Very Interesting Conversation!!!!!

[TMarra6]

All comments are welcome and I am interested in hearing everyone's opinion....I just had a few drinks with my local--whom I have been doing "business" with for 11 years and who has been taking action for 27 years and he had some very valid points about forums such as this. Before I begin...I have nothing but the upmost respect for people in here and have enjoyed this imensely for over two years now.
My local says that on a lot of forums--people who have direct affiliations with Vegas, offshore accounts and sportsbooks come on to these forums to swing $$ to the "books". I have a lot of belief in that. How do we know who each other is?? We only know picks, creative names and catchy avatars. His point is that people get everyone on their specific "bandwagon" with hot picks and then get everyone to believe in a certain person and crush all hopes with catchy "Games of the Millenium", Biggest Play Ever", "Play of the Year" ect... I have seen so many people's picks and system plays lose the biggest plays, but win for a while along the way. Maybe I am overreacting--but what does he have to gain by telling me this. We live in a relitively small town and the few hundred $$ I take home a week in the long run is nothing to the thousands he rakes in with sucker bets and chases. Remember--bookies ALWAYS win!! Do we have "moles" in here?? I am gonna start keeping a close eye in ALL forums here and in other sites and do some past research on past posts and look for those--"Greatest Bet Ever" posts and "Weeknight Game of the Decade" plays. I am sure that I may have just made some enemies, but I am open to criticism and commets and am a big boy and can take it....

[alby]

maybe your local is strokin you cause he dosen't want you to start hammering him.

[The Judge]

I do not doubt that some of this goes on however, it would be only to get late action on a side that books are shorted on. As I have stated many times, books do not gamble simply because they do not have to. Local bookies are a different animal but established books with a large client base simply want to get as close as possible to equal action on both sides of a game. That business model is infallable and only a fool would deviate from it.

I understand that many of the members here do not accept this and are convinced that books set traps, etc. Based on face to face conversations that I have had with major league Bookmakers, I know this to be a myth.

[Jeffreyyy]

I agree with The Judge. The books do not gamble, period. A line is set, based on publiv perception, and the bookl wants 50% on each side, period. That is how they make their money. These forums do not affect the books in anyway. In fact what you are sdaying is not even possible. If what you are saying is true, say for instance tomorrow, Pitt is -3. The books get someone on the forums to tout Denver as their GAME OF THE DECADE, "knowing" everyone will take Denver and it will lose. Well if that scenario is true, then they also would have set the line wrong, the line would have been set to trap betters into taking Denver, knowing Pitt will cover. THis is all hogwash, and the books make enough money on people who simply believe this kind of stuff that they dont have to gamble at all. In fact, I see as many people on here who fade cappers as go with them, so, then the books would have to have some capper take PITT, knowing Pitt will cover, and the people on the forum will take Denver and lose. The bottom line, the books dont gamble, they simply want 50% on each side and they dont give a rats ass who covers. There are times they dont have equal action, and hence the line moves, but they dont trap and dont gamble.

[Will]

im a mole u gotta keep a close eye on me

[IloveBaseball]

The books don't need a mole. They just pay off players to fix a game!!!

[skippy]

Originally Posted by TMarra6

All comments are welcome and I am interested in hearing everyone's opinion....I just had a few drinks with my local--whom I have been doing "business" with for 11 years and who has been taking action for 27 years and he had some very valid points about forums such as this. Before I begin...I have nothing but the upmost respect for people in here and have enjoyed this imensely for over two years now.
My local says that on a lot of forums--people who have direct affiliations with Vegas, offshore accounts and sportsbooks come on to these forums to swing $$ to the "books". I have a lot of belief in that. How do we know who each other is?? We only know picks, creative names and catchy avatars. His point is that people get everyone on their specific "bandwagon" with hot picks and then get everyone to believe in a certain person and crush all hopes with catchy "Games of the Millenium", Biggest Play Ever", "Play of the Year" ect... I have seen so many people's picks and system plays lose the biggest plays, but win for a while along the way. Maybe I am overreacting--but what does he have to gain by telling me this. We live in a relitively small town and the few hundred $$ I take home a week in the long run is nothing to the thousands he rakes in with sucker bets and chases. Remember--bookies ALWAYS win!! Do we have "moles" in here?? I am gonna start keeping a close eye in ALL forums here and in other sites and do some past research on past posts and look for those--"Greatest Bet Ever" posts and "Weeknight Game of the Decade" plays. I am sure that I may have just made some enemies, but I am open to criticism and commets and am a big boy and can take it....

You gotta love those catchy phrases.....LOL

When these plays lose.....its a great way to "thin the herd".....in other words.....they tend to disappear for a while.....a self imposed ban if you will.

[hungjury]

I don't doubt that 'moles' exist, and possibly, in this forum. But the amount of money coming from this forum, to their book, is relatively small compared to the big picture. They make way more money with affiliate programs with forums to get more business.

Unless this was a high-stakes forum, I don't see the benefit of a few thousand dollars on a game, once a month

[skippy]

Originally Posted by hungjury

I don't doubt that 'moles' exist, and possibly, in this forum. But the amount of money coming from this forum, to their book, is relatively small compared to the big picture. They make way more money with affiliate programs with forums to get more business.

Unless this was a high-stakes forum, I don't see the benefit of a few thousand dollars on a game, once a month

They don't need moles.

They can just logon here themselves to see what is going on.

[Bisket]

Sonny Reizner spent many years as a professional-level sports bettor before switching sides of the counter. He gained world-wide fame as manager of the "Hole-In-The-Wall" sportbook at the old Castaways Hotel on the Las Vegas Strip. Many things about sports betting that we take for granted today, Sonny was instrumental in helping design and/or implement. For example, he helped develop contests wherein handicappers compete for prizes and recognition.

I first met Sonny in the late 1980's while doing research for the first edition of my book, How Professional Gamblers Beat The Pro Football Pointspread. Until I began the book, I consciously avoided getting to know anyone behind the counter at a sportbook. The reason is, I regard sports betting as something akin to a war game, - like chess, perhaps. To me, every dollar won or lost is a 'soldier' in my make-believe war, and getting friendly with the 'enemy' is not conducive to a winning attitude.

At that time, like most veteran sports bettors, I thought I had an understanding of what went on behind the counter, but, like most veteran sports bettors, I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about it. I more or less went along with the idea that all 11-10 bettors paid 4.55% vigorish, (which is not correct), that posted lines were more-or-less intended to be predictions, (which also is not correct), and that all sportbook managers tried to precisely balance the money risked on both sides of the same proposition.

...That's not correct, either.

For my book I wanted input from the other side of the counter. Sonny was the first person to come to mind because he's one of the most respected men in the industry. Sonny Reizner is a class act.

As I talked with Sonny I was reminded of something written by Mark Twain. Twain meant it to apply to religionists, but it also applies to gamblers: "It's not what we don't know that hurts us; - it's that we know so much that ain't true." Sure enough, like most sports bettors, I "knew" a lot of stuff that just isn't true.

One fallacy concerns the Bookmaker's need to balance his risk. It's thought that in a Bookmaker's ideal world, bettors would risk exactly the same amount on both sides of a pointspread. By getting an equal amount bet on both sides, the Bookmaker is not forced to bet on one side or the other with 'company' money. Sounds reasonable, and for small bookmakers who are often strapped for financing, it's pretty much true. After all, a bookmaker is not in business to gamble. His job is to act as a broker, much like a Realtor or a stock broker.

As I talked with Sonny I was reminded of something written by Mark Twain. Twain meant it to apply to religionists, but it also applies to gamblers: "It's not what we don't know that hurts us; - it's that we know so much that ain't true."

However, Sonny explained why that perception doesn't apply concerning big-time bookmakers with plenty of working capital. Bookmakers with deep pockets are in a wholly different position than your friendly neighborhood bookie. As Sonny explained to me, big-time books aren't so concerned with balancing their risk; they merely need to get 'enough' action on both sides of a proposition. Here's what I learned from Sonny...

Suppose a total of $11,000 is risked by bettors to win $10,000 on a favorite, but only $5,500 is risked by bettors to win $5,000 on the underdog...Look what happens:

If the dog wins, the book makes a profit of $6,000. (He keeps the $11,000 risked by bettors on the favorite, and pays the underdog bettors their profit of $5,000.)

If the favorite wins, the bookmaker loses $4,500. (He keeps the $5,500 risked by bettors on the underdog, and pays the favorite bettors $10,000 in winnings.)

Essentially, then, in that example, the bookmaker is risking $4,500 in order to win $6,000. In that particular case, he actually breaks even if he can win only 42.9 percent of his 'bets.' Rather than laying $110 to win $100, as is the case with sports bettors, the bookmaker is in effect laying only $75 to win $100! Those are very, very big odds in favor of the house. To the house, when bettors have risked twice as much on one side as the other, every bet is +133! In order for you and me to win $6,000 we'd have to risk $6,600 - not $4,500.

[cman]

Originally Posted by Jeffreyyy

I agree with The Judge. The books do not gamble, period. A line is set, based on publiv perception, and the bookl wants 50% on each side, period. That is how they make their money. These forums do not affect the books in anyway. In fact what you are sdaying is not even possible. If what you are saying is true, say for instance tomorrow, Pitt is -3. The books get someone on the forums to tout Denver as their GAME OF THE DECADE, "knowing" everyone will take Denver and it will lose. Well if that scenario is true, then they also would have set the line wrong, the line would have been set to trap betters into taking Denver, knowing Pitt will cover. THis is all hogwash, and the books make enough money on people who simply believe this kind of stuff that they dont have to gamble at all. In fact, I see as many people on here who fade cappers as go with them, so, then the books would have to have some capper take PITT, knowing Pitt will cover, and the people on the forum will take Denver and lose. The bottom line, the books dont gamble, they simply want 50% on each side and they dont give a rats ass who covers. There are times they dont have equal action, and hence the line moves, but they dont trap and dont gamble.

no the books dont need 50% on each side of each game....they need 50% on the the money as whole to lose....that is why is why I believe that they do choose some games that they have a higher probablility that they will cover...

again dont think they have to get 50% on each game that is crazy and not physically possible....

they need 50% of the money as whole to lose

wde