Say you were a bookie....

[Page Jacobson]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually you profit slightly

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I made an error in my math. You end up winning $50.

Your other points are well taken too.

[ohnonotthat]

Yikes

Would you even want your name associated with a 46% win rate ?

*

Obviously the answer to your (I assume sarcastic) question is "the same as anyone else" although this guy is losing 4.76% of a much larger figure.

Back in the day when bookmakers sat in the back rooms of bars one customer like this guy often made it possible for the bookmaker to come to own the bar - 3 or 4 like this would have him owning the entire block.

[ohnonotthat]

No, there are not.

Unless you believe in people being born with bad luck you will never find a "square" against whom you can bet for a sure profit.

There is not a person on the planet whose expectation on any even money selection is less than 50-50; it's the 11-10 (or these days the 21-20) that breaks them - not their inability to handicap games.

Suggestion: If you want to be taken seriously here post a "didn't you know I was just kidding" as soon as possible.

It's OK to fall for the "pull my finger" gag but it's not OK to believe that it was the tug of the finger that caused the fart.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

- Chris

[ohnonotthat]

Huh ?

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
No, there are not.

Unless you believe in people being born with bad luck you will never find a "square" against whom you can bet for a sure profit.

There is not a person on the planet whose expectation on any even money selection is less than 50-50; it's the 11-10 (or these days the 21-20) that breaks them - not their inability to handicap games.

Suggestion: If you want to be taken seriously here post a "didn't you know I was just kidding" as soon as possible.

It's OK to fall for the "pull my finger" gag but it's not OK to believe that it was the tug of the finger that caused the fart.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

- Chris

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, he is right and you are wrong. Squares can hit less than 50% of their picks. For example, most squares bet more favorites than dogs. For many sports (i.e. NFL), the line is shaded towards the favorite for this very reason.

Judging by his two posts, he seems to know what he is talking about and certainly doesn't need any pointers from an unknowledgable source.

[Mr_J]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you believe in people being born with bad luck you will never find a "square" against whom you can bet for a sure profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

When we say a monkey or dart thrower will hit 50%, it's because they are betting randomly. Overall, they will have an even mix of home teams, away teams, dogs, faves etc. They are just as likely to bet on a >50% team as a <50% team.
However, squares do NOT bet randomly, just like sharps do not bet randomly. Squares are more likely to bet teams that are poor value, where as sharps are more likely to bet teams that are value. Squares have an anti-skill (lol) while sharps have skill. See what I'm getting at??

[ohnonotthat]

I understand your point; unfortunately your reasoning is flawed.

A square will often (or even always) fail to bet teams where there is value but this is not the same as saying they WILL bet teams that have no value.

A square looks at the board, checks stats, listens to the opinion(s) of others . . . then bets the team that the "voices tell him to [bet]".

If you highlighted 10 teams on any given Saturday (or Sunday) and asked a large enough sample of squares to choose a side in each game you'd get close to a perfect balance on each of the 10 games.

What makes a sucker a sucker is not that an innate tendency to spend his money foolishly, it's the innate (or more likely learned or chosen) inability to find opportunities to
spend it wisely.

There is an old joke about a guy who has been getting murdered betting sports; things have gone so badly he's down to his last $100.

He walks into the sportsbook with that "oh, why me" look on his face and is immediately greeted by one of Vegas' top wiseguys. The sharpie takes pity on this loser, pulls him aside and whispers in his ear, "listen - I know you've been getting killed and I can't bear to watch anyone suffer like you've been. I have the lock of the century for you. There are injuries nobody knows of, two of the stars are "in on it" and even the refs have been paid off. Go for it; you can't lose. I'll even lend you 1,000 to help you out".

The loser smiles from ear to ear, thanks the wiseguy and immediately starts asking all the others in the room if they have a team they are especially hot on.

The sharpie gets a little offended. "What's wrong with you - I gave you the best tip of all time and I even staked you so you could play them and you're running around asking them what THEY think. Why don't you bet the team I gave you ?"

"Of course I'm going to bet them; I was just getting some input as to who to use for the other half of the parlay".

*

[Mr_J]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your point

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you don't.

[ QUOTE ]
A square will often (or even always) fail to bet teams where there is value but this is not the same as saying they WILL bet teams that have no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said they will always bet no value teams, I said they were more likely to.

I'm not sure what you disagree with, and I don't think I can explain it any more clearly.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your point; unfortunately your reasoning is flawed.

A square will often (or even always) fail to bet teams where there is value but this is not the same as saying they WILL bet teams that have no value.

A square looks at the board, checks stats, listens to the opinion(s) of others . . . then bets the team that the "voices tell him to [bet]".

If you highlighted 10 teams on any given Saturday (or Sunday) and asked a large enough sample of squares to choose a side in each game you'd get close to a perfect balance on each of the 10 games.
What makes a sucker a sucker is not that an innate tendency to spend his money foolishly, it's the innate (or more likely learned or chosen) inability to find opportunities to
spend it wisely.

There is an old joke about a guy who has been getting murdered betting sports; things have gone so badly he's down to his last $100.

He walks into the sportsbook with that "oh, why me" look on his face and is immediately greeted by one of Vegas' top wiseguys. The sharpie takes pity on this loser, pulls him aside and whispers in his ear, "listen - I know you've been getting killed and I can't bear to watch anyone suffer like you've been. I have the lock of the century for you. There are injuries nobody knows of, two of the stars are "in on it" and even the refs have been paid off. Go for it; you can't lose. I'll even lend you 1,000 to help you out".

The loser smiles from ear to ear, thanks the wiseguy and immediately starts asking all the others in the room if they have a team they are especially hot on.

The sharpie gets a little offended. "What's wrong with you - I gave you the best tip of all time and I even staked you so you could play them and you're running around asking them what THEY think. Why don't you bet the team I gave you ?"

"Of course I'm going to bet them; I was just getting some input as to who to use for the other half of the parlay".

*

[/ QUOTE ]


The part in bold is definetly not true. There is ALWAYS lopsided action, on most every game, due to squares v the rest. I book for about 20 guys, all squares (but all in the same area, so its not a ture sample). But I can tell you what teams people will bet when the lines come out. Case in point, monday nights phi/sea game. I knew last monday that the betting would be 90/10 in favor of the fav. So I hung it out at -5 and STILL got a huge lopside (i think only one person took philly).