Books wins big

[zico20]

Here is the article from ESPN. The bettors took a bath this year.

http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/12253876/nevada-sports-bettors-wagered-lost-more-ever-2014

[burnsy]

Nice article. The Seattle Seahawks rewarded them last year. They are attempting to parlay that in this Super Bowl. The real line that they set is Seahawks minus 2 1/2. I heard this week that 4 times as much was bet on the Patriots. Making the Seahawks a slight fave was the bait and the public is swallowing the hook again. The truth is they like Seattle again and stand to make another ton if they repeat. People are suckers for the media, star power and perception. One team won this for fun last year, the other has not won one since 2003.....if you listen to people talk you would think its the opposite and New England are the defending champs. Vegas calls this the old bait and switch.....The article points out that the books made almost 20 million off of last years Super Bowl. I wonder who they want people to bet on? :)

[Stillriledup]

Nice article. The Seattle Seahawks rewarded them last year. They are attempting to parlay that in this Super Bowl. The real line that they set is Seahawks minus 2 1/2. I heard this week that 4 times as much was bet on the Patriots. Making the Seahawks a slight fave was the bait and the public is swallowing the hook again. The truth is they like Seattle again and stand to make another ton if they repeat. People are suckers for the media, star power and perception. One team won this for fun last year, the other has not won one since 2003.....if you listen to people talk you would think its the opposite and New England are the defending champs. Vegas calls this the old bait and switch.....The article points out that the books made almost 20 million off of last years Super Bowl. I wonder who they want people to bet on? :)


People betting on the Patriots shows you that sports bettors are clowns for the most part. Now, i'm not saying the Pats will necessarily lose, but the bet they're making doesn't meet all the 'checks and balances' of a good wager. They were handed a division title in a weak division, played 2 cushy home games, were lucky to win one of them and had a bad team roll over in the other one. The AFC is very weak this year, there's no proof that there aren't 5 teams in the NFC better than everyone in the AFC and yet, the public is betting the Pats like they're coming out of the stronger conference. Other than Baltimore, who's any good in the AFC?

So, just on "company lines" the Pats are the "Wrong side".

None of this means the Pats are going to lose, but ignoring the stronger conference thing and HOW the Pats got to this game is a fatal long run flaw that most bettors don't seem to even know they're making.

[thaskalos]

If the Vegas sportsbooks were booking SRU's basketball action...they wouldn't be bragging about their profits.

[Stillriledup]

If the Vegas sportsbooks were booking SRU's basketball action...they wouldn't be bragging about their profits.

That's what i'm tryin to tell ya!! :D

[burnsy]

People betting on the Patriots shows you that sports bettors are clowns for the most part. Now, i'm not saying the Pats will necessarily lose, but the bet they're making doesn't meet all the 'checks and balances' of a good wager. They were handed a division title in a weak division, played 2 cushy home games, were lucky to win one of them and had a bad team roll over in the other one. The AFC is very weak this year, there's no proof that there aren't 5 teams in the NFC better than everyone in the AFC and yet, the public is betting the Pats like they're coming out of the stronger conference. Other than Baltimore, who's any good in the AFC?

So, just on "company lines" the Pats are the "Wrong side".

None of this means the Pats are going to lose, but ignoring the stronger conference thing and HOW the Pats got to this game is a fatal long run flaw that most bettors don't seem to even know they're making.

I'm on board SRU, with every thing you said. Of course the Seahawks could lose, but that's the correct move. Totally agree. I'm a little biased though because I placed a bet on the Seahawks when they were 11-1. Somehow beating up on Indy at home is a big accomplishment???????

[Stillriledup]

I'm on board SRU, with every thing you said. Of course the Seahawks could lose, but that's the correct move. Totally agree. I'm a little biased though because I placed a bet on the Seahawks when they were 11-1. Somehow beating up on Indy at home is a big accomplishment???????

Teams who win their Championship game in a laugher often lose the Super Bowl. Bills won 51-3 vs raiders and lost, Giants won 41-0 and lost to the Ravens and there's a few others...the only teams who can crush the Title game and then win the SB are 'dynasty' teams...Pats far from that talentwise.

If someone said to me who should they play, i'd say play Seattle or skip the game, i'm not seeing where the Pats are "Value" because their easy road to hoe out of the softer conference isn't being factored into the betting line...Seattle is the value win or lose.

[Dark Horse]

The article points out that the books made almost 20 million off of last years Super Bowl. I wonder who they want people to bet on? :)

The books don't bet (at least not the Vegas ones). They couldn't care less who wins. When the action is not split into two more or less equal halves, they'll move the line. They make their percentage no matter who wins. The fact that they earned more last year only means that more money was wagered.

And that, more money wagered in Vegas, was always the point behind the anti internet gambling legislation.

[horses4courses]

Looking at how the public perceives this year's SB,
I am struck by two things:

(1) They will always favor the team with the "bigger name" QB.
Brady is, obviously, HOF bound and his achievements
tower over Wilson's. This, for many casual bettors,
is the deciding factor. It takes more than the QB to win
a football game, but Joe Public doesn't care about that.
(2) Which team was more impressive in their last game?
The public cares about that when betting the SB.
It doesn't matter about strength of opposition.
A blowout win over an average Indy team is visually
more impressive than a scraped out W against a very
good GB team (who could have used better coaching late).

Three out of four Joe Publics will, consequently, bet NE this time.
That's not to say whether they are right, or wrong.
The fourth Joe Public who takes Seattle is probably still hurting
from betting Denver last year. That Joe still recalls Peyton
being rocked, and can imagine the same happening to Brady.

I figure this game is too close to call - Seattle were better last year.
They're kinda like a claiming horse you love, but his shins are sore.

The easier part is estimating the direction of the action, and the number
isn't juicy enough to tempt wiseguys into buying back on Seattle.
Bookmakers will definitely have a side to root for in this game,
and it's not the Patriots.

Good luck to all betting the game!

[thaskalos]

God looks out for the bookmakers.

[horses4courses]

The books don't bet (at least not the Vegas ones). They couldn't care less who wins. When the action is not split into two more or less equal halves, they'll move the line. They make their percentage no matter who wins. The fact that they earned more last year only means that more money was wagered.

And that, more money wagered in Vegas, was always the point behind the anti internet gambling legislation.

Having worked in bookmaking in Nevada for many years,
I know that this is not true in the least.

There are 4 possible outcomes for each book on the SB.
Favorite with either the OV or UN, and the same for the dog.
On occasion (maybe one in five SBs), high volume that has
been fairly equally spread, gives you a profit no matter the
outcome of the game. That is not the normal situation, though.

As a rule, favorite and the over is a loser for the books.
The other 3 combinations vary with the circumstances,
so there is no hard and fast rule for those.

Nirvana for the books?
That happens when a fairly highly favored team (say -6, or more)
wins the game, but does not cover the spread. As far as money-line
betting goes, the bulk of it is bet on the underdog winning the game
at attractive odds. If a book can lock up the majority of that money-line
action, it's icing on the cake. They already won all the bets on the
favorite laying the points.

Proposition action has steadily grown over the years on the SB.
The books usually holds well on these gimmick bets, as the vig
is normally pretty high and gives the public little chance.
However, when something freaky happens like last year's
opening score being a safety, the books can payout large sums
on a longshot like that. Usually not enough to make the props
a loser, though.

Then there are the parlay cards.
This is the area where Nevada books have tightened their belts
so much, it's close to obscene. Caesars actually put out a "ties lose"
card - and there's not a single hook on it. It's the closest thing to
daylight robbery in Nevada books - there should be a law against
them. It's a bad year for the SB cards not to hold 35%.

In closing, this year's game having such a close spread creates
an unusual situation. The line isn't close to the wiseguys'
salivation numbers, which are 3, 4, and 7. They will also bite back
on higher numbers like 9 through 14.5 in search of the middle.
It won't happen this year, and I have no idea what it's going to
take to get them involved on a large scale this time.

There's a chance that handle may drop on the game in Nevada
this year, simply because the number won't tempt much sharp action.

[Dark Horse]

Having worked in bookmaking in Nevada for many years,
I know that this is not true in the least.

There are 4 possible outcomes for each book on the SB.
Favorite with either the OV or UN, and the same for the dog.
On occasion (maybe one in five SBs), high volume that has
been fairly equally spread, gives you a profit no matter the
outcome of the game. That is not the normal situation, though.

As a rule, favorite and the over is a loser for the books.
The other 3 combinations vary with the circumstances,
so there is no hard and fast rule for those.


They don't need to win on every single game because the playing field is tilted in their favor. As far as the Superbowl, and other huge games, the books will make money no matter who wins. If they don't, they shouldn't be in the business of bookmaking. There have certainly been plenty of offshore outfits in that category. But Vegas is considered conservative in sports betting. They're afraid of big bets, and have far lower limits than places like Pinnacle.

[horses4courses]

They don't need to win on every single game because the playing field is tilted in their favor. As far as the Superbowl, and other huge games, the books will make money no matter who wins. If they don't, they shouldn't be in the business of bookmaking. There have certainly been plenty of offshore outfits in that category. But Vegas is considered conservative in sports betting. They're afraid of big bets, and have far lower limits than places like Pinnacle.

All I'm talking about here is the Super Bowl, not regular games.

High volume on a solid number should get a win
for the books no matter what the outcome.
That happens less than you think, though.

Very often, there is at least one side/total combination
that hurts the house. Then they are rooting against that
outcome, and the thought of answering to doubting
executives is not a pleasant one following a SB loss.
Doesn't happen very often, but it can occur.

As far as big SB bets go, any book that won't take a
six figure wager on a side shouldn't be betting.
I don't know of any in Nevada that wouldn't,
except for the tiny mom and pop joints.

[zico20]

Hey h4c,

I got a question for you. Does individual books lay off money at other books if they have a huge difference right before game time. I have always wondered about this. Since they want 50-50 on each team, it makes no sense to sit on a 200,000 to 50,000 spread.

[Tall One]

God looks out for the bookmakers.



Sig worthy... :ThmbUp:

[_______]

The books may not balance on every single game but so long as you are +200,000 on one side and -40,000 on the other, you should do okay on coin flips in the long run.

I think they love publicizing when they get hurt for the same reason the casino wants to publicize slot winners.

[horses4courses]

Hey h4c,

I got a question for you. Does individual books lay off money at other books if they have a huge difference right before game time. I have always wondered about this. Since they want 50-50 on each team, it makes no sense to sit on a 200,000 to 50,000 spread.

We never did at Caesars Tahoe back in the day (1987-2004)
It's pretty rare for books of any size to lay off money.
Small books, yes. They might.
It gets complicated, though, because any hedging
ability has to be set up with the approval of
Nevada Gaming Control. You can't just suddenly
decide that you want to get off a game.

I see what you're saying about lopsided action.
The only way I could see you getting that far out
of whack is if a big casino player wanted a huge bet
late in the day. Say, some whale wants 200-500K
on a side in the SB. This has to be the type of player
that execs will cater to - no matter what.
That kind of action needs corporate approval,
and there are more factors at work than a mere
sports wager. For the company, it has to be good business
to take this player's action. The outcome is secondary.

You better move that line if you want buyback.
Especially if that number is unlikely to get you
sided, or middled. If you're on 3, 4, or 7 you have
to take at least twice your normal risk before moving.
Getting off them can really hurt you.

With William Hill buying up all the satellite operations in Nevada,
they are now a factor in the market, as they have so many outlets.
There really aren't any small books left - they've nearly all been combined.

Much has changed in the business since I was in it.
The internet has seen to that, along with cell phones.
At the end of the day, though, it's all about booking
action on and around good betting lines.

[Frost king]

All I know, that the last 11 times that Belicick has had two weeks to prepare for an opponent, that has not played New England that year, he is 11-0.

[Stillriledup]

The toughest opponents for the Pats have been historically teams who aren't scared of them. Zero chance Pete Carroll and his boys are "frightened' of the mystique and aura of the coach and QB. Teams who go into there intimidated (the Colts for example) just roll over if the stage is too big for them. Think of all the times the Pats lost big games...to the Giants in the SB, to the Ravens and the Jets in the Title games at home....all those games were teams who were not even close to being intimidated by them. They prey on teams who are mentally weak and the teams who have no problem standing up to the "bully" have the best shot.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

We never did at Caesars Tahoe back in the day (1987-2004)....

Thanks for the posts, horses4courses - it's always interesting to hear about the folks on the "right" side of the counter for sports betting.

I watched Super Bowl XXVII at Caesar's in Tahoe when Dallas drubbed the Bills 52-17. I recall loading up on a prop wager that Emmett Smith would outrush Thurmon Thomas, and then being very scared I wouldn't get a second half bet down on Dallas when they were leading 28-10 at halftime - the lines were long, but fortunately Michael Jackson's show was long enough for me to get my ticket. Used to love going to that book, but my friends moved from Tahoe to Lake Havasu, so I haven't been there in years.

[horses4courses]

Thanks for the posts, horses4courses - it's always interesting to hear about the folks on the "right" side of the counter for sports betting.

I watched Super Bowl XXVII at Caesar's in Tahoe when Dallas drubbed the Bills 52-17. I recall loading up on a prop wager that Emmett Smith would outrush Thurmon Thomas, and then being very scared I wouldn't get a second half bet down on Dallas when they were leading 28-10 at halftime - the lines were long, but fortunately Michael Jackson's show was long enough for me to get my ticket. Used to love going to that book, but my friends moved from Tahoe to Lake Havasu, so I haven't been there in years.

It was a good book for a long time.
William Hill run it now - fine for sports, horses not so much.
They are due to make improvements when it is moved to a
different location in the casino this March/April. We'll see.

Hard Rock just opened in the old Horizon/High Sierra/Sahara
building this week. They are attracting a crowd.
William Hill runs the book there also - sports only.
Says something about the demographic they are seeking.

[burnsy]

2016 SB futures

I like the Green Bay Packers +1000, 10-1

Buffalo Bills +7500, 75-1
Dallas Cowboys +2000, 20-1

Chalk
Seattle +650, 13-2
New England, +800, 8-1

[Stillriledup]

2016 SB futures

I like the Green Bay Packers +1000, 10-1

Buffalo Bills +7500, 75-1
Dallas Cowboys +2000, 20-1

Chalk
Seattle +650, 13-2
New England, +800, 8-1

N.E. won't be winning any divisions next year with inflated balls. Bills will hammer them and win that Division. Rex's revenge! :D

[Hoofless_Wonder]

It was a good book for a long time.
William Hill run it now - fine for sports, horses not so much.
They are due to make improvements when it is moved to a
different location in the casino this March/April. We'll see.

Hard Rock just opened in the old Horizon/High Sierra/Sahara
building this week. They are attracting a crowd.
William Hill runs the book there also - sports only.
Says something about the demographic they are seeking.

Lots of change in the industry, for sure. Hopefully, someday, the Federal and State governments will realize how much "revenue" they're leaving on the table by not legalizing sports betting throughout the U.S. Ideally, they should make gambling income tax free like in the UK, and then maybe we'd see those local mom-and-pop bookies popping up on every street corner.

Yeah, I know - it's a pipe-dream.....

[horses4courses]

Looks like a small win for some, a loss for others.

http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/nfl/2015-02-01/super-bowl-betting-results-closing-line-point-spread-winning-props-vegas-pats

[Dark Horse]

They love to complain, but the bottom line is still positive:

Despite being dinged by teasers and parlays, the intense interest in prop bets means the books are likely to record a small win on Sunday night.

“We did okay, but if this was 1985 without the props, we’d be having a rough day," said Osborne, whose books had slightly more New England action on side bets. "We overcame the all-way teaser and also the Patriots to OVER combination.”

Added Kornegay, "Without props, it would have been a bad day.”

[horses4courses]

Worst result for NV books since 2008, winning 2.8%

If it weren't for prop bets, parlay cards, futures, etc.,
they likely would have taken a small loss.

Handle also looks down by about $3m

David Payne Purdum ‏@DavidPurdum 34m34 minutes ago
Nevada sports books won $3.2 million off of $115.9 million wagered on the Super Bowl, according to gaming control.