Posted:
#76
I'm going to start a thread before the NFL and college football seasons start: "WHY MOST BETTORS FAIL AT SPORTS BETTING" watch for it..........you will learn something !!
How you can tell a Straight game from a Vegas trap game?
Posted:
#77
Quote Originally Posted by Alien-1:
Trader4
Nope.....wrong. You are talking about one example. What if vegas did this ALL the time....predicting the winner then manipulating the line to induce action either way based on who they thought was going to win.
This would be a disaster if they were wrong.........they(vegas) would be gambling......like I said VEGAS DOES NOT GAMBLE.
Is it gambling if you're right 70%+ of the time? I'm just trying to have a conversation about how the wheels probably turn in the war room of line makers. I'm not sure why this upsets you to the point you feel the need to attack the idea and be insulting. People fear what they don't understand.
Out of the two of us you're the one who claims to have it all figured out. All I'm saying is it's not easy to figure out, and I'll never have it 100% "figured out", but I enjoy the challenge and ever since I've starting approaching my handicapping this way I've gone from consistent losing seasons to consistently winning. So it works for me and I'm content with that.
Posted:
#78
Pasteur, Vegas could not have made the Braves -150 on Sunday if they wanted to.
That is absolutely ridiculous... it would have left them susceptible to a huge middle. Sharps would pound the Mets at the ridiculous price of +140 and drive the line all the way down, then pound the Braves at the appropriate -110 price.
Books would be fucked. That is just a silly comment to make.
That is absolutely ridiculous... it would have left them susceptible to a huge middle. Sharps would pound the Mets at the ridiculous price of +140 and drive the line all the way down, then pound the Braves at the appropriate -110 price.
Books would be fucked. That is just a silly comment to make.
Posted:
#79
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
If they truly knew 80% of the time, they could shade lines even more and just rape people.
They know they can't rape people as much as they want. The gamblers would lose interest in a game they feel they can't win so they know that the public needs to win a certain amount of games to stay interested. Like I always say, nobody would play blackjack if they lost 90% of their hands. Sportsbooks need to operate the same way.
What their knowledge DOES do for them is predict which games they will likely pay out on, and adjust lines accordingly to limit exposure on these games.
And I never said they "knew" the Mets were going to win. I said they weren't surprised that the Mets won. If they're right 70-80% of the time they can shrug their shoulders when it doesn't go their way the other 25% and chalk it up as acceptable loss. Doesn't that sound more profitable than just hoping for equal action on both sides and collecting the juice?
Posted:
#81
Quote Originally Posted by Pasteur:
Is it gambling if you're right 70%+ of the time? I'm just trying to have a conversation about how the wheels probably turn in the war room of line makers. I'm not sure why this upsets you to the point you feel the need to attack the idea and be insulting. People fear what they don't understand.
Out of the two of us you're the one who claims to have it all figured out. All I'm saying is it's not easy to figure out, and I'll never have it 100% "figured out", but I enjoy the challenge and ever since I've starting approaching my handicapping this way I've gone from consistent losing seasons to consistently winning. So it works for me and I'm content with that.
Is it gambling if you're right 70%+ of the time? I'm just trying to have a conversation about how the wheels probably turn in the war room of line makers. I'm not sure why this upsets you to the point you feel the need to attack the idea and be insulting. People fear what they don't understand.
Out of the two of us you're the one who claims to have it all figured out. All I'm saying is it's not easy to figure out, and I'll never have it 100% "figured out", but I enjoy the challenge and ever since I've starting approaching my handicapping this way I've gone from consistent losing seasons to consistently winning. So it works for me and I'm content with that.
To be honest, I don't believe Vegas knows vast marjority of the results beforehand. However, I do believe they take positions on certain games, sometimes intentional, others not.
Posted:
#84
I just read post#82......I can't help myself, I must respond....
Pasteur,
this is the last time I will respond to your ludicrous comments.
Sportsbooks are built on the juice, their ENTIRE existence is based off the juice, they is how they make their money NOT from winning more games then the bettor.
Ok I'm officially done...I cannot tolerate this stupidity anymore.
newbies.......
Posted:
#88
Quote Originally Posted by Alien-1:
I just read post#82......I can't help myself, I must respond....
Pasteur,
this is the last time I will respond to your ludicrous comments.
Sportsbooks are built on the juice, their ENTIRE existence is based off the juice, they is how they make their money NOT from winning more games then the bettor.
Ok I'm officially done...I cannot tolerate this stupidity anymore.
newbies.......
You've made your overly simplistic point 5 times now. Go fuck yourself. It's not my fault you don't comprehend a word of what I'm saying. If you don't get it or don't agree with it, leave the thread. Stop being a dick because your inferiority complex kicked in at all the big words being used.
You cap games your way and I'll cap them mine. I've doubled my bank roll so far this season. how are you doing?
Posted:
#90
Pasteur > Alien1
Alien1, u need to come up with a better argument to even speak in this conversation. Pasteur is merely going a step (or 2 or 3) further than just realizing the books want even action to collect juice. While your only point is TRUE, Pasteur is going a bit deeper.
Pasteur, well done on articulating your points soundly and reasonably. For those who dont wish to look past the basics, let them be.
Alien1, u need to come up with a better argument to even speak in this conversation. Pasteur is merely going a step (or 2 or 3) further than just realizing the books want even action to collect juice. While your only point is TRUE, Pasteur is going a bit deeper.
Pasteur, well done on articulating your points soundly and reasonably. For those who dont wish to look past the basics, let them be.
mbulliti04 and pitch black 2011.... Finally out of closet ah guys? Sorry, Gays?
Posted:
#94
On a serious note. Looks like all the guys talking against Pasteur are talking in a same voice. Interesting. Are you guys with Books? Because I raised a legit issue and
Pasteur made very good sense with all he said. if you guys wanna be lambs - it is your business. If you think everything is clean and there is nothing biased, trap lines or point shaving in football and basketball - then you're either stupid or full of shit. If you ask me - you're both. You can't even understand the difference between a set trap play and plays based on public perception. So let me explain you:
Quoting someone who I don't care to mention here - but those who know will recognize who it is: Few lines released by Vegas are coming right into your eye as an impossible ones and then you ask yourself: did Dan O'Brien really approve this line? And if he did, what were his motives? Or may be Sean Van Patten is responsible for a strange line like this? When Vegas releases the Totals Line for MLB game SFG hosting the Rockies and the pitchers are Lincecum vs Chatwood (who did not last 4 innings in the last game between two teams with the same pitchers – a game that ended in 8-3 SFG) you expect that line to be somewhere in the vicinity of 9 at the least, but the line released for tonight's game is 7. The last game was a push at 11 only 5 days ago and none of the lines were lower than 10 for any of the 3 games in series and the other 2 went Over. So, is playing in Denver worth so many more runs than playing in SF? Something to think about. May be Vegas knows something we don't and regardless of LVSC recommending different line – the books decided to go other way relying on their own information? All of them? No. I don't think anyone is risking contradicting LVSC.
So, for me that totals line lean is either Under 7 or no play based on our past experiences which we checked with real money. SFG vs COL Under 7 or no play.
Posted:
#95
I don't know why people think "trap" games are such speculation. I thought it's common knowledge.
The oddsmakers @ Caesars have said the bookies take positions -- basically, by not moving the number even though the public is pounding one side of the bet.
I've even talked to local bookies directly. They always say that the $$ is made by winning the side, not the vig. The vig would take forever for them to make decent $$$.
In fact, I talked to one local, who said he moves the line based on oddsmakers he subscribes. He follows their line movements religiously. NO MATTER WHAT. Even if he personally is getting pounded by action on one side, if the services tell him to keep moving the number toward the action (i.e., 'reverse line movement'), he'll do it.
For example, if he's got disproportionate action on the A's tonight, but the services tell him that KC is now the favorite,he'll change the number to be more favorable to the A's. In other words, he's inviting even MORE A's action.
He's been very, very profitable as a bookie.
Posted:
#98
Quote Originally Posted by PitchBlack2011:
Alien1's comments are facts...Pasteur's comments are speculation...facts mean more than speculation...
Sorry if I didn't use enough big words! 
What do you think is fact? That books try to invite equal action on both sides?
Casinos, sports-books and the people who operate them are probably some of the greediest people you'll ever encounter. The very goal of their business is one thing: Make money, and a lot of it. Do you think they've been content to just rake the juice and make no effort to increase profits for all this time?
I think you grossly underestimate them.
I get it if digging this deep isn't your cup of tea though. To each their own, best of luck to you.
Posted:
#99
So you are quoting someone who has a losing record in baseball this year...losing record for the last 6 months...
Also Colorado totals are always higher and 3 runs is no big deal...higher elevation...there is always more high scoring games there ever since they stated playing there...so the whole pointof that paragraph is based on false info...
Hot Forum Topics
