So how did the Books lose?
 

In today's NYPost, they report that sports books lost a record $563M (estimated) on this past weekend's NFL games, because 12 of 16 underdogs won.

Can someone explain why this would aversly affect the books? Don't betting lines change to keep an equal amount of action on both sides of every wager? I understand that's not a perfect science but they have to come close, don't they? Also, why would it matter that 12 of 16 underdogs (as opposed to favorties) won? Wouldn't it stand to reason that on some games there was slightly more action on the dog, and on others, slightly more on the fav?

Confused,

JBB

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In today's NYPost, they report that sports books lost a record $563M (estimated) on this past weekend's NFL games, because 12 of 16 underdogs won.

Can someone explain why this would aversly affect the books? Don't betting lines change to keep an equal amount of action on both sides of every wager? I understand that's not a perfect science but they have to come close, don't they? Also, why would it matter that 12 of 16 underdogs (as opposed to favorties) won? Wouldn't it stand to reason that on some games there was slightly more action on the dog, and on others, slightly more on the fav?

Confused,

JBB

[/ QUOTE ]

12 of the 16 underdogs lost.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

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

"National Football League underdogs throew bookies to the wolves this weekend, winning 12 out of 16 games and showering gamblers with cash."

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't betting lines change to keep an equal amount of action on both sides of every wager?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a word, no. Books really want to maximize their hold %, which does not always include balanced action. On NFL games, the majority of action at Vegas books is on favorites, and there is a limit to how far you can move the line to encourage underdog action without really exposing yourself to a lot of risk. For more details, check out Roxy Roxborough's book about managing a sports book.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

I'd be curious to know what % of action goes on NFL favorites, on average. However, in this case, b/c the dogs won, wouldn't the books be paying out less?

I will def. check that book out though for more info.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

The article has it wrong. Most NFL underdogs lost last week, as they have been doing for just about the entire season. Since most NFL action comes down disproportionately on favorites, the books stand to lose money when many favorites win, and win money when mostly underdogs win. The juice is not enough to guarantee profit regardless of the outcome.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

Looks like a chimed in late on your last question... maybe I can win the race this time. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Anyway, to answer your question, you can find out how much action is being placed on teams from several sources. One is from wagerline.com under the "scores and odds" heading. Several books themselves also make this information public, sportsbook.com and canbet are two examples of this.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

Yeah, dogs have been getting killed in the NFL this year, thus books have been getting killed also. One more point about not having balanced action -- the basic idea (Stanford Wong's book has a good example of this also) is that if I know people are going to bet the favorites anyway, it increases my EV to shade the favorites a little bit, even if the action is unbalanced. If you have deep pockets to weather the downturns, this will increase your returns in the long run as a sportsbook, even if it does increase short-term variability.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

This is also another reason I blindly follow the Unranked vs Ranked trend in NCAAB. I firmly believe that when the opening line comes out, I already have been given a couple "value" points from where the line actually should be and they can afford to take a position and give themselves an extra point or two. Vegas knows people love betting on ranked teams. I am guessing they have tons of betting trends they take into consideration when making lines. I am quite sure they push these advantages knowing which way the public will "probably" bet. This example is probably just one of a hundred different situations that are considered when creating the lines. It's not always about equal action on both sides. They can take a "slight" position to push their advantage based on betting trends.

Re: So how did the Books lose?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In today's NYPost, they report that sports books lost a record $563M (estimated) on this past weekend's NFL games, because 12 of 16 underdogs won.

Can someone explain why this would aversly affect the books? Don't betting lines change to keep an equal amount of action on both sides of every wager? I understand that's not a perfect science but they have to come close, don't they? Also, why would it matter that 12 of 16 underdogs (as opposed to favorties) won? Wouldn't it stand to reason that on some games there was slightly more action on the dog, and on others, slightly more on the fav?

Confused,

JBB

[/ QUOTE ]

Another reason this ended up being the worst NFL weekend on record is the amateur bettors who've played favorites successfully since week 5/6 were so flush with cash that they continued upping the ante this week with the same strategy and hit huge.

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