Help me understand these numbers...

ElSapo · #1 09-29-2005, 05:08 PM

Ok, so the old school way of bookmaking was trying to split the action. 50-50 on both sides, and the book wins regardless. I get that it's not always done that way these days, but...

...according to the live odds at sportsbook.com, almost every game is nowhere close to 50-50. Of this week's games, 11 have the public over 70% on one side. So either the old 50-50 action thing is completely out now, the numbers are wrong or they don't mean what I think they mean.

Any help?

I mean, 93% on Indianapolis? 89% on Cinncinati? Are these numbers important at all?

ElSapo

craig r · #2 09-29-2005, 06:10 PM

It has always pretty much been a myth that the bookies want even action on each side. They want to make money. People laying -110 and taking the worst points will greatly help with this. If the linesmaker has an edge, why not exploit it? If I was a bookie and thought the true line on the game was -6 (by "true line" i mean a line that the fav will cover half the time and the dog will cover the other half), but I knew I could still get plenty of fav action, maybe I would shoot for 7.5. All fav bettors are taking the worst of it. Yes, I could (and will) lose sometimes, but in the long run, I will make money. It is just the same as poker. In the short term it is still gambling.

There are some very square shops that double deal lines. They are willing to take tons of action on the "square" side and then they limit the sharp action on that side by dealing a different line to pros (or setting the maximums low). This to me is proof that the sportsbooks are willing to "gamble".

Also, just because 70% of the people are on a side, doesn't mean that 70% of the money is on the same side. Pros bet more than the public does. So, there is also a chance that this pro money helps even out the square money quite a bit. Slacker was (I think it was him) talking about calling his bookie and asking him what side he wanted him to bet to help even out the books. A lot of the online books will do the same thing.

craig

Jibbs · #3 09-29-2005, 07:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, just because 70% of the people are on a side, doesn't mean that 70% of the money is on the same side. Pros bet more than the public does.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding was the sportsbook.com numbers reflected the amount of money on each side not the number of people on each side. Is this not true? It would severely affect my reading of those numbers if it weren't.

craig r · #4 09-29-2005, 08:06 PM

You could be right. What are the sportsbook.com limits? I know I remember reading that some pretty heavy bettors had trouble getting money out of there.

craig

West · #5 09-29-2005, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It has always pretty much been a myth that the bookies want even action on each side. They want to make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they will make money with even action, and at zero risk.

[ QUOTE ]
If I was a bookie and thought the true line on the game was -6 (by "true line" i mean a line that the fav will cover half the time and the dog will cover the other half), but I knew I could still get plenty of fav action, maybe I would shoot for 7.5. All fav bettors are taking the worst of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this day and age, how long do you think you could get away with that and keep your action?

craig r · #6 09-29-2005, 08:22 PM

Of course they will take even action for a locked in profit. But, that is not where they make the bulk of their money. It is almost impossible to get even action. Especially online, where so many more people have access to betting now.

As far as me being able to keep my customers, I don't see why I wouldn't be able to. People like to gamble. Most people don't line shop. Also, there are two websites I know for certain that deal double lines. They have low limits and are fairly large sportsbooks. And both their businesses are growing. They go out of their way to keep pros away from there (but have never stiffed anybody).

craig

p.s. I am not a bookie.

West · #7 09-30-2005, 12:45 AM

I realize that it's impossible to get even action, but to say that it's a myth that bookies want even action is silly. They make their money on the juice, not by "outsmarting" the public by adjusting lines.

You'd have to be pretty dense or uninformed to be repeatedly taking lines from a bookie that don't match what you can see in the sports section (unless of course the errors are in your favor).

How does a website "deal double" lines anyway? You mean give one line for one side, and another for the other? A bookie might be able to get away with that with some people, I don't see how a web site would.

Yeah, no question, a bookmaker is gambling every Sunday, and it's +EV because of the juice. But other things being equal, they are going to prefer less variance. That's why they layoff action. It's a myth that they get even action; that they would prefer it is not a myth.

craig r · #8 09-30-2005, 01:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that it's impossible to get even action, but to say that it's a myth that bookies want even action is silly. They make their money on the juice, not by "outsmarting" the public by adjusting lines.

You'd have to be pretty dense or uninformed to be repeatedly taking lines from a bookie that don't match what you can see in the sports section (unless of course the errors are in your favor).

How does a website "deal double" lines anyway? You mean give one line for one side, and another for the other? A bookie might be able to get away with that with some people, I don't see how a web site would.

Yeah, no question, a bookmaker is gambling every Sunday, and it's +EV because of the juice. But other things being equal, they are going to prefer less variance. That's why they layoff action. It's a myth that they get even action; that they would prefer it is not a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the sportsbook managers who have said they want to win and don't care about even action are lying? Scucci is lying? Roxy Roxborough (a "line maker") is lying?

Also, the lines don't have to be off by much for them to make a lot of money.

The way the websites deal two lines is once they peg you as a "sharp", when you login in you get the more sharp line I am not going to give out the books here that do it. But, they aren't small time books that do it.

What sportsbooks do you know that layoff bets? Bookies might do it, but most of the local bookies are much smaller than vegas and offshore books. Maybe the vegas casinos, but most of the money is not bet in vegas.

craig

West · #9 09-30-2005, 02:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So the sportsbook managers who have said they want to win and don't care about even action are lying? Scucci is lying? Roxy Roxborough (a "line maker") is lying?

[/ QUOTE ]

You make it sound like wanting to win and caring about even action are mutually exclusive, which of course they aren't.

You are most likely taking quotes out of context, or failing to read between the lines. Again, I realize that it's impossible to get even action - but if it were possible, bookmakers would love to have it. That isn't a myth.

[ QUOTE ]
The way the websites deal two lines is once they peg you as a "sharp", when you login in you get the more sharp line I am not going to give out the books here that do it. But, they aren't small time books that do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even know what "square" and "sharp" mean, but it seems to me you'd have to be ignorant to bet somewhere that doesn't give you a line unless you "login". How many people who can use a computer in the first place are going to take a bad line when they can easily just look somewhere else for a "real" one? I don't doubt that there are operations out there looking to take cheap advantage of suckers, but the main reason a bookmaker is going to make money is simply the juice. Unless sports are fixed.

I am not privy to know to what degree, if any, a particular online sportsbooks ever laysoff action, I was referring to bookmaking in general. But the reason anyone does it is to reduce their variance, i.e., even out their action.

craig r · #10 09-30-2005, 02:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't even know what "square" and "sharp" mean, but it seems to me you'd have to be ignorant to bet somewhere that doesn't give you a line unless you "login". How many people who can use a computer in the first place are going to take a bad line when they can easily just look somewhere else for a "real" one? I don't doubt that there are operations out there looking to take cheap advantage of suckers, but the main reason a bookmaker is going to make money is simply the juice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to bet at a place that gives a square line. If every place has PHI -6 and you can get the other side at +7.5-120, you would feel like a sucker getting that line? I don't necessarily think it is right that books do this, but if they are willing to give someone a bad line and that person is willing to take advantage of it, why wouldn't they?

There is no possible way for books to balance out all the action. They make much more on lopsided action then they do off of the juice. Read the book, "The Odds". Read Roxborough's book "Race and Sportsbook Management" Call and talk to the line managers at the books. The bottom line is the bottom line. They can't afford these huge operations just by taking the juice. On games they can't predict the outcome, or on very public games, they want to try to prevent overexposure, of course. On this, I think we agree. But, we don't agree on that they only want to balance the action. It won't happen and can't happen. But, they have the edge, because the linesmakers know more about the game and public perception than the general public does.

craig

p.s. I wish other people would chime in to this discussion. Just to see what other's think. I think it is much better than hearing about 4 team parlays. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]