To clarify for all my friends out there that don't understand line movement and how Vegas works.
When you see a generous line (we think) that moves because of action. Don't think Vegas Knows something you don't.....
Books are not Gamblers.....They are a business... they want to get equal action on either side of the number......they make there 10% or whatever Vig is being laid regardless. For all the volume they receive they turn a profit. They will lay off to much action to other books to even their books.
Anyone who has ever known a bookie that was also gambler probably either never paid you , went broke because they were gambling with you, or both....
To clarify for all my friends out there that don't understand line movement and how Vegas works.
When you see a generous line (we think) that moves because of action. Don't think Vegas Knows something you don't.....
Books are not Gamblers.....They are a business... they want to get equal action on either side of the number......they make there 10% or whatever Vig is being laid regardless. For all the volume they receive they turn a profit. They will lay off to much action to other books to even their books.
Anyone who has ever known a bookie that was also gambler probably either never paid you , went broke because they were gambling with you, or both....
Lol I would love to know what you think it means?......... anyone that has ever been around the business knows this. If books took to much action on one side and didn't lay it off they would lose their behind and be unable to be fluid enough to payout. They like Gamblers, they don't want to be them.
Lol I would love to know what you think it means?......... anyone that has ever been around the business knows this. If books took to much action on one side and didn't lay it off they would lose their behind and be unable to be fluid enough to payout. They like Gamblers, they don't want to be them.
Personally I believe they take a side by handicapping the public. They know when they put a line out where the action will go. They could easily put out a line that generates 50/50 on all games but they dont.
Personally I believe they take a side by handicapping the public. They know when they put a line out where the action will go. They could easily put out a line that generates 50/50 on all games but they dont.
Personally I believe they take a side by handicapping the public. They know when they put a line out where the action will go. They could easily put out a line that generates 50/50 on all games but they dont.
Personally I believe they take a side by handicapping the public. They know when they put a line out where the action will go. They could easily put out a line that generates 50/50 on all games but they dont.
Personally I believe they take a side by handicapping the public. They know when they put a line out where the action will go. They could easily put out a line that generates 50/50 on all games but they dont.
Thatdoesn't make much sense. By hdcp'ing the public that's exactly what they're doing. They're not trying beat the public because they don't have to......the public beats themselves enough.
Personally I believe they take a side by handicapping the public. They know when they put a line out where the action will go. They could easily put out a line that generates 50/50 on all games but they dont.
Thatdoesn't make much sense. By hdcp'ing the public that's exactly what they're doing. They're not trying beat the public because they don't have to......the public beats themselves enough.
Personally I believe they take a side by handicapping the public. They know when they put a line out where the action will go. They could easily put out a line that generates 50/50 on all games but they dont.
No they dont lmao. Bookies would get smacked if they did that if not by the sharps then by the public. If they set out inaccurate lines because its made of some perception of what the public percieves to be the right line then they will get crushed. The dream scenario is to have 50/50 action thats the absolutely best thing that can happen to a bookie. Theres no such thing as them wanting to have 60/40 action and then they "hope" the 40% side win lmfao. Thats not how it works and books would get trashed if that was the case.Theres so many lines, so many games, so many ways of playing going on at the same time so they just intend to set out a line that will take 50/50 action without having to adjust too much.
Personally I believe they take a side by handicapping the public. They know when they put a line out where the action will go. They could easily put out a line that generates 50/50 on all games but they dont.
No they dont lmao. Bookies would get smacked if they did that if not by the sharps then by the public. If they set out inaccurate lines because its made of some perception of what the public percieves to be the right line then they will get crushed. The dream scenario is to have 50/50 action thats the absolutely best thing that can happen to a bookie. Theres no such thing as them wanting to have 60/40 action and then they "hope" the 40% side win lmfao. Thats not how it works and books would get trashed if that was the case.Theres so many lines, so many games, so many ways of playing going on at the same time so they just intend to set out a line that will take 50/50 action without having to adjust too much.
So ideally books want a game to be 50/50 but they are okay with having it be 54/46 at times because thats just what it is, then one time they lose the 54 side and sometimes they win the 54 side so to speak so it will even out in the long run which means they will profit on juice.
If we assume the side with a 53 in a game of 53-47 action hits 100/100 times (which is not only unlikely but also pretty much impossible) then the books will break pretty much even. If they however lost 100/100 times with 60-40 action and the 60% action won all these times then they would lose alot of money - even with juice.
So ideally books want a game to be 50/50 but they are okay with having it be 54/46 at times because thats just what it is, then one time they lose the 54 side and sometimes they win the 54 side so to speak so it will even out in the long run which means they will profit on juice.
If we assume the side with a 53 in a game of 53-47 action hits 100/100 times (which is not only unlikely but also pretty much impossible) then the books will break pretty much even. If they however lost 100/100 times with 60-40 action and the 60% action won all these times then they would lose alot of money - even with juice.
No they dont lmao. Bookies would get smacked if they did that if not by the sharps then by the public. If they set out inaccurate lines because its made of some perception of what the public percieves to be the right line then they will get crushed.
BS. When they set the line at Philly -2.5 over the Lions, they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew everyone and their grandmother wouldnt be able to help themselves betting on Philly vs a shitty Detroit team.
They take a side whether you want to believe it or not.
Look at tonights game. If its not evident enough for you then you dont have a clue.
No they dont lmao. Bookies would get smacked if they did that if not by the sharps then by the public. If they set out inaccurate lines because its made of some perception of what the public percieves to be the right line then they will get crushed.
BS. When they set the line at Philly -2.5 over the Lions, they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew everyone and their grandmother wouldnt be able to help themselves betting on Philly vs a shitty Detroit team.
They take a side whether you want to believe it or not.
Look at tonights game. If its not evident enough for you then you dont have a clue.
"Laying off action" doesn't work anymore. 25 years ago? Yes. 15 years ago? A bit. Now? No.
A lot of books have accounts with other books. If they want to layoff action its actually really easy. Especially with spreads and totals with other books looking to accomplish the same goal. 50/50 split-they all make money this way. Now when an incorrect line gets hammered they will have a hard time fading this action especially with line movement. I have known a few managers through the years at several books that help educate me on this. Books limit their downsize with limits as well. Most Vegas books that take "Whales" will shop some of that action around town or offshore....
Something to remember Books catch 10% on both sides of the wager so it doesn't have to be 50/50 for them to win. They can have as little as a 1% difference in volume on a big game and they will clear a monster profit.
Again I am only addressing totals and sides. ML's tend to be more cost prohibitive with the risk not in difference of result in he outcome but allocated to the risk/return side you lay down.
"Laying off action" doesn't work anymore. 25 years ago? Yes. 15 years ago? A bit. Now? No.
A lot of books have accounts with other books. If they want to layoff action its actually really easy. Especially with spreads and totals with other books looking to accomplish the same goal. 50/50 split-they all make money this way. Now when an incorrect line gets hammered they will have a hard time fading this action especially with line movement. I have known a few managers through the years at several books that help educate me on this. Books limit their downsize with limits as well. Most Vegas books that take "Whales" will shop some of that action around town or offshore....
Something to remember Books catch 10% on both sides of the wager so it doesn't have to be 50/50 for them to win. They can have as little as a 1% difference in volume on a big game and they will clear a monster profit.
Again I am only addressing totals and sides. ML's tend to be more cost prohibitive with the risk not in difference of result in he outcome but allocated to the risk/return side you lay down.
BS. When they set the line at Philly -2.5 over the Lions, they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew everyone and their grandmother wouldnt be able to help themselves betting on Philly vs a shitty Detroit team.
They take a side whether you want to believe it or not.
Look at tonights game. If its not evident enough for you then you dont have a clue.
If I am a book why would I throw out a waited line that I could take action on the other side. If that was the case the books would offset there lines in a huge way from the competition to get all the action away from other books. Essentially making themselves the gambler. All the analytics used by books is not generally used to make lines but to maneuver once action starts coming in. They are managing their risk, half the time its all algorithms, the adjustments they make are all calculated. Look at LiveWagering sometime and see how markets change.
BS. When they set the line at Philly -2.5 over the Lions, they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew everyone and their grandmother wouldnt be able to help themselves betting on Philly vs a shitty Detroit team.
They take a side whether you want to believe it or not.
Look at tonights game. If its not evident enough for you then you dont have a clue.
If I am a book why would I throw out a waited line that I could take action on the other side. If that was the case the books would offset there lines in a huge way from the competition to get all the action away from other books. Essentially making themselves the gambler. All the analytics used by books is not generally used to make lines but to maneuver once action starts coming in. They are managing their risk, half the time its all algorithms, the adjustments they make are all calculated. Look at LiveWagering sometime and see how markets change.
Lol I would love to know what you think it means?......... anyone that has ever been around the business knows this. If books took to much action on one side and didn't lay it off they would lose their behind and be unable to be fluid enough to payout. They like Gamblers, they don't want to be them.
You are wrong
Books win because their clients are undisciplined
They have weeks where they win Yeah but in the end
their poor money management skills spells their defeat.
when they win
they dont press enough to do damage
but when they lose
they go on tilt.
I never layed off anytrhing when I booked and my cousin who is a book doesnt lay off a danm thing.
I was in business for 16 years before getting pinched
My other cousin a criminal defense attorney got me off on a disturbing the peace infraction and decided that was it as I own a restaurant and Bar.
and most of the guys he books today are all wanna be sharps
it opened my eyes as sharp bets are all that i would look for
now I realize it all goes in cycles
Sharps win 50% of the time as do squares
that was so hard for me to swallow
all these guys betting sharp and square have no money management skills that is their true undoing
a bookie
any bookie with a decent roll should never go bust as you put it gambling with his clients.
Lol I would love to know what you think it means?......... anyone that has ever been around the business knows this. If books took to much action on one side and didn't lay it off they would lose their behind and be unable to be fluid enough to payout. They like Gamblers, they don't want to be them.
You are wrong
Books win because their clients are undisciplined
They have weeks where they win Yeah but in the end
their poor money management skills spells their defeat.
when they win
they dont press enough to do damage
but when they lose
they go on tilt.
I never layed off anytrhing when I booked and my cousin who is a book doesnt lay off a danm thing.
I was in business for 16 years before getting pinched
My other cousin a criminal defense attorney got me off on a disturbing the peace infraction and decided that was it as I own a restaurant and Bar.
and most of the guys he books today are all wanna be sharps
it opened my eyes as sharp bets are all that i would look for
now I realize it all goes in cycles
Sharps win 50% of the time as do squares
that was so hard for me to swallow
all these guys betting sharp and square have no money management skills that is their true undoing
a bookie
any bookie with a decent roll should never go bust as you put it gambling with his clients.
They have weeks where they win Yeah but in the end
their poor money management skills spells their defeat.
when they win
they dont press enough to do damage
but when they lose
they go on tilt.
I never layed off anytrhing when I booked and my cousin who is a book doesnt lay off a danm thing.
I was in business for 16 years before getting pinched
My other cousin a criminal defense attorney got me off on a disturbing the peace infraction and decided that was it as I own a restaurant and Bar.
and most of the guys he books today are all wanna be sharps
it opened my eyes as sharp bets are all that i would look for
now I realize it all goes in cycles
Sharps win 50% of the time as do squares
that was so hard for me to swallow
all these guys betting sharp and square have no money management skills that is their true undoing
a bookie
any bookie with a decent roll should never go bust as you put it gambling with his clients.
There is no such thing as equal action on a game
If you truly ever booked
You would know that.
False again. You are talking about an individual person. You know all these people are part of balancing out whats played on a game? Yeah an individual lose money in a way of tilting but if they had lines that had 90% of the action on 1 side and 10% of the other side you can be sure as hell theres a chance bookies would go bankrupt left and right. First of all because 90% action on 1 side probably means the line is inaccurate AS FK otherwise 90% of the betters wouldnt take it and because having 90% on money coming in 1 way means bookies take a huge lose when theyre supposed to be living off juice.
They have weeks where they win Yeah but in the end
their poor money management skills spells their defeat.
when they win
they dont press enough to do damage
but when they lose
they go on tilt.
I never layed off anytrhing when I booked and my cousin who is a book doesnt lay off a danm thing.
I was in business for 16 years before getting pinched
My other cousin a criminal defense attorney got me off on a disturbing the peace infraction and decided that was it as I own a restaurant and Bar.
and most of the guys he books today are all wanna be sharps
it opened my eyes as sharp bets are all that i would look for
now I realize it all goes in cycles
Sharps win 50% of the time as do squares
that was so hard for me to swallow
all these guys betting sharp and square have no money management skills that is their true undoing
a bookie
any bookie with a decent roll should never go bust as you put it gambling with his clients.
There is no such thing as equal action on a game
If you truly ever booked
You would know that.
False again. You are talking about an individual person. You know all these people are part of balancing out whats played on a game? Yeah an individual lose money in a way of tilting but if they had lines that had 90% of the action on 1 side and 10% of the other side you can be sure as hell theres a chance bookies would go bankrupt left and right. First of all because 90% action on 1 side probably means the line is inaccurate AS FK otherwise 90% of the betters wouldnt take it and because having 90% on money coming in 1 way means bookies take a huge lose when theyre supposed to be living off juice.
BS. When they set the line at Philly -2.5 over the Lions, they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew everyone and their grandmother wouldnt be able to help themselves betting on Philly vs a shitty Detroit team.
They take a side whether you want to believe it or not.
Look at tonights game. If its not evident enough for you then you dont have a clue.
2.5? The line was 3.5 which makes the entire difference in the world. And Eagles were away. Eagles were dogs when they played Chicago Bears away 2 weeks ago, and Detroit is a much better team than Chicago so theyre basically just adjusting to past results and tendencies. This line is 100% accurate and does the job.
BS. When they set the line at Philly -2.5 over the Lions, they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew everyone and their grandmother wouldnt be able to help themselves betting on Philly vs a shitty Detroit team.
They take a side whether you want to believe it or not.
Look at tonights game. If its not evident enough for you then you dont have a clue.
2.5? The line was 3.5 which makes the entire difference in the world. And Eagles were away. Eagles were dogs when they played Chicago Bears away 2 weeks ago, and Detroit is a much better team than Chicago so theyre basically just adjusting to past results and tendencies. This line is 100% accurate and does the job.
I don't believe books are trying to pick sides but I do believe their is imbalanced action at times and their's a good reason for that. If a book does have 70/30 action on a game they have to limit their exposure when they are moving lines as to prevent whales from coming in and dropping big cash on the sharp side. It is almost inevitable that their will be imbalanced action on any particular game because of that simple fact.
For instance last week's Phi/Det game. Books opened it at -3 i believe but i saw it as low as -2.5 and the books got hit with a ton of Philly action by the public at both of those numbers. Now to balance the action they eventually made the decision to move the line to 3.5. From all the sources i looked at some sharps bit at that but still it did not balance the books as they were still getting roughly 2 to 1 action on Philly by kickoff. But here's the considerations, If they truly wanted balanced action they would have considered the 4 number. However, how many sharps come in and hammer that number with big cash if they would have pushed it up to that #? Suddenly you create a scenario where you might have more wagers on Philly but you might have a ton more cash on Detroit. So I think that's the kind of decisions these big bookies have to make when they are moving the lines. Will we get hammered by a whale if we move to that number?
I don't believe books are trying to pick sides but I do believe their is imbalanced action at times and their's a good reason for that. If a book does have 70/30 action on a game they have to limit their exposure when they are moving lines as to prevent whales from coming in and dropping big cash on the sharp side. It is almost inevitable that their will be imbalanced action on any particular game because of that simple fact.
For instance last week's Phi/Det game. Books opened it at -3 i believe but i saw it as low as -2.5 and the books got hit with a ton of Philly action by the public at both of those numbers. Now to balance the action they eventually made the decision to move the line to 3.5. From all the sources i looked at some sharps bit at that but still it did not balance the books as they were still getting roughly 2 to 1 action on Philly by kickoff. But here's the considerations, If they truly wanted balanced action they would have considered the 4 number. However, how many sharps come in and hammer that number with big cash if they would have pushed it up to that #? Suddenly you create a scenario where you might have more wagers on Philly but you might have a ton more cash on Detroit. So I think that's the kind of decisions these big bookies have to make when they are moving the lines. Will we get hammered by a whale if we move to that number?
Lol I would love to know what you think it means?......... anyone that has ever been around the business knows this. If books took to much action on one side and didn't lay it off they would lose their behind and be unable to be fluid enough to payout. They like Gamblers, they don't want to be them.
This kind of debate will never works, everyone have mind of their own. If you a gamblers you know bad luck outweight good luck, majority of them will lose by the end of the year, every bookies knows that. Bookie pay out $1000 next week they will get it back plus more. Big bookie don't want your juice $$ they want to take your betting money, only small middle man want your juice $$.
Lol I would love to know what you think it means?......... anyone that has ever been around the business knows this. If books took to much action on one side and didn't lay it off they would lose their behind and be unable to be fluid enough to payout. They like Gamblers, they don't want to be them.
This kind of debate will never works, everyone have mind of their own. If you a gamblers you know bad luck outweight good luck, majority of them will lose by the end of the year, every bookies knows that. Bookie pay out $1000 next week they will get it back plus more. Big bookie don't want your juice $$ they want to take your betting money, only small middle man want your juice $$.
15 years ago capping games give you more chance of winning, nowadays it's hard man. Sports betting is a billions dollars business now they don't give you a break anymore. Vegas is messing up your brain with those weird point spread up and down.
15 years ago capping games give you more chance of winning, nowadays it's hard man. Sports betting is a billions dollars business now they don't give you a break anymore. Vegas is messing up your brain with those weird point spread up and down.
Been watching these forums for a while. Looking for the right place to jump in. No one cares about a newcomer's picks, so maybe this is a place I can contribute.
While it's accurate to say that books make money when the action is split 50-50, it's incorrect to say that's their goal. And this is for a number of reasons.
First, books who can accurately shade their lines make more than books who shoot for 50-50 action. The fact is that the public overprices sides all the time as compared to the books' analytics that set the spreads. Sometimes the public side does in fact win and the books take it in the teeth. But overtime, between the juice and line shading books make money regardless.
Second, while pkleves expresses what may be a good hypothesis, that books are worried that line movements that are too big will entice whale bets, I think its more that shading the line too far reduces the shading-related returns the books expect to receive while exposing them to greater risk.
Third, c'mon man, this ish ain't rigged. Vegas just has better information than most bettors. No matter what, there is a degree of randomness here. D/ST scores, big turnovers etc. wreak havoc on even the best cappers and books. Learn to recognize the line shades, learn that fading the public certainly isn't 100% - particularly if you're fading tickets and not money, learn that you don't know more than everyone else - but if you listen to the right information, you can come out ahead.
Been watching these forums for a while. Looking for the right place to jump in. No one cares about a newcomer's picks, so maybe this is a place I can contribute.
While it's accurate to say that books make money when the action is split 50-50, it's incorrect to say that's their goal. And this is for a number of reasons.
First, books who can accurately shade their lines make more than books who shoot for 50-50 action. The fact is that the public overprices sides all the time as compared to the books' analytics that set the spreads. Sometimes the public side does in fact win and the books take it in the teeth. But overtime, between the juice and line shading books make money regardless.
Second, while pkleves expresses what may be a good hypothesis, that books are worried that line movements that are too big will entice whale bets, I think its more that shading the line too far reduces the shading-related returns the books expect to receive while exposing them to greater risk.
Third, c'mon man, this ish ain't rigged. Vegas just has better information than most bettors. No matter what, there is a degree of randomness here. D/ST scores, big turnovers etc. wreak havoc on even the best cappers and books. Learn to recognize the line shades, learn that fading the public certainly isn't 100% - particularly if you're fading tickets and not money, learn that you don't know more than everyone else - but if you listen to the right information, you can come out ahead.
False again. You are talking about an individual person. You know all these people are part of balancing out whats played on a game? Yeah an individual lose money in a way of tilting but if they had lines that had 90% of the action on 1 side and 10% of the other side you can be sure as hell theres a chance bookies would go bankrupt left and right. First of all because 90% action on 1 side probably means the line is inaccurate AS FK otherwise 90% of the betters wouldnt take it and because having 90% on money coming in 1 way means bookies take a huge lose when theyre supposed to be living off juice.
Please tell me what is false?
No matter how much the public beats a bookie
their own greed and lack of money management will due them in
False again. You are talking about an individual person. You know all these people are part of balancing out whats played on a game? Yeah an individual lose money in a way of tilting but if they had lines that had 90% of the action on 1 side and 10% of the other side you can be sure as hell theres a chance bookies would go bankrupt left and right. First of all because 90% action on 1 side probably means the line is inaccurate AS FK otherwise 90% of the betters wouldnt take it and because having 90% on money coming in 1 way means bookies take a huge lose when theyre supposed to be living off juice.
Please tell me what is false?
No matter how much the public beats a bookie
their own greed and lack of money management will due them in
50/50 action creates zero vulnerability, and is smart business. Plain and simple. It's smart money management. As long as the revenues are big enough any business would operate with guaranteed returns by following a formula. The OP is correct. Take the foil hat off.
50/50 action creates zero vulnerability, and is smart business. Plain and simple. It's smart money management. As long as the revenues are big enough any business would operate with guaranteed returns by following a formula. The OP is correct. Take the foil hat off.
50/50 action creates zero vulnerability, and is smart business. Plain and simple. It's smart money management. As long as the revenues are big enough any business would operate with guaranteed returns by following a formula. The OP is correct. Take the foil hat off.
This is the golden myth. The issue arises when the perception of a game is very far removed from the true line. Aka when the difference between the line that gives each team a 50% chance of covering vs. the line that gives each side 50% of the money.
The best example I have is last years super bowl where this discrepancy was MASSIVE. In that situation if the books were to keep giving Denver more to even the action, they would have left themselves MASSIVELY exposed in the final 30 minutes (perhaps) before kickoff.
So here is a question, if you were a book would you rather have 60% of the money on an outcome with a 40% chance of occurring OR 50% of the money on an outcome with 50% of occurring?
50/50 action creates zero vulnerability, and is smart business. Plain and simple. It's smart money management. As long as the revenues are big enough any business would operate with guaranteed returns by following a formula. The OP is correct. Take the foil hat off.
This is the golden myth. The issue arises when the perception of a game is very far removed from the true line. Aka when the difference between the line that gives each team a 50% chance of covering vs. the line that gives each side 50% of the money.
The best example I have is last years super bowl where this discrepancy was MASSIVE. In that situation if the books were to keep giving Denver more to even the action, they would have left themselves MASSIVELY exposed in the final 30 minutes (perhaps) before kickoff.
So here is a question, if you were a book would you rather have 60% of the money on an outcome with a 40% chance of occurring OR 50% of the money on an outcome with 50% of occurring?
This is the golden myth. The issue arises when the perception of a game is very far removed from the true line. Aka when the difference between the line that gives each team a 50% chance of covering vs. the line that gives each side 50% of the money.
The best example I have is last years super bowl where this discrepancy was MASSIVE. In that situation if the books were to keep giving Denver more to even the action, they would have left themselves MASSIVELY exposed in the final 30 minutes (perhaps) before kickoff.
So here is a question, if you were a book would you rather have 60% of the money on an outcome with a 40% chance of occurring OR 50% of the money on an outcome with 50% of occurring?
You are dumb af. Vegas cant put out a line that has only 40% chance of hitting and then "all of a sudden" 60% will jump on the other side. It doesnt work like that, and they dont do it. If they put out sides that has 40% of winning, then throw 1000$ on side/total that has 60% chance of winning and youll be a millionaire within a month of following this, just bet these 60% sides lines BLINDLY.
And the reason why they want 50/50 action is because NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS they will make money. NO MATTER WHAT. They dont care if theres thrown 10 pick 6s in the last minute its irrelevant to them since they will profit either way and when you have SO MANY BETS getting that juice is millions in your pocket.
The reason why bookies are making profit either way, is because it evens out. So, bookies target goal is getting 50/50 action, but sometimes that action is going to be 54/46, but they can live with this because the variance will even out in the long run. So one day the side with 54% action will win but the next day the side with 46% action wins, so it evens out and we're back to square "50/50" one. Why is that? Because its 50/50. So ideally they want 50/50 action but losing a 54/46 game and winning another 54/46 in favor of them is gonna even just that out. BUT they will still preferably have 50/50 action because then they are GUARANTEED to make money. They are not guaranteed to make money with 54/46, but they most likely will since it should even out, but if we assume that the 54% action side won 100/100 times the bookies would be dead due to that "unluck" but if the 50 side in a 50/50 wins 100 out of 100 times they would have profited exactly as much as if it was 70% or 50% or 30%. Its Risk of Ruin, theres no risk involved to having 50/50 action, you cant find a business in this world where there is no risk involved, so if a bookie could choose to get 50/50 on all of their picks that is -110 ALL FKING BOOKIES WOULD TAKE IT. ITS RISK FREE. Thats what all businesses aim for, if you can achieve that you have a gold mine. Bookies cant sure they get 50/50 but they can do their mfing best to get as close to the 50/50 so they are granted this profit.
You can be sure as hell if they put out lines that have 60% chance of hitting at only 10% juice vegas would 100% go broke very quickly, even with juice included that would evidently happen.
Thursday night Broncos are playing the Chargers, Broncos are estimated to have a chance of around 60% of winning. So the right thing - in this scenario - is to make the game a PK'em -110/-110 on the moneyline. In this scenario they will pay out the equal amount, but they believe Chargers has 40% chance of winning, and Broncos has 60% chance of winning the game so youre telling me that having Broncos being -110 is a good idea and wont attract unnecessary action due to the line being way off in order to have 60/40 action?
I think its safe to say theres a good reason youre not a bookie.
This is the golden myth. The issue arises when the perception of a game is very far removed from the true line. Aka when the difference between the line that gives each team a 50% chance of covering vs. the line that gives each side 50% of the money.
The best example I have is last years super bowl where this discrepancy was MASSIVE. In that situation if the books were to keep giving Denver more to even the action, they would have left themselves MASSIVELY exposed in the final 30 minutes (perhaps) before kickoff.
So here is a question, if you were a book would you rather have 60% of the money on an outcome with a 40% chance of occurring OR 50% of the money on an outcome with 50% of occurring?
You are dumb af. Vegas cant put out a line that has only 40% chance of hitting and then "all of a sudden" 60% will jump on the other side. It doesnt work like that, and they dont do it. If they put out sides that has 40% of winning, then throw 1000$ on side/total that has 60% chance of winning and youll be a millionaire within a month of following this, just bet these 60% sides lines BLINDLY.
And the reason why they want 50/50 action is because NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS they will make money. NO MATTER WHAT. They dont care if theres thrown 10 pick 6s in the last minute its irrelevant to them since they will profit either way and when you have SO MANY BETS getting that juice is millions in your pocket.
The reason why bookies are making profit either way, is because it evens out. So, bookies target goal is getting 50/50 action, but sometimes that action is going to be 54/46, but they can live with this because the variance will even out in the long run. So one day the side with 54% action will win but the next day the side with 46% action wins, so it evens out and we're back to square "50/50" one. Why is that? Because its 50/50. So ideally they want 50/50 action but losing a 54/46 game and winning another 54/46 in favor of them is gonna even just that out. BUT they will still preferably have 50/50 action because then they are GUARANTEED to make money. They are not guaranteed to make money with 54/46, but they most likely will since it should even out, but if we assume that the 54% action side won 100/100 times the bookies would be dead due to that "unluck" but if the 50 side in a 50/50 wins 100 out of 100 times they would have profited exactly as much as if it was 70% or 50% or 30%. Its Risk of Ruin, theres no risk involved to having 50/50 action, you cant find a business in this world where there is no risk involved, so if a bookie could choose to get 50/50 on all of their picks that is -110 ALL FKING BOOKIES WOULD TAKE IT. ITS RISK FREE. Thats what all businesses aim for, if you can achieve that you have a gold mine. Bookies cant sure they get 50/50 but they can do their mfing best to get as close to the 50/50 so they are granted this profit.
You can be sure as hell if they put out lines that have 60% chance of hitting at only 10% juice vegas would 100% go broke very quickly, even with juice included that would evidently happen.
Thursday night Broncos are playing the Chargers, Broncos are estimated to have a chance of around 60% of winning. So the right thing - in this scenario - is to make the game a PK'em -110/-110 on the moneyline. In this scenario they will pay out the equal amount, but they believe Chargers has 40% chance of winning, and Broncos has 60% chance of winning the game so youre telling me that having Broncos being -110 is a good idea and wont attract unnecessary action due to the line being way off in order to have 60/40 action?
I think its safe to say theres a good reason youre not a bookie.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.