they so bad at it. Why don't they hire people who can hit 50-50?

 

[mattp]

Good lord is that naive.

Just because you can bet a dime on a game from your computer in the privacy of your room or home, does not make it safer than 'traditional' gambling. Couldn't be further from the truth. Never mind the viewpoint you might about what removing the actual need for human interaction in gambling, if you ascribe to the concept that gambling is a disease equal with say - alcoholism or drug abuse.

.

naive is calling gambling, alcoholism or drug abuse a disease. they're habits/addictions. i said it's safer b/c you can't go over the amount in your account, it has nothing to do with human interaction. on line there's 0% chance of having a knuckle breaker coming to collect from you. of course the same is true of human bookies as long as you show some restraint, but people that have problems gambling often have an attitude that all they have to do is double down to get out of a hole which can just as easily blow up in their face

 

[Waquoit]

It's not really a gambling problem, it's a losing problem.

 

[Kgun7]

I'm thinking 2 posters in this thread need to get a room. I'll kick in the first $5.

What are the odds of that happening?

 

[whaler11]

naive is calling gambling, alcoholism or drug abuse a disease. they're habits/addictions. i said it's safer b/c you can't go over the amount in your account, it has nothing to do with human interaction. on line there's 0% chance of having a knuckle breaker coming to collect from you. of course the same is true of human bookies as long as you show some restraint, but people that have problems gambling often have an attitude that all they have to do is double down to get out of a hole which can just as easily blow up in their face

Technically you can get in trouble 'on-line'. A lot of locals use web portals to take wagers on credit, I know a bunch of guys who use one in NYC. I don't know what it's connected to on the backside specifically, so it's on-line, but not one of the offshore books.

They also send huge amounts of cash via Fed Ex. It's pretty crazy - but when they have won they get paid and they can afford their losses.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Savannah State Enough said. Take that online gambling.

 

[mattp]

Technically you can get in trouble 'on-line'. A lot of locals use web portals to take wagers on credit, I know a bunch of guys who use one in NYC. I don't know what it's connected to on the backside specifically, so it's on-line, but not one of the offshore books.

They also send huge amounts of cash via Fed Ex. It's pretty crazy - but when they have won they get paid and they can afford their losses.

i have a few friends that might use something like that, maybe even the same one (it's out of NYC) and i also know someone that runs their own book using one of those. he used to run his own book the old fashioned way, but apparently his arrangement is that the website takes all of the actual action, and now he just gets half the vigs from any action from his "clients" that come in on the site so it's a pretty easy risk free money maker for him. he doesn't make a ton on it, but there's no real downside.

i think the biggest thing online gambling sites have done is make it more accessible to everybody. when i first moved to jersey i wouldn't have known where to make a bet, but i bought a preseason football magazine and they advertised about a dozen websites, half of which offered monetary incentives to join.

 

[whaler11]

i have a few friends that might use something like that, maybe even the same one (it's out of NYC) and i also know someone that runs their own book using one of those. he used to run his own book the old fashioned way, but apparently his arrangement is that the website takes all of the actual action, and now he just gets half the vigs from any action from his "clients" that come in on the site so it's a pretty easy risk free money maker for him. he doesn't make a ton on it, but there's no real downside.

i think the biggest thing online gambling sites have done is make it more accessible to everybody. when i first moved to jersey i wouldn't have known where to make a bet, but i bought a preseason football magazine and they advertised about a dozen websites, half of which offered monetary incentives to join.

Before they made it difficult to transfer money it was great. When you could work with the legitimate British books it was great - these companies in the islands are brutal.

 

[JayKoz]

Well by ticket count there are 67% of tickets on Cincy tonight. If the goal was 50-50 why did the line only move from 3.5 to 4.5?

Tomorrow it's 72% on Utah. Line opened at 7. Has gone DOWN to 6.5.

Arkansas State has 88% of bets. FIU 85% SDSU 84% UNC 82% USC 82%.

Eagles have 75%. New England 84% Houston 82%.

There are 15 more NFL games and 10 of them have 60+ on one side.

If the goal is 50/50 why are they so bad at it. Why don't they hire people who can hit 50-50?

Really? Are you even being serious?

You realize that percentage of the bets placed on each side doesn't mean that the money is the same, right? Those numbers you're using mean absolutely nothing, whaler. And you'll never actually find a site that will tell you the money placed on each side.

The books most certainly aren't trying to get a 50/50 split on total tickets per side. Like I said, those numbers mean nothing.

Think about it.. So you have New England with a huge percentage playing them but the line is moving in the opposite direction. What do you think the reason is for the reverse line movement?

It's cause you've got some sharp money flying in on Tennessee, not measly $100 or $1,000 bets.

There's no possible way you can be serious with that last post and throwing meaningless numbers around as a defense of how the books aren't getting 50/50 money. You'll never be able to tell by looking at those numbers. You can have 100 guys bet $100 and then 10 guys bet $1,000, and yet it'll look like the public is all over one side when in actuality the money is dead even on both sides.

 

[whaler11]

Really? Are you even being serious?

You realize that percentage of the bets placed on each side doesn't mean that the money is the same, right? Those numbers you're using mean absolutely nothing, whaler. And you'll never actually find a site that will tell you the money placed on each side.

The books most certainly aren't trying to get a 50/50 split on total tickets per side. Like I said, those numbers mean nothing.

Think about it.. So you have New England with a huge percentage playing them but the line is moving in the opposite direction. What do you think the reason is for the reverse line movement?

It's cause you've got some sharp money flying in on Tennessee, not measly $100 or $1,000 bets.

Yes I'm the one who has pointed out three times they are just bet percentages. There is no way that in each case there are a trillion public low dollar tickets and huge sharp money balancing it on the other side.

If you believe what you are saying you should clean up easy betting with the sharp money on Memphis and Wake plus so many others this week.

 

[HeGotGame]

I think I"m probably just a lot older than most of the people around here. As is the case a lot, younger people tend to think older people are wrong about everything, until they get there.

Carl, do yourself a favor and listen to this:

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8341879

You will educate yourself a little and learn how things actually work and that the 50/50 money is a huge myth. 25min mark talks about this.

 

[HeGotGame]

I think I"m probably just a lot older than most of the people around here. As is the case a lot, younger people tend to think older people are wrong about everything, until they get there.

Carl, do yourself a favor and listen to this:

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8341879

You will educate yourself a little and learn how things actually work and that the 50/50 money is a huge myth. 25min mark talks about this.

 

[HeGotGame]

I think I"m probably just a lot older than most of the people around here. As is the case a lot, younger people tend to think older people are wrong about everything, until they get there.

Carl, do yourself a favor and listen to this:

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8341879

You will educate yourself a little and learn how things actually work and that the 50/50 money is a huge myth. 25min mark talks about this.

 

[businesslawyer]

i think it's time for you to take a walk or meditate or something. there's nothing insidious about on line gambling. on line gambling hasn't changed anything about gambling except people don't have to know a bookie now. I'm actually going to say on line gambling can often be safer b/c they usually only let you gamble money in your account so people can't get in over their head. the biggest gripe i have with it is what rondogg said about the US making it difficult to load an account. i haven't personally had an on line account for about a decade because of that.

I can't tell you how much I disagree with that. The physical acts of gambling -- handing a bookie cash -- serve as a brake on behavior. An 18 year old with a bankcard and a computer is not easily able to feel the risk and loss the way he would at a casino.

Not to mention, how in the world do you stop underage kids from gambling over a computer? And who is regulating an Antiguan on-line book when they run their games online? In the U.S., all legalized casinos are heavily regulated and inspected.

 

[mattp]

I can't tell you how much I disagree with that. The physical acts of gambling -- handing a bookie cash -- serve as a brake on behavior. An 18 year old with a bankcard and a computer is not easily able to feel the risk and loss the way he would at a casino.

Not to mention, how in the world do you stop underage kids from gambling over a computer? And who is regulating an Antiguan on-line book when they run their games online? In the U.S., all legalized casinos are heavily regulated and inspected.

keep in mind you're talking to the idiot that lost $400 in on line roulette. obviously a lot of alcohol and boredom was involved, how easy would it be to fix on line roulette? after i sobered up the next morning i felt like the #1 biggest chump of all time

 

[Sean]

No clue why Spackler referenced Savannah State.

Whaler - you know this but I think you are oversimplifying - generally if there are 80% on one side of the tickets, yet the line moves reverse - that means there is either a whale/expert on one side, or that the avg bet size on one side is enormous...

Books take positions all the time, but I don't think they are exactly firing from the hip ready to take non 50/50 action too frequently. They won't stress over it bc they'd get killed if they did, but I do think its generally optimal for them.

 

[whaler11]

No clue why Spackler referenced Savannah State.

Whaler - you know this but I think you are oversimplifying - generally if there are 80% on one side of the tickets, yet the line moves reverse - that means there is either a whale/expert on one side, or that the avg bet size on one side is enormous...

Books take positions all the time, but I don't think they are exactly firing from the hip ready to take non 50/50 action too frequently. They won't stress over it bc they'd get killed if they did, but I do think its generally optimal for them.

Other than the fact they almost never have 50-50 action on a game sure. The internet will all but tell you this is the way it is but I guess urban legends don't die.

 

[sportsart]

I'm still wondering why Tom has not chimed in on my post regarding his OP.

There is not a chance in hell he did not understand what the spread meant. When you stop laughing Tom could you bless us with a response?

Bueller, Bueller..........?

 

[Sean]

Other than the fact they almost never have 50-50 action on a game sure. The internet will all but tell you this is the way it is but I guess urban legends don't die.

I mean, how close to 50/50 would it have to be for you to say thats the target? If the standard deviation keeps most games within 65/35, can we really rule out that they are shooting for 50/50? Particularly if there is no pattern between any other factor as to when they miss?

I work in insurance - I believe possibly at the same company you do. Every time we write a policy, all we know is that it won't come in anywhere near the price we charged - we've either made a nice profit on our insured, or our insured has crushed us. That doesn't mean that we aren't SHOOTING to charge the expected value of loss, though (plus expenses and my salary, of course).

For what its worth, I think we agree here a lot more than we disagree - its mostly semantics.

 

[whaler11]

Lol on 50/50. 70 to 80% of money on Packers last night. Call shifted between 200-300 million to bookmakers from gamblers. Mandalay Bay had a half million in bets with 85% on GB.

If their goal is 50/50 why are they all still employed?