I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

pioneer

EOG Dedicated
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

And they had a much better price on Cards money line, where as Vegas was offering huge discount on Steelers money line.

Best Wishes...OF :+waving-5

Which means they (the offshores) should have done well also. The problem with the offshores is that you can't believe a word they say about whether they won or lost. The only way you really know if they lost is if they close up shop(which has happened many, many times after the SB.
 

munson15

I want winners...
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

Munson,
You need to check and see if the doctors didn't remove your testicles along with your bum hip. I have NEVER ever seen a guy so quick to apologize for saying, and I quote..."Thanks for the update, Pioneer."
Your bad indeed!
:LMAO:LMAO:LMAOI guess the distinction that I need to make is that the relative health of the Vegas books does not affect me nearly as much as the stability of the offshore part of the industry. Thanks for pointing out my inconsistency, but I don't want to take a myopic point of view toward the online books, that's where my money is.
 

raycabino

Long Live Wilson!
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

my?o?pi?a <script>play_w2("M0510400")</script><object style="margin: 1px;" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" height="21" width="13">



<embed src="http://img.tfd.com/m/sound.swf" flashvars="sound_src=http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/M0510400.mp3" menu="false" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" height="21" width="13"></object> (m - p - )n.1. A visual defect in which distant objects appear blurred because their images are focused in front of the retina rather than on it; nearsightedness. Also called short sight.
2. Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning: "For Lorca, New York is a symbol of spiritual myopia" Edwin Honig.

This is for the uneducated like myself. Always nice to tack on to the vocabulary.:cheers
 

munson15

I want winners...
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

my?o?pi?a<SCRIPT>play_w2("M0510400")</SCRIPT><OBJECT style="MARGIN: 1px" codeBase=http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0 height=21 width=13 classid=clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000>
























</p>&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
<embed src="http://img.tfd.com/m/sound.swf" flashvars="sound_src=http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/M0510400.mp3" menu="false" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" height="21" width="13"></OBJECT>(m - p - )n.1. A visual defect in which distant objects appear blurred because their images are focused in front of the retina rather than on it; nearsightedness. Also called short sight.
2. Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning: "For Lorca, New York is a symbol of spiritual myopia" Edwin Honig.

This is for the uneducated like myself. Always nice to tack on to the vocabulary.:cheers
I'm an ex-writer, and sometimes can't help myself, Ray.:+textinb3
 

raycabino

Long Live Wilson!
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

<table id="wn"><tbody><tr><td valign="top">Adj.</td><td valign="top">1.</td><td>myopic - unable to see distant objects clearlynearsighted, shortsighted
</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">
</td><td valign="top">2.</td><td>myopic - lacking foresight or scope; "a short view of the problem"; "shortsighted policies"; "shortsighted critics derided the plan"; "myopic thinking"shortsighted, unforesightful, short
improvident - not provident; not providing for the future



This one is the better one I guess.:+textinb3

</td></tr></tbody></table>
 

buddypar4

EOG Enthusiast
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

I took a bath on the teasers and prop's even though i had Pitt's at-6 and -6 1/2. Was not a good SB but not a killer.
 

munson15

I want winners...
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

<TABLE id=wn><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Adj.</TD><TD vAlign=top>1.</TD><TD>myopic - unable to see distant objects clearlynearsighted, shortsighted


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>


</TD><TD vAlign=top>2.</TD><TD>myopic - lacking foresight or scope; "a short view of the problem"; "shortsighted policies"; "shortsighted critics derided the plan"; "myopic thinking"shortsighted, unforesightful, short
improvident - not provident; not providing for the future



This one is the better one I guess.:+textinb3



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
:cheers
 

ZZ CREAM

EOG Master
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

You have NO CLUE to what you are talking about. Many casinos here in Las Vegas LOST money on the Super Bowl.


Dave"The Meatman" Scandaliato
This, I believe. As I stated early on in this thread, most books lost to the Super Bowl for one reason. The Public, which normally bets on the favorite was on Arizona . It is also true that if they had won on the floor it would have been much worse for the books.
 

pioneer

EOG Dedicated
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

:LMAO:LMAO:LMAOI guess the distinction that I need to make is that the relative health of the Vegas books does not affect me nearly as much as the stability of the offshore part of the industry. Thanks for pointing out my inconsistency, but I don't want to take a myopic point of view toward the online books, that's where my money is.

You're welcome...that's what I do, ie. point out inconsistencies. Speaking of which, let me point out the obvious that saying "Thanks for the update" is in no way taking a myopic point of view toward the online books...but I understand where you're coming from, and expect that you would understand where I'm coming from also, which is literally "Vegas".

ps. at least you got that affect/effect thing right...maybe you can teach your fellow scribe, Duh Sportsgirl.
 

munson15

I want winners...
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

You're welcome...that's what I do, ie. point out inconsistencies. Speaking of which, let me point out the obvious that saying "Thanks for the update" is in no way taking a myopic point of view toward the online books...but I understand where you're coming from, and expect that you would understand where I'm coming from also, which is literally "Vegas".

ps. at least you got that affect/effect thing right...maybe you can teach your fellow scribe, Duh Sportsgirl.
I keep forgetting you live in Vegas, and bring a perspective that is different from that of the hinterland. And, please know that I appreciate you mentioning my inconsistencies, I try to avoid them, but occasionally fail.
 

pioneer

EOG Dedicated
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

Nevada casinos take $81 million in Super Bowl bets


<!-- end story-header -->Associated Press
Tue, Feb 3, 2009 (6:21 p.m.)
<!-- /inline-content --><!-- /text-inline -->Sports books in Nevada took in $81.5 million in bets on Sunday's Super Bowl and won $6.68 million, state gambling regulators said Tuesday.
The amount bet on the game was below $90 million for the first time since 2004, when sports books took in $81.2 million in wagers. But the 8.2 percent the state's 176 sports books won was an improvement over last year when they lost a record $2.6 million on the big game, according to numbers released by the state Gaming Control Board.
Jay Kornegay, executive director of the race and sports book at the Las Vegas Hilton, said he was surprised by the low betting volume and had expected about $90 million in wagers.
"That's a huge drop," Kornegay said. "Going into the weekend ... we were a little concerned. By midmorning Sunday, we were pleasantly surprised by the volume that we saw coming through the windows."
The Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Arizona Cardinals in Tampa, Fla., but Arizona bettors who bet on the 6 1/2- to 7-point spread won when the game ended 27-23.
Kornegay said the sports books were able to control betting they received on either side by manipulating the point spread a half-point in either direction.
Last year, Nevada casinos took in $92 million when the New York Giants upset the New England Patriots, 17-14, and handed the state's sports books a loss on the Super Bowl for the first time since 1995, when the San Francisco 49ers trounced the San Diego Chargers 49-26.
The record amount bet in Nevada sports books on the Super Bowl was $94.5 million in 2006 when the Steelers beat the Seattle Seahawks, 21-10. Casinos won $8.8 million that year.

 

Wise Guy

EOG Addicted
Re: I suspect the SB was not kind to the Bookmakers

The lowest handle since 2004.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The big money did not show, those big 6 figure bets did not show this superbowl.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The number of tickets was huge, the average ticket was smaller. The public was very present in Nevada, and they were heavy on the Cardinals money line.

Books that went to 6.5 early made out better. Books that stayed on 7 did not fare as well; however, most attached a money line to the 7 (so they were not killed).
<o:p></o:p>
I have read Pioneers posts above. <o:p></o:p>
His posts are correct, as they relate to Nevada.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I have read the above post by The Meatman.<o:p></o:p>
He is not correct (again, as it relates to action in Nevada).<o:p></o:p>
Perhaps one or two books lost money in Las Vegas, but the majority made a very nice profit.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My post relates only to Nevada. Even though I wager offshore, I cannot comment on offshore profits because the numbers cannot be confirmed.
 
Top