This has led me to ask a few questions....Correct me if i am wrong.
I have heard that in the casino business, the odds of all games are in the favour of the house, about roughly 60-40 in their favour.
This indicates that in the LONG TERM that the house will eventually win UNLESS someone is cheating, ie, card counting.
The article above is showing that the majority (?) of books are closing down or limiting severley the limits of bets on clients who have a winning record or are doing well....
This has led to draw a conclusion. Casino's have a model where (again unless someone is cheating), they will win in the long term as guaranteed as the sun rising as they say, hence i have never heard (i could be wrong) of a casino banning someone (again, unless cheating), where as this sportsbook online betting business, doesnt in fact have a model, rather, simply "hope" and "guess" in attracting stupid and dumb punters (whatever that is) as opposed to relying on some model like casino's do?
If someone is on a good run, whetever timeframe that is, surely, surely, it is only a matter of time before they give it all back (ie, casino model).....
OR
Sports betting have a similar model to the casino, but in fact ban clients or really limit cause they think they are cheating, ie, fixes?
Like to hear thoughts, cause it doesnt make sense.
This has led me to ask a few questions....Correct me if i am wrong.
I have heard that in the casino business, the odds of all games are in the favour of the house, about roughly 60-40 in their favour.
This indicates that in the LONG TERM that the house will eventually win UNLESS someone is cheating, ie, card counting.
The article above is showing that the majority (?) of books are closing down or limiting severley the limits of bets on clients who have a winning record or are doing well....
This has led to draw a conclusion. Casino's have a model where (again unless someone is cheating), they will win in the long term as guaranteed as the sun rising as they say, hence i have never heard (i could be wrong) of a casino banning someone (again, unless cheating), where as this sportsbook online betting business, doesnt in fact have a model, rather, simply "hope" and "guess" in attracting stupid and dumb punters (whatever that is) as opposed to relying on some model like casino's do?
If someone is on a good run, whetever timeframe that is, surely, surely, it is only a matter of time before they give it all back (ie, casino model).....
OR
Sports betting have a similar model to the casino, but in fact ban clients or really limit cause they think they are cheating, ie, fixes?
Like to hear thoughts, cause it doesnt make sense.
Casinos wait for people to get tired and make mistakes. No clocks and booze helps. Sports is a different because you take longer and a little skill can increase your odds.
I believe that a smart sports punter who uses stats and sports knowledge and importantly has control over his emotions can make money consistently. Someone in a casino can have the same success but it is less likely.
It is a businesses. If they can put the odds in their favour, any way possible, they will. Casinos have run with the same formula for a long time... but with internet betting, they only have control over a small subset of variables.
There will always be other bookies that will accept the risk.
Limiting bets is a sure way to lose business.
Casinos wait for people to get tired and make mistakes. No clocks and booze helps. Sports is a different because you take longer and a little skill can increase your odds.
I believe that a smart sports punter who uses stats and sports knowledge and importantly has control over his emotions can make money consistently. Someone in a casino can have the same success but it is less likely.
It is a businesses. If they can put the odds in their favour, any way possible, they will. Casinos have run with the same formula for a long time... but with internet betting, they only have control over a small subset of variables.
There will always be other bookies that will accept the risk.
But in the casiono, the mathematics PROVE that in the long run you will lose and the house wins...Regardless if someone is tired, drunk etc etc. The maths proves this.
It seems to me that online sports bookmakers have no model, no maths, no nothing, just simply relying on mugs? Really?
If you have a client that is winning, surely its only a matter of time before they lose. So why ban them?
But in the casiono, the mathematics PROVE that in the long run you will lose and the house wins...Regardless if someone is tired, drunk etc etc. The maths proves this.
It seems to me that online sports bookmakers have no model, no maths, no nothing, just simply relying on mugs? Really?
If you have a client that is winning, surely its only a matter of time before they lose. So why ban them?
But in the casiono, the mathematics PROVE that in the long run you will lose and the house wins...Regardless if someone is tired, drunk etc etc. The maths proves this.
It seems to me that online sports bookmakers have no model, no maths, no nothing, just simply relying on mugs? Really?
If you have a client that is winning, surely its only a matter of time before they lose. So why ban them?
re sports betting, the mug element is massive. You've only gotta take a quick scan across your average betting forum or overhear the average conversation on the street between two blokes discussing the subject to realise there's more than enough mugs to keep books fat and giggly.
It takes a lot of time, a lot of work, a lot of trial and error, a lot of learning from your mistakes, a lot of determination and lot of discipline to get to that point where you know you can win on a select few sports long term .. Are 99.9% of punters prepared to put in the hard yards to get to that point ?? Hell, 99.9% of punters wouldn't even know where to begin in that regard.
Re the closing down / limiting of accounts - while obviously a sportsbook isn't privy to the background of their clients, they know what to look for regarding potential threats (ie a likely long term winner). If a book was really switched on it could shut somebody down even before they went on a winning run, just by paying close attention to their methods.
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
But in the casiono, the mathematics PROVE that in the long run you will lose and the house wins...Regardless if someone is tired, drunk etc etc. The maths proves this.
It seems to me that online sports bookmakers have no model, no maths, no nothing, just simply relying on mugs? Really?
If you have a client that is winning, surely its only a matter of time before they lose. So why ban them?
re sports betting, the mug element is massive. You've only gotta take a quick scan across your average betting forum or overhear the average conversation on the street between two blokes discussing the subject to realise there's more than enough mugs to keep books fat and giggly.
It takes a lot of time, a lot of work, a lot of trial and error, a lot of learning from your mistakes, a lot of determination and lot of discipline to get to that point where you know you can win on a select few sports long term .. Are 99.9% of punters prepared to put in the hard yards to get to that point ?? Hell, 99.9% of punters wouldn't even know where to begin in that regard.
Re the closing down / limiting of accounts - while obviously a sportsbook isn't privy to the background of their clients, they know what to look for regarding potential threats (ie a likely long term winner). If a book was really switched on it could shut somebody down even before they went on a winning run, just by paying close attention to their methods.
As i said, the maths in blackjack and other games means unless you cheat, you cannot win in the long term.
It is obvious to me, that the maths is not on the sportsbooks side, if it is, then there is no reason to shut someone down, unless they suspect they are involved with a player, ref etc etc etc
An Casinos dont rely on mugs?
As i said, the maths in blackjack and other games means unless you cheat, you cannot win in the long term.
It is obvious to me, that the maths is not on the sportsbooks side, if it is, then there is no reason to shut someone down, unless they suspect they are involved with a player, ref etc etc etc
As i said, the maths in blackjack and other games means unless you cheat, you cannot win in the long term.
It is obvious to me, that the maths is not on the sportsbooks side, if it is, then there is no reason to shut someone down, unless they suspect they are involved with a player, ref etc etc etc
oh ffs, knew I shouldn't have wasted my time with a Rostos question ...
re sports betting - mate, you go on believing whatever you want to believe .. you clearly only want people to reinforce your retarded doctrine that everything and everyone is in on some giant conspiracy fix ect ...
But what I will say is this - I have been 'ushered out' by three sports books and I'm not corrupt / in cahoots with any players.
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
An Casinos dont rely on mugs?
As i said, the maths in blackjack and other games means unless you cheat, you cannot win in the long term.
It is obvious to me, that the maths is not on the sportsbooks side, if it is, then there is no reason to shut someone down, unless they suspect they are involved with a player, ref etc etc etc
oh ffs, knew I shouldn't have wasted my time with a Rostos question ...
re sports betting - mate, you go on believing whatever you want to believe .. you clearly only want people to reinforce your retarded doctrine that everything and everyone is in on some giant conspiracy fix ect ...
But what I will say is this - I have been 'ushered out' by three sports books and I'm not corrupt / in cahoots with any players.
I have never been asked to leave by the TAB but i have had limits put in, but this was online...It just meant i had to call up and they accepted my bets after getting approved by the betting manager...
I am just astonished that their is no model , rather, they are setting up businesses for mugs...
Surely its only a matter of time before no one bets with them.
I have never been asked to leave by the TAB but i have had limits put in, but this was online...It just meant i had to call up and they accepted my bets after getting approved by the betting manager...
I am just astonished that their is no model , rather, they are setting up businesses for mugs...
Surely its only a matter of time before no one bets with them.
Rugby League Week's annual players' poll found almost one in five players knows of other players who have bet on a game.
The NRL was plunged into scandal late last year following allegations of spot-fixing when there was a plunge on a penalty goal as the first scoring play in a Canterbury-North Queensland fixture.
Bulldogs prop Ryan Tandy was charged with four counts of lying to a NSW Crime Commission hearing into the incident.
But players still seem to be willing to take a risk by betting on games, according to a poll of 100 anonymous players.
Rugby League Week's annual players' poll found almost one in five players knows of other players who have bet on a game.
The NRL was plunged into scandal late last year following allegations of spot-fixing when there was a plunge on a penalty goal as the first scoring play in a Canterbury-North Queensland fixture.
Bulldogs prop Ryan Tandy was charged with four counts of lying to a NSW Crime Commission hearing into the incident.
But players still seem to be willing to take a risk by betting on games, according to a poll of 100 anonymous players.
"Disgraced jockey Damien Oliver has been disqualified for eight months after admitting to placing a $10,000 bet via a third party on a rival horse in a race in which he rode in 2010"
But no, Damien Oliver is wrong, he never bet on a rival horse. According to Hirshfelder, we are all deluded......Sports are NEVER RIGGED, NEVER......
Evidence, but Hirsrshfelder buries his head in the sand.
"Disgraced jockey Damien Oliver has been disqualified for eight months after admitting to placing a $10,000 bet via a third party on a rival horse in a race in which he rode in 2010"
But no, Damien Oliver is wrong, he never bet on a rival horse. According to Hirshfelder, we are all deluded......Sports are NEVER RIGGED, NEVER......
Evidence, but Hirsrshfelder buries his head in the sand.
On August 15, Donaghy appeared in a Brooklyn federal court and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting wagering information through interstate commerce. Donaghy told U.S. District Judge Carol Bagley Amon that he used coded language to tip Battista about players' physical condition and player/referee relations. In doing so, Donaghy disclosed classified information that he obtained as an NBA referee
On August 15, Donaghy appeared in a Brooklyn federal court and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting wagering information through interstate commerce. Donaghy told U.S. District Judge Carol Bagley Amon that he used coded language to tip Battista about players' physical condition and player/referee relations. In doing so, Donaghy disclosed classified information that he obtained as an NBA referee
In the video posted by News of the World, Majeed, counting out the bribe money, promised that Amir would be Pakistan's bowler for the first over, and that the third ball of the over would be a no-ball delivery. Amir did bowl the first over, and on his third delivery from the over, bowled a no-ball delivery. Commentary described the delivery as a "massive overstep", a good half-metre beyond the popping crease.[18] Majeed also predicted that the sixth delivery of the tenth over would be a no-ball, and the ball, delivered by Asif, was also a no-ball delivery.
As a result of the allegations and video posted by News of the World, Scotland Yard announced during the evening that they had arrested Majeed on charges of suspicion of conspiracy to defraud bookmakers.[19]
In the video posted by News of the World, Majeed, counting out the bribe money, promised that Amir would be Pakistan's bowler for the first over, and that the third ball of the over would be a no-ball delivery. Amir did bowl the first over, and on his third delivery from the over, bowled a no-ball delivery. Commentary described the delivery as a "massive overstep", a good half-metre beyond the popping crease.[18] Majeed also predicted that the sixth delivery of the tenth over would be a no-ball, and the ball, delivered by Asif, was also a no-ball delivery.
As a result of the allegations and video posted by News of the World, Scotland Yard announced during the evening that they had arrested Majeed on charges of suspicion of conspiracy to defraud bookmakers.[19]
Hot Forum Topics
