Why favorites are on a roll in NFL '05

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Because they're more interested in maximizing their expected value than in minimizing their variance, of course. Bankroll is no issue for a casino (or other large sportsbook), so they can afford to take the variance hit if they're convinced that they can improve their EV that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are big corporations with stock on the NYSE and boards of directors. They want guaranteed (ie juice) profit and will do everything in their power to minimize the risk aspect. The risk aspect being exposure to one side or the other.

This doesn't mean that they always get 50/50 action which would be ideal but that 50/50 action is what they strive for. When the difference between a 3 point and a 3.5 point line will shift the balance one way or the other I have little doubt that they use that power to shift it the way they want to be on the side they think has the best chance. But if they could shift it to 50/50 dead ass equal on every game that is exactly what they would do and take absolutely as little risk as possible. Sometimes they are forced into a side but that doesn't mean they want a side and when that happens they will try to manipulate it to their best advantage.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because they're more interested in maximizing their expected value than in minimizing their variance, of course. Bankroll is no issue for a casino (or other large sportsbook), so they can afford to take the variance hit if they're convinced that they can improve their EV that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are big corporations with stock on the NYSE and boards of directors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The profit/loss from the sportsbook at the Taj on any given Sunday, no matter how big the swing, is a fraction of a drop in the bucket. You say they want to minimize their risk, but, since they're not in danger of going bust because of a run of bad luck, the only risk they have to worry about is the risk of not making as much money as they're able to. If they can take a +EV side on a particular game, there's no real disincentive to do so, since variance is usually not a concern.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
The profit/loss from the sportsbook at the Taj on any given Sunday, no matter how big the swing, is a fraction of a drop in the bucket.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting you choose a casino that is (was?) in bankruptcy. Besides I thought NJ didn't have sports betting? In any event nothing is a drop in the bucket and those huge sportsbooks have a ton of overhead and the whole idea of them (for the casino) is to offer that service and collect the juice.

But how long do you think the sportsbook execs keep their cushy jobs if they start losing money in a business with practically guarenteed profits? They have a guarenteed 10% edge. If they try to squeeze an extra couple percent out by taking a side which is ultra risky they are fools.

Casinos aren't in the business of gambling, they are in the business of getting mathematical edges. Sportsbooks offer one of the best mathematical edges available if they can get equal action so that becomes their goal.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The profit/loss from the sportsbook at the Taj on any given Sunday, no matter how big the swing, is a fraction of a drop in the bucket.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting you choose a casino that is (was?) in bankruptcy. Besides I thought NJ didn't have sports betting? In any event nothing is a drop in the bucket and those huge sportsbooks have a ton of overhead and the whole idea of them (for the casino) is to offer that service and collect the juice.

But how long do you think the sportsbook execs keep their cushy jobs if they start losing money in a business with practically guarenteed profits? They have a guarenteed 10% edge. If they try to squeeze an extra couple percent out by taking a side which is ultra risky they are fools.

Casinos aren't in the business of gambling, they are in the business of getting mathematical edges. Sportsbooks offer one of the best mathematical edges available if they can get equal action so that becomes their goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you here Mr. B, at least in an ideal sense. But as I've said previously there is a large and reliably consistent swath of NFL bettors who make side-shading profitable when in doubt, thus making the collective sportsbooks another very large participant in the market.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you here

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disagreeing with you neccessarily either. They can't always get even action. They will get exposure at times. It is my belief they will try to minimize that exposure. It is also my belief they will try to manipulate that exposure to their best benefit.

But unlike others I do not believe they seek out this exposure and would be much happier with dead even action on every game. But that isn't likely to happen but I still believe that is their desire and goal and lines are set to get as close to equal action as possible and never set to give big books exposure to one side or the other. But when exposure is inevitable they are set so the book will get the exposure they want.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you here

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disagreeing with you neccessarily either. They can't always get even action. They will get exposure at times. It is my belief they will try to minimize that exposure. It is also my belief they will try to manipulate that exposure to their best benefit.

But unlike others I do not believe they seek out this exposure and would be much happier with dead even action on every game. But that isn't likely to happen but I still believe that is their desire and goal and lines are set to get as close to equal action as possible and never set to give big books exposure to one side or the other. But when exposure is inevitable they are set so the book will get the exposure they want.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember correctly, this conversation started because you said the NFL couldn't be beaten in large part due to the fact that so much action was coming in on these 256 games yearly. So while I'm not saying the NFL is easy pickins per se, it is easier than your average sport simply because there is so much predictable amateur action. I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with this point or not as a result of this large action. The sportsbook side-taking issue I believe was a tangent.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
predictable amateur action

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I think the only way to beat NFL is by fading the public. But... I don't think that's all that reliable. I think the market is so efficient with so much money involved that it is basically a coinflip and that the public will likely correct as often as they are wrong.

Those "predictable" amateurs have been winning for the past few weeks even though they started slowly this season.

I'm glad you like NFL capping and are successful at it. I know I never could be. I just think there is too much money making the lines "correct" and too much parity in the league with no way to predict the funny bounces and no way for those funny bounces to ever equal out.

In a sport like baseball you have a zillion games to equal out the fluke plays and a real history and track record for each team. Plus it is much more thinly bet making for many "incorrect" lines. I think the way I think about and approach baseball wagering makes the NFL betting look impossible to me.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Casinos aren't in the business of gambling, they are in the business of getting mathematical edges.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely my point. If they always sought balanced action, they would be passing up on some mathematical edges. Taking a +EV side isn't really "gambling" for an entity with an effectively infinite bankroll.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
If they always sought balanced action, they would be passing up on some mathematical edges.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally disagree with this statement. The mathematical edge of sports juice or slot machines or craps etc is virtually guaranteed. Once you start taking sides in sports wagers you are gambling. They don't want to gamble when they have a sure thing with balanced action. As I have stated the nature of the business occassionally forces them into a side and when that happens they try to make it the side they wantbut that isn't their desire.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
I totally disagree with this statement. The mathematical edge of sports juice or slot machines or craps etc is virtually guaranteed. Once you start taking sides in sports wagers you are gambling. They don't want to gamble when they have a sure thing with balanced action. As I have stated the nature of the business occassionally forces them into a side and when that happens they try to make it the side they wantbut that isn't their desire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do they put out lines that they know will get heavy one-sided play, and then not move them a pip when the action comes in 80/20%?