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.