Say you were a bookie....
 

You have a player, that has consistently lost 2-3k per college foots/nfl season for 4+ years (25-200$ bets). Say he makes 10-12 bets per week. If you bet the complete opposite of him at the same number, is there any reason to expect not to be up 2-3k at the end of the season?

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

[ QUOTE ]
is there any reason to expect not to be up 2-3k at the end of the season?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, he could have a winning season

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
is there any reason to expect not to be up 2-3k at the end of the season?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, he could have a winning season

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, obv, but the likelyhood of that happening is nil correct? So I would assume that in the long run, anti-following this guys plays would be a winner? Or am I missing soemthing?

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you bet the complete opposite of him at the same number, is there any reason to expect not to be up 2-3k at the end of the season?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the juice. The bookie has a positive expectation on each bet that the bettor places with him. However, the bookie would have a negative expectation on each bet placed elsewhere. Thus, the bookie would basically give away his edge by making the bets elsewhere.

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

Just ask him to bet against you instead, and give him a point or two.

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

Not to mention the fact that a chimpanzee figures to hit 50% of his picks. This customer has simply been running very badly - admitedly for a rather long time.

At 10-12 games per week with 15 weeks in the season and an average bet of $50 he (the customer) should be down no more than $500 for the season; even if he bets his maximum ($ 200) on all 18 bowls his loss should be no more than 6 or 7 hundred.

I'm not saying the player is due, only that his losses for the next (and all future) seasons figure to be no more than 4.76% of his total action . . . less still if he chooses to avail himself of the one of the many 'books that charge -105 and even less if he shops for the best price.

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying the player is due, only that his losses for the next (and all future) seasons figure to be no more than 4.76% of his total action . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

What percent of the total action do you think this guy should lose?

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

"Not to mention the fact that a chimpanzee figures to hit 50% of his picks."

A dart thrower might go 50%, but that doesn't mean a square will go 50%. All bets are different, ie their true winrate will vary from 50%. The squares will lose at greater than 50% for the exact opposite reason sharps will win greater than 50%. Alot of squares WILL hit under 50%, and I'm sure there are some people so bad out there that it is possible to shade them and win.

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Or am I missing soemthing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing the juice.

Lets say your client makes 200 $100 bets during the season. He wins 95 and loses 105 for 47% win rate. He loses $2050 for the year. You fade all his picks and win 105 and lose 95 for a 52% win rate. You lose $450 for the year.

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

"You fade all his picks and win 105 and lose 95 for a 52% win rate. You lose $450 for the year."

Actually you profit slightly. You'd win 52.5%, where breakeven vs -110 is 52.4%. Anyway, he'd be betting vs shopped lines.

Also remember that fading his bets will also increase your risk.

If teh gambler hits 47%, you're already winning 53% at +110 for an 11.3% advantage. If you fade him and hit 53%, say at an average of -105, you're making 3.5% on the fade bets, so you should obviously bet significantly less on the fades than the bets you accept from the gambler.

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually you profit slightly

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I made an error in my math. You end up winning $50.

Your other points are well taken too.

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

Yikes

Would you even want your name associated with a 46% win rate ?

*

Obviously the answer to your (I assume sarcastic) question is "the same as anyone else" although this guy is losing 4.76% of a much larger figure.

Back in the day when bookmakers sat in the back rooms of bars one customer like this guy often made it possible for the bookmaker to come to own the bar - 3 or 4 like this would have him owning the entire block.

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

No, there are not.

Unless you believe in people being born with bad luck you will never find a "square" against whom you can bet for a sure profit.

There is not a person on the planet whose expectation on any even money selection is less than 50-50; it's the 11-10 (or these days the 21-20) that breaks them - not their inability to handicap games.

Suggestion: If you want to be taken seriously here post a "didn't you know I was just kidding" as soon as possible.

It's OK to fall for the "pull my finger" gag but it's not OK to believe that it was the tug of the finger that caused the fart.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

- Chris

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

Huh ?

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, there are not.

Unless you believe in people being born with bad luck you will never find a "square" against whom you can bet for a sure profit.

There is not a person on the planet whose expectation on any even money selection is less than 50-50; it's the 11-10 (or these days the 21-20) that breaks them - not their inability to handicap games.

Suggestion: If you want to be taken seriously here post a "didn't you know I was just kidding" as soon as possible.

It's OK to fall for the "pull my finger" gag but it's not OK to believe that it was the tug of the finger that caused the fart.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

- Chris

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, he is right and you are wrong. Squares can hit less than 50% of their picks. For example, most squares bet more favorites than dogs. For many sports (i.e. NFL), the line is shaded towards the favorite for this very reason.

Judging by his two posts, he seems to know what he is talking about and certainly doesn't need any pointers from an unknowledgable source.

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you believe in people being born with bad luck you will never find a "square" against whom you can bet for a sure profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

When we say a monkey or dart thrower will hit 50%, it's because they are betting randomly. Overall, they will have an even mix of home teams, away teams, dogs, faves etc. They are just as likely to bet on a >50% team as a <50% team.
However, squares do NOT bet randomly, just like sharps do not bet randomly. Squares are more likely to bet teams that are poor value, where as sharps are more likely to bet teams that are value. Squares have an anti-skill (lol) while sharps have skill. See what I'm getting at??

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

I understand your point; unfortunately your reasoning is flawed.

A square will often (or even always) fail to bet teams where there is value but this is not the same as saying they WILL bet teams that have no value.

A square looks at the board, checks stats, listens to the opinion(s) of others . . . then bets the team that the "voices tell him to [bet]".

If you highlighted 10 teams on any given Saturday (or Sunday) and asked a large enough sample of squares to choose a side in each game you'd get close to a perfect balance on each of the 10 games.

What makes a sucker a sucker is not that an innate tendency to spend his money foolishly, it's the innate (or more likely learned or chosen) inability to find opportunities to
spend it wisely.

There is an old joke about a guy who has been getting murdered betting sports; things have gone so badly he's down to his last $100.

He walks into the sportsbook with that "oh, why me" look on his face and is immediately greeted by one of Vegas' top wiseguys. The sharpie takes pity on this loser, pulls him aside and whispers in his ear, "listen - I know you've been getting killed and I can't bear to watch anyone suffer like you've been. I have the lock of the century for you. There are injuries nobody knows of, two of the stars are "in on it" and even the refs have been paid off. Go for it; you can't lose. I'll even lend you 1,000 to help you out".

The loser smiles from ear to ear, thanks the wiseguy and immediately starts asking all the others in the room if they have a team they are especially hot on.

The sharpie gets a little offended. "What's wrong with you - I gave you the best tip of all time and I even staked you so you could play them and you're running around asking them what THEY think. Why don't you bet the team I gave you ?"

"Of course I'm going to bet them; I was just getting some input as to who to use for the other half of the parlay".

*

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your point

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you don't.

[ QUOTE ]
A square will often (or even always) fail to bet teams where there is value but this is not the same as saying they WILL bet teams that have no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said they will always bet no value teams, I said they were more likely to.

I'm not sure what you disagree with, and I don't think I can explain it any more clearly.

Re: Say you were a bookie....
 

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your point; unfortunately your reasoning is flawed.

A square will often (or even always) fail to bet teams where there is value but this is not the same as saying they WILL bet teams that have no value.

A square looks at the board, checks stats, listens to the opinion(s) of others . . . then bets the team that the "voices tell him to [bet]".

If you highlighted 10 teams on any given Saturday (or Sunday) and asked a large enough sample of squares to choose a side in each game you'd get close to a perfect balance on each of the 10 games.
What makes a sucker a sucker is not that an innate tendency to spend his money foolishly, it's the innate (or more likely learned or chosen) inability to find opportunities to
spend it wisely.

There is an old joke about a guy who has been getting murdered betting sports; things have gone so badly he's down to his last $100.

He walks into the sportsbook with that "oh, why me" look on his face and is immediately greeted by one of Vegas' top wiseguys. The sharpie takes pity on this loser, pulls him aside and whispers in his ear, "listen - I know you've been getting killed and I can't bear to watch anyone suffer like you've been. I have the lock of the century for you. There are injuries nobody knows of, two of the stars are "in on it" and even the refs have been paid off. Go for it; you can't lose. I'll even lend you 1,000 to help you out".

The loser smiles from ear to ear, thanks the wiseguy and immediately starts asking all the others in the room if they have a team they are especially hot on.

The sharpie gets a little offended. "What's wrong with you - I gave you the best tip of all time and I even staked you so you could play them and you're running around asking them what THEY think. Why don't you bet the team I gave you ?"

"Of course I'm going to bet them; I was just getting some input as to who to use for the other half of the parlay".

*

[/ QUOTE ]


The part in bold is definetly not true. There is ALWAYS lopsided action, on most every game, due to squares v the rest. I book for about 20 guys, all squares (but all in the same area, so its not a ture sample). But I can tell you what teams people will bet when the lines come out. Case in point, monday nights phi/sea game. I knew last monday that the betting would be 90/10 in favor of the fav. So I hung it out at -5 and STILL got a huge lopside (i think only one person took philly).