how does vegas work? (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

i have been seeing lots of conversation about vegas not caring about which way the action goes because they make it so it is even on both sides.

So I have some questions.

1. If the spread is 10 points and you make your bet. That spread is fixed right? They cant move it on you can they?

2. If 1 is true, then wouldnt manipulating the line just to even the action sometimes be very risky for them? as they could create scenarios where they lose both sides.

3. Who sets these spreads?

 

[TheWick]

They get 10% of every bet (usually) so if a game is bet 50/50 and 1 million is put on the game. They make 100k no matter who wins.

 

[parasaurolophus]

They get 10% of every bet (usually) so if a game is bet 50/50 and 1 million is put on the game. They make 100k no matter who wins.

which question does this answer?

 

[GreenNGold]

Vegas tries to create equal action on both sides, but each and every game does not have equal action. For games that do not have equal action, they win some and lose some. They offer so many different lines for so many different games, sometimes they will get hurt bad by a specific game that did not have equal action, and sometimes they will win more than expected as well.

1. If you make a bet when the spread is 10 points, your specific bet is locked in at 10 points and that won't change.

2. They can change the spread for future bets. If they are getting a lot of one-sided action, they can adjust that spread up or down to try to entice people to bet the other side, to equal out the action. If they change the spread to much though, you are right in that it becomes risky, they are opening themselves up to "middling" so, they don't normally change the spread by more than 1-2 points. For example, if you bet the underdog, at +10 (and so was everyone else), and Vegas lowers the line to only be a 3 point favorite, you could now bet the favorite at -3, and if the favorite won by 4,5,6,7,8, or 9 points you would win both bets and vegas would be extra screwed.

3. They have some very smart bookies/sportsbet workers that set the lines. Also, they usually have a select group of "smart" gamblers that they allow to make some big bets before they go public with the lines to test them out, and adjust accordingly to try to make their lines as sharp as possible.

 

[RUSF18]

They get 10% of every bet (usually) so if a game is bet 50/50 and 1 million is put on the game. They make 100k no matter who wins.

which question does this answer?

It attempts to answer your first one, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. They will of course try to mitigate the risk as much as possible, but no matter how much they move the lines, it isn't a guarantee that people will bet everything equally. My completely novice guess is that 5% of games end up with even action, and the house either collects or pays out largely on the remainder. Of course once everything is accounted for, they come out ahead.And your personal spread is locked once you make your bet. When the number moves, you either lose or gain value on your bet.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

i have been seeing lots of conversation about vegas not caring about which way the action goes because they make it so it is even on both sides.So I have some questions.1. If the spread is 10 points and you make your bet. That spread is fixed right? They cant move it on you can they?2. If 1 is true, then wouldnt manipulating the line just to even the action sometimes be very risky for them? as they could create scenarios where they lose both sides.3. Who sets these spreads?

#1 Once you place your bet, the spread on your game for your bet is fixed. The spread could change for later bets made subsequently.#2 Ideally, Vegas wants a "balanced book" and that is what the spread is intended to create such that ~ 50% of the action is on either team. Vegas then would simply earn the "vig" (10%).#3 See #2. Vegas sets these with achieving #2 in mind

 

[CalBear]

According to some researched published in 2007, Vegas does not split lines 50/50. Vegas appears to identify and exploit inefficiencies in the public betting pool--notably, people over-bet favorites, and it seems like Vegas is totally fine with allowing them to do that.

 

[p00h]

They get 10% of every bet (usually) so if a game is bet 50/50 and 1 million is put on the game. They make 100k no matter who wins.

which question does this answer?

It attempts to answer your first one, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. They will of course try to mitigate the risk as much as possible, but no matter how much they move the lines, it isn't a guarantee that people will bet everything equally. My completely novice guess is that 5% of games end up with even action, and the house either collects or pays out largely on the remainder. Of course once everything is accounted for, they come out ahead.And your personal spread is locked once you make your bet. When the number moves, you either lose or gain value on your bet.

GreenNGold has it right, though I'll take this opportunity to elaborate a bit. FYI, had a raging gambling problem for a long time, went to meetings, had some therapy, etc. Went through all the motions of working for shady books to pay of debt, etcetcetc. So I have some insight to the whole scene...Basically, sports gambling is a multi BILLION dollar business worldwide. And by many accounts, that number is understated as the illegal joints don't exactly participate in surveys and share their numbers with the world...Having said that, the goal of the bookmakers, whether big or small, is to get even action on both sides. As close as they can get it that way. Because at 10% vig on billions of dollars, you can imagine how much money there is to be made just to be the middle man between 2 parties looking to bet on two different sides of the same game. With money lines, the logic is a bit different, but lets stick to the point spread scenarios. So thjey want equal action. How do they go about making the line. They have a bunch of experts that basically share their feelings on what the game differential will be based on their experience, research etc. Once they devise this line, they share it with other experts, including pro gamblers. THis allows them to fine tune it a bit, and then it hits the streets. Once action starts to get booked, they manage the line based on that action. HOWEVER, sometimes they manipulate lines based on how the people are viewing a game. For example, the 3, 7, 10 denominations in football are important, as they hold psychological importance to common gamblers. So, if bookies think a team should beat another team by more than a td, rather than making the line lets say 10, they'll make it 7.5. This will trick some gamblers into taking the underdog because they like the hook hanging off that 7. Team loses by 10, bookies make a bit more than just the vig. However, these cases are the exception, not the norm. Also, it is my belief that books overvalue favorites on a consistent basis, because the common public gambler has a tendency to want to go with the favorite. So if they believe a team should be favorite be 3 pts, they will make it a 4 pt favorite. If you look at favorites vs. dogs over the stretch of a season, I'd bet(if i were still a betting man) a whole bunch of money that the dogs will out do the favs by atleast a 55-45 margin. So these are the little things that books do to give themselves a better edge than the 10% they're already collecting on even action...Now, there are games that get heavy action on 1 side. And books will take a wash on these games from time to time. However, for as many of these washes they take, there will be the same amount of lobsided action games that they come out on top of. The key here is looking at the long run. A proper bookmaking operation is not looking at these games on a weekly basis. Or even over a season. Analyze the numbers over a 10 year period, and you see all this stuff getting closer and closer to 50-50. So if you have the cashflow to hang in there, you will, on a consistent basis, make 10% on all action you book. And by always overweighing the line, and the common man opting for the favorite, you will give yourself a slight advantage there as well. Also, individual books that get lobsided action, more often than not, will offload a lot of that action to a bigger fish. Its like a pyramid scheme. That local book that takes your action will go to his guy in the bronx. Bronx guy, if his action is abnormally disproportional, will dump it off to the guy above him, etcetcetc, till it gets to the top guys in teh sky. The top guy in the sky, he doesn't care if he takes 1 big hit, because he knows eventually he'll get a big one his way. Just have to ride out the ups and downs and have the cashflow to weather it all. Moral of the story, making money on sports gambling is a losing proposition, always and forever. THe 0.0000001% of the gambling world that makes money on sports gambling have an innate ability to sniff out stuff. Thats why those guys go pro and make a living off that. Even for them, cold stretches are common, and the smart ones know when to hold em and know when to fold em.

 

[fightingillini]

According to some researched published in 2007, Vegas does not split lines 50/50. Vegas appears to identify and exploit inefficiencies in the public betting pool--notably, people over-bet favorites, and it seems like Vegas is totally fine with allowing them to do that.

That's correct. They have frequent "trap" games, where Vegas is confident of an outcome, and the betting public will generally think differently. Sometimes you see spreads that are too good to be true.....those are usually trap games.When correct, Vegas wins a buttload on those games.......and they are usually right.

 

[CalBear]

According to some researched published in 2007, Vegas does not split lines 50/50. Vegas appears to identify and exploit inefficiencies in the public betting pool--notably, people over-bet favorites, and it seems like Vegas is totally fine with allowing them to do that.

That's correct. They have frequent "trap" games, where Vegas is confident of an outcome, and the betting public will generally think differently. Sometimes you see spreads that are too good to be true.....those are usually trap games.When correct, Vegas wins a buttload on those games.......and they are usually right.

They don't even need to be "usually" right; they just need to be right more often than they're wrong.Here's a way to look at it for the people who think the lines are always 50/50. Let's say you have identified a statistical advantage; you can take a position that pays them 10% of the betting pool in all scenarios, or you can take a position that pays 10% of the betting pool, plus an additional 10%, 60% of the time. The risk is that you'd lose 10% of the pool 40% of the time. As a bettor or investor, the only reason you'd take the conservative position is if you're extremely risk-averse.

Does anyone really think big casinos are extremely risk-averse?

 

[p00h]

According to some researched published in 2007, Vegas does not split lines 50/50. Vegas appears to identify and exploit inefficiencies in the public betting pool--notably, people over-bet favorites, and it seems like Vegas is totally fine with allowing them to do that.

That's correct. They have frequent "trap" games, where Vegas is confident of an outcome, and the betting public will generally think differently. Sometimes you see spreads that are too good to be true.....those are usually trap games.When correct, Vegas wins a buttload on those games.......and they are usually right.

They don't even need to be "usually" right; they just need to be right more often than they're wrong.Here's a way to look at it for the people who think the lines are always 50/50. Let's say you have identified a statistical advantage; you can take a position that pays them 10% of the betting pool in all scenarios, or you can take a position that pays 10% of the betting pool, plus an additional 10%, 60% of the time. The risk is that you'd lose 10% of the pool 40% of the time. As a bettor or investor, the only reason you'd take the conservative position is if you're extremely risk-averse.

Does anyone really think big casinos are extremely risk-averse?

This is a solid point, however I am of strong belief that over a long long period, it all goes near 50-50. Because the games where they have a statistical advantage doesn't always work out for their advantage. Thats why they play the games. That article has data supporting home dogs covering at a 57% clip over the last 10 years. You don't know what happened the 10 years before that, let alone going all the way back to the beginning of football wagering. They will eventually end up at 50-50. And at 50-50, there are still hundereds of millions of dollars to go around PER YEAR, for those take this action...

 

[TheWick]

They get 10% of every bet (usually) so if a game is bet 50/50 and 1 million is put on the game. They make 100k no matter who wins.

which question does this answer?

Quesiton #2....that is why the line moves.

 

[culdeus]

According to some researched published in 2007, Vegas does not split lines 50/50. Vegas appears to identify and exploit inefficiencies in the public betting pool--notably, people over-bet favorites, and it seems like Vegas is totally fine with allowing them to do that.

That's correct. They have frequent "trap" games, where Vegas is confident of an outcome, and the betting public will generally think differently. Sometimes you see spreads that are too good to be true.....those are usually trap games.When correct, Vegas wins a buttload on those games.......and they are usually right.

They don't even need to be "usually" right; they just need to be right more often than they're wrong.Here's a way to look at it for the people who think the lines are always 50/50. Let's say you have identified a statistical advantage; you can take a position that pays them 10% of the betting pool in all scenarios, or you can take a position that pays 10% of the betting pool, plus an additional 10%, 60% of the time. The risk is that you'd lose 10% of the pool 40% of the time. As a bettor or investor, the only reason you'd take the conservative position is if you're extremely risk-averse.

Does anyone really think big casinos are extremely risk-averse?

When casinos get killed it isn't on sides. It's on big ML dogs and when the game ends inside more than two teasers on primetime games. Sides and totals wash out usually. Even parlays can hurt them in the variance. The juice on 2 teamers is actually fairly low. People that think casinos make money on getting 50/50 amuse me. You'd think that myth would be gone by now, but some people cling to it for some reason.

And people that think that books win every year also amuse me. They can and do lose, and often. Big vegas books with their overhead are happy to just tread water most years. Their profit margin per square foot is the lowest on the floor.

 

[CalBear]

This is a solid point, however I am of strong belief that over a long long period, it all goes near 50-50. Because the games where they have a statistical advantage doesn't always work out for their advantage. Thats why they play the games. That article has data supporting home dogs covering at a 57% clip over the last 10 years. You don't know what happened the 10 years before that, let alone going all the way back to the beginning of football wagering. They will eventually end up at 50-50. And at 50-50, there are still hundereds of millions of dollars to go around PER YEAR, for those take this action...

The home dog has been the best bet in football for as long as I've been betting on football. The #2 bet is to always take the two-TD underdog. All those two bets need to continue being good bets forever, is a betting population that gets too enamored of winners.

 

[p00h]

According to some researched published in 2007, Vegas does not split lines 50/50. Vegas appears to identify and exploit inefficiencies in the public betting pool--notably, people over-bet favorites, and it seems like Vegas is totally fine with allowing them to do that.

That's correct. They have frequent "trap" games, where Vegas is confident of an outcome, and the betting public will generally think differently. Sometimes you see spreads that are too good to be true.....those are usually trap games.When correct, Vegas wins a buttload on those games.......and they are usually right.

They don't even need to be "usually" right; they just need to be right more often than they're wrong.Here's a way to look at it for the people who think the lines are always 50/50. Let's say you have identified a statistical advantage; you can take a position that pays them 10% of the betting pool in all scenarios, or you can take a position that pays 10% of the betting pool, plus an additional 10%, 60% of the time. The risk is that you'd lose 10% of the pool 40% of the time. As a bettor or investor, the only reason you'd take the conservative position is if you're extremely risk-averse.

Does anyone really think big casinos are extremely risk-averse?

When casinos get killed it isn't on sides. It's on big ML dogs and when the game ends inside more than two teasers on primetime games. Sides and totals wash out usually. Even parlays can hurt them in the variance. The juice on 2 teamers is actually fairly low. People that think casinos make money on getting 50/50 amuse me. You'd think that myth would be gone by now, but some people cling to it for some reason.

And people that think that books win every year also amuse me. They can and do lose, and often. Big vegas books with their overhead are happy to just tread water most years. Their profit margin per square foot is the lowest on the floor.

Lower than games like blackjack and craps that are basically 50-50. You are the one that is amusing here my man. Highly amusing...

 

[RUSF18]

Just a bit OT, but has anyone read The Smart Money by Michael Konik? I picked it up for a few bucks awhile back and while I'm not very far into it, it's decent bathroom reading material.

 

[elcohiba]

I cannot believe how long it's been since I read this very entertaining and informative book on the subject....

The National Football Lottery is a book written by Larry Merchant, who is a sportswriter. In this book, Merchant attempts to discover what would happen if he were to bet on National Football League games for an entire season. He is given $30,000 by his publisher to do so.

The book was written in 1973, and the season in question is the 1972 NFL season, special in which the 1972 Miami Dolphins were the only team in NFL history to go undefeated with an unblemished 17-0 mark. Ay this time in some states, including New York, where Merchant lives, have a ban on gambling, which is also discussed some in the book. In the end, after his ups and downs, Merchant comes out up over $17,000. This is very good considering he bet fewer than $1,000 on most games.

 

[culdeus]

According to some researched published in 2007, Vegas does not split lines 50/50. Vegas appears to identify and exploit inefficiencies in the public betting pool--notably, people over-bet favorites, and it seems like Vegas is totally fine with allowing them to do that.

That's correct. They have frequent "trap" games, where Vegas is confident of an outcome, and the betting public will generally think differently. Sometimes you see spreads that are too good to be true.....those are usually trap games.When correct, Vegas wins a buttload on those games.......and they are usually right.

They don't even need to be "usually" right; they just need to be right more often than they're wrong.Here's a way to look at it for the people who think the lines are always 50/50. Let's say you have identified a statistical advantage; you can take a position that pays them 10% of the betting pool in all scenarios, or you can take a position that pays 10% of the betting pool, plus an additional 10%, 60% of the time. The risk is that you'd lose 10% of the pool 40% of the time. As a bettor or investor, the only reason you'd take the conservative position is if you're extremely risk-averse.

Does anyone really think big casinos are extremely risk-averse?

When casinos get killed it isn't on sides. It's on big ML dogs and when the game ends inside more than two teasers on primetime games. Sides and totals wash out usually. Even parlays can hurt them in the variance. The juice on 2 teamers is actually fairly low. People that think casinos make money on getting 50/50 amuse me. You'd think that myth would be gone by now, but some people cling to it for some reason.

And people that think that books win every year also amuse me. They can and do lose, and often. Big vegas books with their overhead are happy to just tread water most years. Their profit margin per square foot is the lowest on the floor.

Lower than games like blackjack and craps that are basically 50-50. You are the one that is amusing here my man. Highly amusing...

lol at blackjack and craps being 50-50. Have you ever been to a casino and seen how people really play? With sports there isn't a "wrong" way to play really. Just poor money management. With blackjack you can put yourself in horrible posistions by betting certain ways. In craps people play the hell out of the center field despite it having a house edge of greater than 8%. Much higher than sports.

If sports books were really money makers year in and year out you'd see a push to put them in tracks everywhere. You haven't because they aren't.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

My understanding is that Culdeus is correct regarding B&M casino sportsbooks - that they are statistically the least profitable use of floorspace in the casinos and that the long term trend is to phase them out. They have certainly gotten smaller over the years and many casinos have little more than a betting window or no sports book at all. I believe CalBear is correct - and Maurile has an article or two he commonly links to in these discussions - supporting the assertion that bookmakers frequently set lines specifically to encourage betting on one side, thereby intentionally taking a position in the event rather than just looking for 50/50.

The intersting aspect of the OP's comment for me is the concept of the books getting middled. I read an article several years ago which referenced a superbowl (I believe one of the old Steelers games) which is referred to as "Black Sunday" in gambling circles due to a disastrous result for bookies in which both the early and late money paid off due to a line movement. I believe the Packers' win over the Patriots in '96 was also a bad one, with the early money winning and the late money a push.

 

[fightingillini]

My understanding is that Culdeus is correct regarding B&M casino sportsbooks - that they are statistically the least profitable use of floorspace in the casinos and that the long term trend is to phase them out. They have certainly gotten smaller over the years and many casinos have little more than a betting window or no sports book at all. I believe CalBear is correct - and Maurile has an article or two he commonly links to in these discussions - supporting the assertion that bookmakers frequently set lines specifically to encourage betting on one side, thereby intentionally taking a position in the event rather than just looking for 50/50.The intersting aspect of the OP's comment for me is the concept of the books getting middled. I read an article several years ago which referenced a superbowl (I believe one of the old Steelers games) which is referred to as "Black Sunday" in gambling circles due to a disastrous result for bookies in which both the early and late money paid off due to a line movement. I believe the Packers' win over the Patriots in '96 was also a bad one, with the early money winning and the late money a push.

It was the Superbowl when Pittsburgh played Dallas. I believe the opening line was PIT -3.5. Action was heavy on both sides, with a lot more PIT money at -3.5, the spread rose to PIT -4.5 where the books wrote a lot of Dallas money.The final score was PIT 21, DAL 17, and the books got middled.

 

[Dragon1952]

The action on the Pittsburgh-San Diego game was 64/36 in favor of the Steelers....not anywhere near even. If the books were interested in equalling the action they would have upped the line to Chargers +7 or so. If that TD at the end had been upheld, the books would have taken a bloodbath. Were they that sure of the outcome that they would take such a chance with 100,000,000 bet on the game? Maybe they knew something we didn't?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AtaY...t&type=lgns

 

[-baller]

My understanding is that Culdeus is correct regarding B&M casino sportsbooks - that they are statistically the least profitable use of floorspace in the casinos and that the long term trend is to phase them out. They have certainly gotten smaller over the years and many casinos have little more than a betting window or no sports book at all. I believe CalBear is correct - and Maurile has an article or two he commonly links to in these discussions - supporting the assertion that bookmakers frequently set lines specifically to encourage betting on one side, thereby intentionally taking a position in the event rather than just looking for 50/50.The intersting aspect of the OP's comment for me is the concept of the books getting middled. I read an article several years ago which referenced a superbowl (I believe one of the old Steelers games) which is referred to as "Black Sunday" in gambling circles due to a disastrous result for bookies in which both the early and late money paid off due to a line movement. I believe the Packers' win over the Patriots in '96 was also a bad one, with the early money winning and the late money a push.

yeah, I don't think sportsbooks are big moneymakers for the casinos.they're just there to get people in the door --- like loss leaders at supermarkets.

 

[parasaurolophus]

My understanding is that Culdeus is correct regarding B&M casino sportsbooks - that they are statistically the least profitable use of floorspace in the casinos and that the long term trend is to phase them out. They have certainly gotten smaller over the years and many casinos have little more than a betting window or no sports book at all. I believe CalBear is correct - and Maurile has an article or two he commonly links to in these discussions - supporting the assertion that bookmakers frequently set lines specifically to encourage betting on one side, thereby intentionally taking a position in the event rather than just looking for 50/50.The intersting aspect of the OP's comment for me is the concept of the books getting middled. I read an article several years ago which referenced a superbowl (I believe one of the old Steelers games) which is referred to as "Black Sunday" in gambling circles due to a disastrous result for bookies in which both the early and late money paid off due to a line movement. I believe the Packers' win over the Patriots in '96 was also a bad one, with the early money winning and the late money a push.

yeah, I don't think sportsbooks are big moneymakers for the casinos.they're just there to get people in the door --- like loss leaders at supermarkets.

i think they make good money, just not as good per sq ft as other games. poker tables arent as profitable either. Thats why years ago many of the casinos got rid of them. When the poker craze hit they brought them back. I think in several places they took space away from the race/sports book.You can only fill so many Blackjack tables though.

 

[The Jerk]

It was the Superbowl when Pittsburgh played Dallas. I believe the opening line was PIT -3.5. Action was heavy on both sides, with a lot more PIT money at -3.5, the spread rose to PIT -4.5 where the books wrote a lot of Dallas money.

The final score was PIT 21, DAL 17, and the books got middled.

You have the right concept, teams, and host city (Miami), but the SB you are referring to is SB X while the actual gambling (and movie, coincidentally) Black Sunday was SB XIII: PIT 35, DAL 31. LINK (scroll down roughly halfway)

With a match offering a point spread, however, bookmakers must be careful of moving the line too much. Assume, for example, that a large number of Oklahoma betters caused the line to be moved from 27 points all the way to 29 points. If Oklahoma won the game by 28 points, the bookmaker would have to pay both those who wagered that Oklahoma would win by 27 and those who took Kansas on the 29 point spread. Bookmakers refer to such an event as "being middled." This famously occurred in Super Bowl XIII between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Dallas Cowboys, which American bookmakers still remember as Black Sunday. For that game, bookmakers opened Pittsburgh as a 3.5 point favorite, and the line closed just before kickoff at Pittsburgh -4.5. Pittsburgh won the game 35-31, enabling both those who took the Steelers -3.5 and those who wagered on the Cowboys +4.5 to collect.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I believe CalBear is correct - and Maurile has an article or two he commonly links to in these discussions - supporting the assertion that bookmakers frequently set lines specifically to encourage betting on one side, thereby intentionally taking a position in the event rather than just looking for 50/50.

found it --> http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...p;#entry5530408

 

[Faust]

 

[the_Truth]

The action on the Pittsburgh-San Diego game was 64/36 in favor of the Steelers....not anywhere near even. If the books were interested in equalling the action they would have upped the line to Chargers +7 or so. If that TD at the end had been upheld, the books would have taken a bloodbath. Were they that sure of the outcome that they would take such a chance with 100,000,000 bet on the game? Maybe they knew something we didn't?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AtaY...t&type=lgns

64% of bettors being on Pitt does NOT mean 64% of the money was on Pitt. Everyone is confusing this, no one except the books themselves knows their exposure on that game.

 

[NajehHejan]

I forget where I heard or read it, but there's also the story of the guy who cleaned up on SB XXXI. He bet $1MM on the Packers -13.5 at one casino and took +14.5 on the Patriots at another for $1MM. The Packers won by 14 and the dude cleaned up on both. I may have read about that story in "Bringing Down the House". Or somewhere else.

 

[Dragon1952]

The action on the Pittsburgh-San Diego game was 64/36 in favor of the Steelers....not anywhere near even. If the books were interested in equalling the action they would have upped the line to Chargers +7 or so. If that TD at the end had been upheld, the books would have taken a bloodbath. Were they that sure of the outcome that they would take such a chance with 100,000,000 bet on the game? Maybe they knew something we didn't?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AtaY...t&type=lgns

64% of bettors being on Pitt does NOT mean 64% of the money was on Pitt. Everyone is confusing this, no one except the books themselves knows their exposure on that game.

Did you read the freakin' article Einstein? Obviously not. An estimated 64% of $100,000,000 was bet on the Steelers. Do a Google search...you'll find several articles with the same exact figures.

 

[the_Truth]

The action on the Pittsburgh-San Diego game was 64/36 in favor of the Steelers....not anywhere near even. If the books were interested in equalling the action they would have upped the line to Chargers +7 or so. If that TD at the end had been upheld, the books would have taken a bloodbath. Were they that sure of the outcome that they would take such a chance with 100,000,000 bet on the game? Maybe they knew something we didn't?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AtaY...t&type=lgns

64% of bettors being on Pitt does NOT mean 64% of the money was on Pitt. Everyone is confusing this, no one except the books themselves knows their exposure on that game.

Did you read the freakin' article Einstein? Obviously not. An estimated 64% of $100,000,000 was bet on the Steelers. Do a Google search...you'll find several articles with the same exact figures.

Yeah I did, and I have seen those numbers everywhere the last 2 days. They're bull####. Someone went to Wagerline or a similar site, found that 64% of bettors were on Pitt, then pulled the $100,000,000 figure straight out of his ### and voila, determined that Vegas cleaned up.

 

[Dragon1952]

Yeah I did, and I have seen those numbers everywhere the last 2 days. They're bull####. Someone went to Wagerline or a similar site, found that 64% of bettors were on Pitt, then pulled the $100,000,000 figure straight out of his ### and voila, determined that Vegas cleaned up.

You mean this RJ Bell guy went to Wagerline? Why? He's got his own service. He's being quoted all over the Internet. "An estimated $100 million was wagered worldwide on the Steelers/Chargers game, according to RJ Bell of Pregame.com, a Las Vegas-based sports information service. Approximately 66 percent of that money was bet on the Steelers, with only 34 percent on the Chargers."

 

[Big Sug]

yada yada yada

hi p00hbear not for nothin' but i know someone who has beat the NFL for about 5 years running....not for big numbers or anything, but just sayin'

 

[p00h]

yada yada yada

hi p00hbear not for nothin' but i know someone who has beat the NFL for about 5 years running....not for big numbers or anything, but just sayin'

you sir, are obviously part of the 0.0000001 %, aka a professional. The rest of us have no chance of winning, you know it, I know it, and every other sucker losing his money knows it...Like Rick James said...Cocaine is a helluva a drug...

 

[TommyGilmore]

I'm not ashamed to admit that I've occasionally suffered from premature equal action.

 

[the_Truth]

Yeah I did, and I have seen those numbers everywhere the last 2 days. They're bull####. Someone went to Wagerline or a similar site, found that 64% of bettors were on Pitt, then pulled the $100,000,000 figure straight out of his ### and voila, determined that Vegas cleaned up.

You mean this RJ Bell guy went to Wagerline? Why? He's got his own service. He's being quoted all over the Internet. "An estimated $100 million was wagered worldwide on the Steelers/Chargers game, according to RJ Bell of Pregame.com, a Las Vegas-based sports information service. Approximately 66 percent of that money was bet on the Steelers, with only 34 percent on the Chargers."

Notice how I said, "or a similar site..."?He was being quoted in articles almost immediately after the game, when he most definitely did not have knowledge of the amount of money bet on the game. Funny too how the estimated amount is a nice round $100 million. Pregame.com does not offer any information on the amount of money wagered on games. Because this RJ Bell joker DOES NOT KNOW. He does have a section of the site similar to Wagerline where he lists the percentage of bettors on each side, and I guarantee this is exactly where he pulled the 64%/36% figure from. Nice advertising gimmick for him, gets his name in articles all over the internet and he doesn't even have cite his "sources".Look, Vegas is not taking a huge position on random NFL games where there is not going to be a lot of public money coming in. The Super Bowl? Yeah, but not a random Week 11. They balance the line as the action comes in, anyone who says differently is trying to sell something(Like this RJ character).

 

[Dragon1952]

Yeah I did, and I have seen those numbers everywhere the last 2 days. They're bull####. Someone went to Wagerline or a similar site, found that 64% of bettors were on Pitt, then pulled the $100,000,000 figure straight out of his ### and voila, determined that Vegas cleaned up.

You mean this RJ Bell guy went to Wagerline? Why? He's got his own service. He's being quoted all over the Internet. "An estimated $100 million was wagered worldwide on the Steelers/Chargers game, according to RJ Bell of Pregame.com, a Las Vegas-based sports information service. Approximately 66 percent of that money was bet on the Steelers, with only 34 percent on the Chargers."

Notice how I said, "or a similar site..."?He was being quoted in articles almost immediately after the game, when he most definitely did not have knowledge of the amount of money bet on the game. Funny too how the estimated amount is a nice round $100 million. Pregame.com does not offer any information on the amount of money wagered on games. Because this RJ Bell joker DOES NOT KNOW. He does have a section of the site similar to Wagerline where he lists the percentage of bettors on each side, and I guarantee this is exactly where he pulled the 64%/36% figure from. Nice advertising gimmick for him, gets his name in articles all over the internet and he doesn't even have cite his "sources".Look, Vegas is not taking a huge position on random NFL games where there is not going to be a lot of public money coming in. The Super Bowl? Yeah, but not a random Week 11. They balance the line as the action comes in, anyone who says differently is trying to sell something(Like this RJ character).

I guess it depends on who you believe as far as splitting action. I've read at least a hundred articles, most by people that have been in the business or are in the business (of either setting odds or professional gambling), and just as many that say they try and split action will tell you that's bull####. Maybe on certain games, maybe half or even 3/4, but it certainly isn't applied across the board to every single game.

 

[fantasyplayer]

I'm certainly no expert, but I find it very hard to believe that large books would intentionally expose themselves on a single game when they can make a guaranteed 10% if the action is equal on both sides. I believe they always set and manipulate the lines to that end. Of course they don't always get there, but I imagine that's always the goal.

 

[p00h]

you guys keep arguing about the action on 1 game. 1 GAME! I don't know what the split was $ wise on that game, but lets say it was 64-36 for the sake or arguement. The books aren't exposing themselves to anything, even if the total action is 100 million. Because there will be a thousand more games that go 64-36, and in the long run, the book will win half of them, and lose half of them. Will it be an exact 50-50?!? Doubt it. But over a long long run, it goes to 50-50. Its basic statistics. Limits and what not. Take that limit to infinity, and the split goes to 50-50. Its humorous hearing people focus in on 1 game like that's gonna make or break a book. The whole concept of booking is having the cash flow to ride out these games, getting to that 50-50 split in the long run and thus collecting that vig. Plain and simple. They do certain things to increase their %, such as overweigh the favs and play against common public sentement, but in the long run, their goal is to keep making that vig...

 

[p00h]

Also, you guys keep referring everything to Vegas this and Vegas that. I hope you realize Vegas is but a portion of the total action booked on sports. Off shore books and even localized illegal books own a huge % of the market share, and have a significant influence on everything from making likes to moving lines...

 

[the_Truth]

I'm not saying Vegas this, I'm not saying Vegas anything. The thing people don't understand is that Vegas doesn't set the lines, the bettors do.

Openers are put out at Bookmaker or other online shops and the sharp bettors hit them hard. They move fast, often within 15-30 seconds and eventually settle at a number that attracts relatively equal action. Look at the line history for the Pitt/SD game, it moved from +3.5 or 4 up to 5.5 before settling at 4 by game time. What does this mean? Pitt money came in early, then SD money came in and pushed the line back to 4. RJ Bell has no idea how much money was on each side, but my guess that it was basically even is a lot more likely to be right than his 64/36 figure which I'm pretty sure he pulled from 64% of bettors being on Pitt.

 

[the_Truth]

Yeah I did, and I have seen those numbers everywhere the last 2 days. They're bull####. Someone went to Wagerline or a similar site, found that 64% of bettors were on Pitt, then pulled the $100,000,000 figure straight out of his ### and voila, determined that Vegas cleaned up.

You mean this RJ Bell guy went to Wagerline? Why? He's got his own service. He's being quoted all over the Internet. "An estimated $100 million was wagered worldwide on the Steelers/Chargers game, according to RJ Bell of Pregame.com, a Las Vegas-based sports information service. Approximately 66 percent of that money was bet on the Steelers, with only 34 percent on the Chargers."

Notice how I said, "or a similar site..."?He was being quoted in articles almost immediately after the game, when he most definitely did not have knowledge of the amount of money bet on the game. Funny too how the estimated amount is a nice round $100 million. Pregame.com does not offer any information on the amount of money wagered on games. Because this RJ Bell joker DOES NOT KNOW. He does have a section of the site similar to Wagerline where he lists the percentage of bettors on each side, and I guarantee this is exactly where he pulled the 64%/36% figure from. Nice advertising gimmick for him, gets his name in articles all over the internet and he doesn't even have cite his "sources".Look, Vegas is not taking a huge position on random NFL games where there is not going to be a lot of public money coming in. The Super Bowl? Yeah, but not a random Week 11. They balance the line as the action comes in, anyone who says differently is trying to sell something(Like this RJ character).

I guess it depends on who you believe as far as splitting action. I've read at least a hundred articles, most by people that have been in the business or are in the business (of either setting odds or professional gambling), and just as many that say they try and split action will tell you that's bull####. Maybe on certain games, maybe half or even 3/4, but it certainly isn't applied across the board to every single game.

Anyone in the sports betting business has a serious agenda........selling their picks or other services. Anyone who actually knows how to beat the markets will not be dispensing that info publicly, so take anything you read about sports betting with a grain of salt.

 

[the_Truth]

you guys keep arguing about the action on 1 game. 1 GAME! I don't know what the split was $ wise on that game, but lets say it was 64-36 for the sake or arguement. The books aren't exposing themselves to anything, even if the total action is 100 million. Because there will be a thousand more games that go 64-36, and in the long run, the book will win half of them, and lose half of them. Will it be an exact 50-50?!? Doubt it. But over a long long run, it goes to 50-50. Its basic statistics. Limits and what not. Take that limit to infinity, and the split goes to 50-50. Its humorous hearing people focus in on 1 game like that's gonna make or break a book. The whole concept of booking is having the cash flow to ride out these games, getting to that 50-50 split in the long run and thus collecting that vig. Plain and simple. They do certain things to increase their %, such as overweigh the favs and play against common public sentement, but in the long run, their goal is to keep making that vig...

How long is the long run? Long enough to bankrupt a sports book if they have millions of dollars of exposure on random Week 11 NFL games. No one is saying one game is going to break a book that is a strawman argument, all I am arguing is that the figures thrown around by RJ Bell are unverifiable and probably false and sports books were most likely not exposed in a big way on this game. Therefore all the "Vegas rigged the game" sentiment is basically BS.

 

[p00h]

you guys keep arguing about the action on 1 game. 1 GAME! I don't know what the split was $ wise on that game, but lets say it was 64-36 for the sake or arguement. The books aren't exposing themselves to anything, even if the total action is 100 million. Because there will be a thousand more games that go 64-36, and in the long run, the book will win half of them, and lose half of them. Will it be an exact 50-50?!? Doubt it. But over a long long run, it goes to 50-50. Its basic statistics. Limits and what not. Take that limit to infinity, and the split goes to 50-50. Its humorous hearing people focus in on 1 game like that's gonna make or break a book. The whole concept of booking is having the cash flow to ride out these games, getting to that 50-50 split in the long run and thus collecting that vig. Plain and simple. They do certain things to increase their %, such as overweigh the favs and play against common public sentement, but in the long run, their goal is to keep making that vig...

How long is the long run? Long enough to bankrupt a sports book if they have millions of dollars of exposure on random Week 11 NFL games. No one is saying one game is going to break a book that is a strawman argument, all I am arguing is that the figures thrown around by RJ Bell are unverifiable and probably false and sports books were most likely not exposed in a big way on this game. Therefore all the "Vegas rigged the game" sentiment is basically BS.

I agree with damn near everything you're saying my man. Except that anyone is concerned with a 64-36 split in terms of bookmakers. I believe books that can't handle significant exposure will just offload the action to someone who can. And there is always someone who can. Read above what I stated about the pyramid structure. Any book, from the fine italian american in your neighborhood taking the 10 timers to the Vegas guys taking millions, will offload some of their action once they feel they don't any further exposure. Someone is always above you to take the action. Once it gets high enough, obviously the risk/exposure is mitigated by significant shifts in the line. But once you get high enough, the books are not concerned with a 64-36 split. Because they will win as many as they lose. Now if you tell me 95-5 split, I'd doubt it very much, because no one wants that kind of exposure when there is guaranteed vig to be made, and the line will begin shifting to get that split to a managable position. However there is nothing overly abnormal about a 64-36 split. Operations that don't want to deal with that type of exposure will just offload a % of their action elsewhere to get to 50-50 if they so choose, though I'd be hard pressed to believe any respectable operation would care to do so. The key here is the long run. Everything about bookmaking is defined by the long run. As long as you don't go broke in the meantime. In the long run, everything will go to 50-50, thus making this multibillion dollar industry highly profitable. The few pros that make money off sports gambling are a blip on the big picture radar. The common bettor is lucky if he goes 50-50, and if he is so lucky, he's still paying the vig...

 

[Chase Stuart]

f you look at favorites vs. dogs over the stretch of a season, I'd bet(if i were still a betting man) a whole bunch of money that the dogs will out do the favs by atleast a 55-45 margin.

I've got a few old files that shows the spreads.From '03 to mid-way through '05 (that's where my file ends) the favorites won 50.1% of the games and the underdogs won 49.9% of the games.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This is a solid point, however I am of strong belief that over a long long period, it all goes near 50-50. Because the games where they have a statistical advantage doesn't always work out for their advantage. Thats why they play the games. That article has data supporting home dogs covering at a 57% clip over the last 10 years. You don't know what happened the 10 years before that, let alone going all the way back to the beginning of football wagering. They will eventually end up at 50-50. And at 50-50, there are still hundereds of millions of dollars to go around PER YEAR, for those take this action...

The home dog has been the best bet in football for as long as I've been betting on football. The #2 bet is to always take the two-TD underdog. All those two bets need to continue being good bets forever, is a betting population that gets too enamored of winners.

Same data but for two touchdown underdogs from '03 to midway '05, they went 1-4 ATS. Make it 11+ point underdogs and they're 9-13 ATS.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This is a solid point, however I am of strong belief that over a long long period, it all goes near 50-50. Because the games where they have a statistical advantage doesn't always work out for their advantage. Thats why they play the games. That article has data supporting home dogs covering at a 57% clip over the last 10 years. You don't know what happened the 10 years before that, let alone going all the way back to the beginning of football wagering. They will eventually end up at 50-50. And at 50-50, there are still hundereds of millions of dollars to go around PER YEAR, for those take this action...

The home dog has been the best bet in football for as long as I've been betting on football. The #2 bet is to always take the two-TD underdog. All those two bets need to continue being good bets forever, is a betting population that gets too enamored of winners.

Same data: There were 427 home dogs. They went 205-206-16 ATS.It's amazing what people can talk themselves into believing.

 

[the_Truth]

you guys keep arguing about the action on 1 game. 1 GAME! I don't know what the split was $ wise on that game, but lets say it was 64-36 for the sake or arguement. The books aren't exposing themselves to anything, even if the total action is 100 million. Because there will be a thousand more games that go 64-36, and in the long run, the book will win half of them, and lose half of them. Will it be an exact 50-50?!? Doubt it. But over a long long run, it goes to 50-50. Its basic statistics. Limits and what not. Take that limit to infinity, and the split goes to 50-50. Its humorous hearing people focus in on 1 game like that's gonna make or break a book. The whole concept of booking is having the cash flow to ride out these games, getting to that 50-50 split in the long run and thus collecting that vig. Plain and simple. They do certain things to increase their %, such as overweigh the favs and play against common public sentement, but in the long run, their goal is to keep making that vig...

How long is the long run? Long enough to bankrupt a sports book if they have millions of dollars of exposure on random Week 11 NFL games. No one is saying one game is going to break a book that is a strawman argument, all I am arguing is that the figures thrown around by RJ Bell are unverifiable and probably false and sports books were most likely not exposed in a big way on this game. Therefore all the "Vegas rigged the game" sentiment is basically BS.

I agree with damn near everything you're saying my man. Except that anyone is concerned with a 64-36 split in terms of bookmakers. I believe books that can't handle significant exposure will just offload the action to someone who can. And there is always someone who can. Read above what I stated about the pyramid structure. Any book, from the fine italian american in your neighborhood taking the 10 timers to the Vegas guys taking millions, will offload some of their action once they feel they don't any further exposure. Someone is always above you to take the action. Once it gets high enough, obviously the risk/exposure is mitigated by significant shifts in the line. But once you get high enough, the books are not concerned with a 64-36 split. Because they will win as many as they lose. Now if you tell me 95-5 split, I'd doubt it very much, because no one wants that kind of exposure when there is guaranteed vig to be made, and the line will begin shifting to get that split to a managable position. However there is nothing overly abnormal about a 64-36 split. Operations that don't want to deal with that type of exposure will just offload a % of their action elsewhere to get to 50-50 if they so choose, though I'd be hard pressed to believe any respectable operation would care to do so. The key here is the long run. Everything about bookmaking is defined by the long run. As long as you don't go broke in the meantime. In the long run, everything will go to 50-50, thus making this multibillion dollar industry highly profitable. The few pros that make money off sports gambling are a blip on the big picture radar. The common bettor is lucky if he goes 50-50, and if he is so lucky, he's still paying the vig...

Thats definitely true, as any advantage gambler knows, the long run is everything, just as long as you are careful with your bankroll.I still think the 64-36 figure is completely made up though, and will believe that until I see proof otherwise.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Bumping this back to the top. I think it can be a super interesting topic.

Especially as it relates to how we take the lines set by the books and predict the game outcome.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Vegas tries to create equal action on both sides, but each and every game does not have equal action. For games that do not have equal action, they win some and lose some. They offer so many different lines for so many different games, sometimes they will get hurt bad by a specific game that did not have equal action, and sometimes they will win more than expected as well.

1. If you make a bet when the spread is 10 points, your specific bet is locked in at 10 points and that won't change.

2. They can change the spread for future bets. If they are getting a lot of one-sided action, they can adjust that spread up or down to try to entice people to bet the other side, to equal out the action. If they change the spread to much though, you are right in that it becomes risky, they are opening themselves up to "middling" so, they don't normally change the spread by more than 1-2 points. For example, if you bet the underdog, at +10 (and so was everyone else), and Vegas lowers the line to only be a 3 point favorite, you could now bet the favorite at -3, and if the favorite won by 4,5,6,7,8, or 9 points you would win both bets and vegas would be extra screwed.

3. They have some very smart bookies/sportsbet workers that set the lines. Also, they usually have a select group of "smart" gamblers that they allow to make some big bets before they go public with the lines to test them out, and adjust accordingly to try to make their lines as sharp as possible.

This is a pretty solid post right here and covers a lot of the questions and answers.
I especially like the 3rd one and could be the big reason lines move quickly when they open and not as much by Wed/Thur before the weekend games.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

1. If the spread is 10 points and you make your bet. That spread is fixed right? They cant move it on you can they?

Your ticket is locked in at whatever the spread was when you bet it.

However, they can (and frequently do) move that line during the week - either in response to money coming in on one side, or in response to information/developments as it emerges. e.g. player practice injury, weather concerns (wind/rain/snow)

I didn't know if you meant "change for your ticket" or "change the line" so apologies if I'm explaining something you already know.

ETA - oh, topic from 2008

Ah well, hopefully @parasaurolophus got their answer by now. lol