Just popping in to add a couple of thoughts to the discussion:
Don't think big picture here. Don't think "All of the Bets from 100%
of the worldwide bettors". Think about each and every business taking
in bets. Whether it's the Vegas Hilton, Pinny, WSEX, to the
sportsbooks in hotels out in Aruba and St. Kitts and other islands, as
well as the "local bookies" doing business w/ hundreds of clients or
even with 40-50 clients/week.
Then, ask yourself this: how many games a week do you believe are equally wagered on at each of those places individually?
.
.
.
.
If the
vast majority (and I mean VAST) of each and every game are equally wagered on each and every week, and I mean 50/50 wagering, then you would be right in your assumption that books try to balance the $ and take only vig.
But
the fact is, many games each week are not equally wagered on. Even w/
moving the line a point or two, it's virtually impossible to ensure
equal wagering. And if they kept moving the line all over the place to
balance out wagering, you'd have too many middles/scalps available. So you can only move the line so much to balance $ at each and every little shop and individual casino.
Vegas
definitely shades lines and takes "positions" on certain games. Not
always, but they pick their spots. That is my opinion.
Why? Because these outfits continue to stay in business. Also ask
yourself this, how many offline bookies get equal action on games? The
answer is VERY few. Yet they still are turning a profit.
Reason being,
and its the same with any individually owned sportsbook operation, be it small time or big time: they win a majority of the games they "need" to win. The games w/
perfectly 50/50 action, the bookie does not "need" either team, they
have already ensured a profit. But the games w/ unbalanced action they
"need" a side.
Again, I am not a firm believer in betting opposite the public, I believe in finding the winning side to a game and taking only those games w/ enough value in the line. Selecting a few, targeted games a week and capitalizing on them. And I've done well for years w/ this strategy.
This was posted on line a while ago, but its worth a read:
[quote]
DIRECT FROM NEVADA
With Linesmaker Nick Bogdanovich
THE MYTH OF “SPLITTING THE ACTION”
You’ve probably heard for years, even decades, that the goal of the oddsmaker is to “split the action” on each game.
That
means he wants half the money on one side of the betting line, and half
on the other side. Since losing bets are charged a 10 percent
“vigorish,” sportsbooks are guaranteed a profit whenever the money
breaks out evenly. The losers pay the winners, and the sportsbooks put
10% in their pockets thank you very much.
It doesn’t actually work out that way.
Sure,
there are some games where the money comes in close to 50/50. Often
you’ll see the public (referred to as “squares” in Nevada) betting on
one side, while professional wagerers (called “sharps”) are on the
other. What’s more common these days is for the sportsbooks to take a
position on a game while giving bettors “the worst of it.”
What do I mean by that?
If
oddsmakers are confident the public is going to be betting one side
very strongly, which is fairly common when you’re talking about big
name college football teams or the most hyped pro squads, they’ll
inflate the line a couple of points in that direction. The public isn’t
betting the “true” line that reflects the actual difference between the
teams on the field. They’re paying a tax of a couple of points because
their betting is so predictable. As a result, squares who still make
that bet are laying 11/10 AND a bad number. It’s tough enough to beat
the 11/10 over time. Doing that against bad numbers will make money for
the sportsbooks even if the money doesn’t split out evenly.
In
some sports though, it’s mostly sharp action that’s hitting the board.
Oddsmakers will try to do the same thing here by studying sharp betting
patterns. If they notice that the sharps are hitting an off-the-radar
team in college basketball, or maybe Unders with certain NBA teams,
they’ll adjust that line a couple of points as well. Now the sharps
have to decide whether or not they want to lay 11/10 at a line not
particularly to their liking. If they do, the sportsbooks figure
they’re okay because they’ve charged the tax and have the 11/10 working
for them.
Let me give you an example that will help you see how
powerful this is. I’ve heard often through the years about “offers”
that certain illegal bookies around the country will make to their
square clientele. They’re so confident the squares will lose with a lot
of action, they tell the mark that he can move the line one point in
his favor in every game…but he has to bet EVERY game. Now, this ONLY
works against real squares! Most guys can win with that kind of edge.
Sharps would make a killing. Squares find a way to lose no matter what
the proposition is.
Now, imagine a book told you that HE would
get to move each game a point in whatever direction HE wanted, you
still had to lay 11/10, and you had to play every game on the board.
That would be horrible for a player. You’d never take that offer in a
million years. Imagine it was two points instead of one. Nobody in
their right mind would take that offer.
Well, that’s what’s
going on here to a degree. Sportsbooks realize how the public bets,
they’re charging them 11/10 on each play, and they’re making them lay
1-3 points the worst of it depending on the game. I’m not saying the
public plays the board. But, oddsmakers know which games the public
will be focused on. That universe is tilted very strongly against the
squares. The “squares’ board” is a stacked deck.
Oddsmakers
haven’t quite yet realized how to beat the sharps. But, they have
slowed down the sharps with this type of approach. That 11/10 vig AND
“penalty” points create quite a hurdle for players to clear even if
you’re talking about an obscure college basketball game or an NBA total.
In
baseball, the same thing happens on the moneyline. You saw high prices
on the Cubs in their first round National League playoff series against
the Dodgers because the public loves betting the Cubs. Squares had to
pay a surcharge for the right to bet on Chicago. This past season, when
the sharps pounded a young up-and-coming pitcher in his first couple of
starts, the line dropped immensely the next time he took the mound.
There were several young arms this past summer who were priced like
veterans by their third appearance.
As you can see, there’s no
need for an oddsmaker to sweat how the action breaks down in each game
as long as he’s put the house in a good position. He knows that things
will work out for the sportsbook over a large sampling of games.
“Splitting the action” is a myth. That’s not the way it happens in the real world.
If
you want to win when betting college and pro football, you have to be
aware of this phenomenon and put it to your advantage. Go against the
public teams so you can put the free points in your favor. Don’t bet
any side or total where you believe the line has been shaded against
you. Make your own calculated assessment of what the “true” line should
be. Then try to find edges you can exploit. You’ll still be dealing
with the 11/10. But, you’ll have a fighting chance to be on the right
side more often than not.
Then the squares will be paying YOU instead of the house!
[/quote]