How the bookies amaze me

Attended the Wi Badger vs UMASS today. The spread was 44.5 and I didn't llike either side, but was leaning toward taking the points. Final score: 45-0.

 

I know... I agree... not quite as close as yours, but Oregon had 59.5 to cover and won by 63!

 

Joe,

I know people who regularly bet college football. They know college football. They do not win. It seems there is more going on than just the game. Don't know...just saying.
Good luck.

 

I find college football to be the one sport that I can turn a profit on (along with MLB ML and RL's). The NBA and NFL are really really tight lines and I will struggle from time to time.

But I agree with Joe - it is amazing to me how spot on the odds makers tend to be. It is funny that you mentioned the Wisky game because I noticed that too when I was looking over my plays today.

 

It has always amazed me how they can do this.

Same at places I have worked in the past. They set a sales of goal say 75 k for the month and sure enough you just hit it the last hour of the last day.

They clearly dont have sam rothstein type guys on the payroll anymore so they are using some sort of computer program to do this.

if we could get out hands on that program, we could clean up!!

 

Per RJ Bell...

Through 72 games the favorites have covered 36 and the dogs 36.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100994218

Nice little read on the analytic vs human intuition.

 

Contrary to popular belief, oddsmakers aren't very good at predicting outcomes (final score). They aren't trying to anyway.

If they were THAT good, bettors could gain an edge by blindly playing both sides of a teaser in every game.

 

Yeah they're trying to get action on both sides and limit their exposure.

I've read about some bloody weekends for the books where they have tried and tried to entice action after the percentages on one side skyrocketed. I smile a bit inside when I read those stories about them getting taken for big hits.

 

Yep the line is all about generating action on both sides so they can make their profit on the vig. Has nothing to do with the actual game.

 

What's always amazed me is how they used to set the line before computers. Keeping all of the necessary data on paper pads or notebooks, or just in their head. Now that is a talent.

 

the whole "equal action on both sides" thing is kind of a myth
the books knowingly take positions

 

I believe this. I think "trap" games are real. Some lines look way too good to be true and the books try and take more money in on a side.

 

Casinos are in business to make money. They have investors. Unlike their customers, they don't gamble with their money.

They'd rather take the 9% on the vig and not have to worry about the outcome of the game.

 

No matter how hard they try, books rarely have equal action on both sides.

And the vig is 4.5%, not 9%........

Bettor A- $110 on Redskins
Bettor B- $110 on Cowboys

Sports book collects $220. Pays $210 ($110 + $100) to winner.
Keeps $10 vig.

$10 / $220 = 4.5% profit.

 

Yep. I was thinking about one side of the bet. But, your math is correct.

 

I use to enjoy the days where you had to shop around for lines when indivdual corporations use to own the casinos.
Now I tend to find it very bland and they won't move off of certain numbers. Just have you lay additional juice on a number if they are getting too much action on a team in order to intise people to bet the other.

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9422.pdf

 

I find issue with his analysis almost immediately.

"First, I demonstrate that the bookmaker does not appear to be trying to set prices to equalize the amount of money bet on either side of a wager. In almost one-half of all games, at least two-thirds of the bets fall on one side of the
gamble."

I realize this is the guy that wrote Freakanonmics (excellent book). But the number of bets on one side of a bet has nothing to do with the amount of money wagered on either side of the bet.

There's absolutely no correlation between number bets to amount of money bet.

 

Thanks for posting. There's one paragraph on page 5, that I found interesting. As others have pointed out, bookmakers set sucker lines, knowing they will increase profit. This confirms that.

"The third possible scenario combines elements of the two situations described in the preceding paragraphs. If bookmakers are not only better at predicting game outcomes, but also proficient at predicting bettors preferences, they can do even better in expectation than to simply collect the commission. By systematically setting the “wrong” prices in a manner that takes advantage of bettor preferences, bookmakers can increase profits.

For instance, if bookmakers know that local bettors prefer local teams, they can skew the odds against the local team. There
are constraints on the magnitude of this distortion, however, since bettors who know the “correct” price can generate positive returns if the posted price deviates too much from the true odds.