So how did the Books lose?

[BottlesOf]

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 ]
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.

[BottlesOf]

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."

[Moneyline]

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.

[Page Jacobson]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in the long run.

[Mr_J]

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.

[Slacker13]

[ 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.

[tech]

[ 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.

[BottlesOf]

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.

[Moneyline]

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.