Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
My math is correct. The percentage takeout is higher. 120-100 is not the same as 110-110, any more than 440-420 is the same as 110-110.
|
In traditional sports betting(110/100 on each side) 220 is collected(110 on each side) $10 is profit, $210 is paid out. So as stated takeout is 10/220 or about 4.55%
Using the 120/100 model 220 is risked on one side 200 is risked on the other side. So assuming a 50/50 proposition(over the long run the -120 side would win about 51% of the time the -100 side would win about 49% of the time but for the sake of ease we will go with 50/50) and once again 220 is risked $10 is profit(assuming equal amounts were bet on each team 1/2 the time the -120 side wins in which the profit is $20, half the time the -100 side wins in which the profit is $0, so on average the profit remains $10 the amount bet is still $220 and the takeout still remains about 4.55%.
I am hardly a bookmaker and honestly don't follow sports betting that much anymore. I bet the NBA for recreation and that is about it. But it is my opinion the reason that bookmakers move a game to -115 or -120 rather than than going straight from -4 to -4.5 is to lessen their exposure to middles. If they screw up a opening line open the Pats at -4 and let the public ride it up to -6, if the Pats win by 4 or 5 or 6, often get screwed on the outcome(those who bet the Pats at -4 win or push those who bet the other team at +6 either win or push. At least by raising the lines to -115 and -120 they are getting those Pats players to lay extra juice on these games and this practice probably eliminates a lot of players from attempting to middle (middles are hard enough to hit at -110, but if you are having to lay -115 or -120 your chances of making money long run go down dramatically). In other words I think this is more a way of balancing books by reducing exposure rather than any attempt at suckering players into the wrong side (if they knew the right side they can print money just like a sharp bettor can). Also, most sports bettors have been paying -110 for their entire life, to suddenly subject them to -115 or -120 is bad pr.
The one thing that I assume might go on with sports betting is profiling of players. Assuming that sports betting is eventually going to be available on line, I am sure these computer analytics will be tracking every play you make will probably know the players tendencies better than the player does and will likely charge them excessive juice on the plays they are more likely going to make. So if the computer has me tracked as say a value player, it may offer me -115 on the value side and -105 on the other side, if it has me pegged as a sharp, it will offer me -115 on the sharp side and -105 on the other side if it has me pegged as a local/favorite team player (tend to bet my hometown teams or certain teams) they will once again probably try to take advantage of this. How well this will go in the the internet/social media era I do not know. Something tells me if a player is consistently paying -115 on his favorite team the book will lose that player to another book that doesn't profile.
ps. Andy C addressed the takeout issue in prior post.
