Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

% of the amateur action . . . alot (not sure what "alot" translates to but well in excess of half)

% of sharp action ? less than half (tho not enough to compensate for the recreational chalk players)

% of overall action ? Hard to say but [in spite of this article from this bastion of journalistic integrity ] the overall imbalance is not enough in and of itself to cause the ink to go from black to red for the bookmaking community as a whole.

However, a headline that read, " 'books have average weekend in spite of chalks' failure" will sell far less papers than will one reading, " 'books go to the 'dogs"

*

"Mr Hearst, I've been here for a month and despite what you may have heard there is no war !"

"Whatever, whatever, look - you give me the pictures; I'll give [the public] a war".

In other words, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not according to the article. But even if that were the case, why would it matter?

12-16 underdogs have not won in years, if ever, so the article is wrong.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
% of the amateur action . . . alot (not sure what "alot" translates to but well in excess of half)

% of sharp action ? less than half (tho not enough to compensate for the recreational chalk players)

% of overall action ? Hard to say but [in spite of this article from this bastion of journalistic integrity ] the overall imbalance is not enough in and of itself to cause the ink to go from black to red for the bookmaking community as a whole.

However, a headline that read, " 'books have average weekend in spite of chalks' failure" will sell far less papers than will one reading, " 'books go to the 'dogs"

*

"Mr Hearst, I've been here for a month and despite what you may have heard there is no war !"

"Whatever, whatever, look - you give me the pictures; I'll give [the public] a war".

In other words, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Books definitely can and do lose money on the NFL some weeks.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

JBB,
Take a look at this:
http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/lines_nfl.html

This is the percentage of action on every football game this week. It basically displays the week to week lopsidedness of every game. You see a couple games that are about 47/53, but there are a ton of games that are 70/30 or more lopsided than that. Well, normally, all those games listed, its a 50/50 shot which side wins. It just so happens the last couple of weeks, the dogs havent been covering. What happened, and this is the real reason that us bookies have been getting nicked up, is the fact that there are a bunch of people out there that were flush with cash last week/thanksgiving week etc, and really loaded up on their normal bets (which of course, are all fav pics) and hit at an unreal percentage. And (this is my theory, as its been happening to me), there is a lot of buzz around the bars, offices, what have you, about how much these douchebags are clipping the books for, so you have a lot of new blood, ie people who have never bet but due to such a luckbox streak of a friend, they decided to, so I am getting a lot more action than normal, and at a terrible time in the season. But, things will eventually go back to normal, and all those people that we have hooked will hopefully dump it all back and more. I hope that explains things.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

I never claimed they didn't; a nitwit and a parlay card are a perfect recipe for a disastrous weekend. (Shake gently and baste the nitwit - but not the card - repeatedly).

My contention was, and still is, that the books are as likely to get hammered by a Sunday of chalk as they are by a "dog day afternoon".

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The juice is not enough to guarantee profit regardless of the outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in the long run.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

Actually it's not. First of all they must practice decent bankroll management, and 2nd they need to make sure they actually have an advantage on the action they're taking. This second statement means taking only sharp action vs outweighing it with square action, but I admit it's pretty extreme.

Kinda makes me want to be a bookie. If you balance action, you're guaranteed to make 4.5%. Shading square bets, and being able to take huge bets at -110 and lay them off at low vig for a sure profit at huge turnover. I could probally set up here, most people will just bet with the TABs which book at -117. Then again, I probally won't get enough turnover to make it worthwhile.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

On sportsbook.com the public concensus of the seven highest picks were winners! These were all picked by 69% and above of the betting public.

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/lines_nfl.html