Nevada books lose more than $2.5 million on Super Bowl

[tuleythetout]

Results are official...the Nevada sports books lost more than $2.5 million on Super Bowl XLII. The exact loss was $2,573,103 from a total handle of $92,055,833, the third highest total since records started being kept in 1991. The "hold" was a negative 2.8 percent.

The chart for every year since 1991 is at ViewFromVegas.com, on the Super Bowl page.

It wasn't the worst loss ever, but it was the worst since since 1995 when the 49ers routed the Chargers and the books lost $396,674. Statewide figures weren't compiled back around the time of Black Sunday.

[zerocage]

O well , they are up lifetime!

[Flamingo kid]

DT, how's your new website going?

[savage1]

2.5 million dollars loss combined for sportsbooks in Vegas is akin to the average guy losing about $10(if that).

[WildBill]

Originally Posted by savage1

2.5 million dollars loss combined for sportsbooks in Vegas is akin to the average guy losing about $10(if that).

Yep and as I said the casino floors were packed after the game surely with many people taking winnings and putting them on the tables and into the machines. Little doubt they did more than $2.5 million in extra business Sunday night than they would do on a normal Sunday night when the city is normally very quiet.

[gynecologist]

Vegas still profited BIG.. Rooms,tables,food etc..

[ZZ CREAM]

Guys must be either :


A) Morons or

B)Really stupid or

C) Have their hands tied really bad.

There was no way to lose on that Super Bowl with half a clue as to how to operate a book.

[Makers]

Nevada Super Bowl Handle

YEAR	HANDLE	RESULT	WIN/LOSS	HOLD
2008	$92,055,833	Giants 17, Patriots 14	($2,573,103)	-2.8
2007	$93,067,358	Colts 29, Bears 17	$12,930,175	13.9
2006	$94,534,372	Steelers 21, Seahawks 10	$8,828,431	9.3
2005	$90,759,236	Patriots 24, Eagles 21	$15,430,138	17.0
2004	$81,242,191	Patriots 32, Panthers 29	$12,440,698	15.3
2003	$71,693,032	Buccaneers 48, Raiders 21	$5,264,963	7.3
2002	$71,513,304	Patriots 20, Rams 17	$2,331,607	3.3
2001	$67,661,425	Ravens 34, Giants 7	$11,002,636	16.3
2000	$71,046,751	Rams 23, Titans 16	$4,237,978	6.0
1999	$75,986,520	Broncos 34, Falcons 19	$2,906,601	3.8
1998	$77,253,246	Broncos 31, Packers 24	$472,033	0.6
1997	$70,853,211	Packers 35, Patriots 21	$2,265,701	3.2
1996	$70,907,801	Cowboys 27, Steelers 17	$7,126,145	10.1
1995	$69,591,818	49ers 49, Chargers 26	($396,674)	-0.6
1994	$54,483,221	Cowboys 30, Bills 13	$7,481,541	13.7
1993	$56,811,405	Cowboys 52, Bills 17	$7,174,869	12.6
1992	$50,334,277	Redskins 37, Bills 24	$301,280	0.6
1991	$40,080,409	Giants 20, Bills 19	$3,512,241	8.8

[pioneer]

$2.5 million may not be much for the Vegas casinos, but it's still $2.5 million that they didn't need to lose. I watched the lines on vegasinsider all week long and I didn't see ANY line movement at all....it stayed at Patriots -12. Now if they had moved to Patriots -10, does anyone doubt but that the money would have come in on the Pats? Likewise the ML was a joke...it was on +300 to +370 all week, whereas normally a +12 dog is at least +500, which only proves that the -12 on the Pats was too high. This was a classic example of poor bookmaking...I'm glad they lost!

[OSUCOWBOYS]

Originally Posted by ZZ CREAM

Guys must be either :


A) Morons or

B)Really stupid or

C) Have their hands tied really bad.

There was no way to lose on that Super Bowl with half a clue as to how to operate a book.

100% truth

[ZZ CREAM]

Originally Posted by pioneer

$2.5 million may not be much for the Vegas casinos, but it's still $2.5 million that they didn't need to lose. I watched the lines on vegasinsider all week long and I didn't see ANY line movement at all....it stayed at Patriots -12. Now if they had moved to Patriots -10, does anyone doubt but that the money would have come in on the Pats? Likewise the ML was a joke...it was on +300 to +370 all week, whereas normally a +12 dog is at least +500, which only proves that the -12 on the Pats was too high. This was a classic example of poor bookmaking...I'm glad they lost!

I agree completely. They were not bookmaking, they were watching their neighbor's lines instead of their own and worrying how they would look. Hell, they could have gone below market price by a half a point and got as much money as they wanted. But then, they would have stood out from the pack and I guess that would be too scary to actually imitate a real bookmaker.

[WildBill]

You guys make the stupid assumption the SB is about bookmaking to Nevada casinos. It is not. They make 50% of their money on the stupid parlay cards they peddle. As for the line, its fallacy to think they would have suddenly brought in millions with the number at -10. People who were in town were going to bet what they were going to bet. The sharper players were going to be limited, but the high rollers they wanted around were going to be able to bet millions if they wished.

Besides you guys obviously pay no attention to the future book. The revenue was figured purely on the basis on this one game, but it seems a "lock" that most books were thrilled there were no payouts to Patriots futures bettors. That factor alone might more than make up for the small losses they absorbed on the single game bets.

[pioneer]

Originally Posted by WildBill

You guys make the stupid assumption the SB is about bookmaking to Nevada casinos. It is not. They make 50% of their money on the stupid parlay cards they peddle. As for the line, its fallacy to think they would have suddenly brought in millions with the number at -10. People who were in town were going to bet what they were going to bet. The sharper players were going to be limited, but the high rollers they wanted around were going to be able to bet millions if they wished.

Besides you guys obviously pay no attention to the future book. The revenue was figured purely on the basis on this one game, but it seems a "lock" that most books were thrilled there were no payouts to Patriots futures bettors. That factor alone might more than make up for the small losses they absorbed on the single game bets.

I don't know who made the stupid assumption that the SB is about bookmaking to the NV casinos....I agree it is not. The SB is just like bookmaking, or shows, or restaurants to the NV casinos, ie. they are all about making money. They did not make money on bookmaking this year and so, they made a mistake. Their mistake was not moving the line; it is NO fallacy that if one sportsbook had moved the line down from -12 to -10 that that sportsbook would have suddenly brought in millions of dollars on the Patriots...for you to argue that truism is a reason to have you booted like mofome, or at least placed in the dump!
In regards to the future book, it may seem a "lock" that most books were thrilled not to have to payoff on the Patriots, but unless you know the books liability on the Giants, you can not make that assumption.

[Jeff Jones]

Is there anything more fun than reading poster advice to Las Vegas Sportsbooks?

[bradswinning]

EVERYONE ON EOG WAS CLAIMING HOW THE BOOKS "CLEANED UP" ON THE SUPERBOWL THIS YEAR!! GOES TO SHOW YOU HOW MUCH THESE GUYS REALLY KNOW ON THIS SITE!

[skyweasel]

Originally Posted by Jeff Jones

Is there anything more fun than reading poster advice to Las Vegas Sportsbooks?

Being broken on the rack, perhaps.

I don't think this loss could have happened to a nicer, more deserving bunch of corporations.

[The Prophet]

Originally Posted by bradswinning

EVERYONE ON EOG WAS CLAIMING HOW THE BOOKS "CLEANED UP" ON THE SUPERBOWL THIS YEAR!! GOES TO SHOW YOU HOW MUCH THESE GUYS REALLY KNOW ON THIS SITE!

CORRECTION, SOME HAVE MERELY BEEN MISINFORMED, LIKE YOU.

WELCOME TO THE PARTY…

PERHAPS YOU’D BE INTERESTED IN THE PARTAKING OF A CRIME?

TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AROUND…



LET US KNOW WHAT INTERESTS YOU





.

[SlipperyPete]

Its just one game. Cant turn a profit on all of them

[rainbow]

Originally Posted by ZZ CREAM

Guys must be either :


A) Morons or

B)Really stupid or

C) Have their hands tied really bad.

There was no way to lose on that Super Bowl with half a clue as to how to operate a book.

I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER. 100% TRUE...............

[pioneer]

Disclaimer: I do not write for Gaming Today(but they must read my posts!)


Top Story
Sports bets: a risky business

Bettors get Super win over books

---

02/12/2008 - by GT Staff

In the wake of the $2.6 million loss and mediocre handle – $92 million – generated in Super Bowl XLII, Nevada sports book operators and industry experts alike were scratching their heads and moaning over what went wrong.
After all, the Patriots were heralded as possibly the best team in NFL history, and the game turned out to be the most widely watched Super Bowl in history.
So, why didn’t the public come out and support its team at the betting windows? Some suggest the slumping economy and high gas prices deterred bettors.
"Simply, the line was way too high," says a Las Vegas sports book director, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "To balance your books, you need two-way betting action, and we never got it because the point spread was just too high."
After the NFC and AFC conference championships, the Patriots were installed a 14-point favorite over the Giants at most Nevada books.
However, the number was quickly bet down as wagers flooded in on the Giants, with the line settling at –12 after just a few days.
And that’s where the line stayed, right up to kick-off as late Patriots money never materialized.
"When you have mostly one-way action – and the Giants got somewhere from 60 percent to 75 percent of the action – it puts the books in the precarious position of being on one side: in this case, the Patriots," the sports director said. "Compounding the problem, with the high spread deterring Patriots fans, you had less handle that you should have had."
In order to generate the two-way action that would have balanced the books and increased the overall handle, the initial point spread should have been in the 7- to 10-point range.
"If we opened the betting at New England -6½ or -7, it’s possible the early action would have been on the Patriots, even driving the line up to 9 or 10," the director said. "Then, you would have seen the Giants bettors come out to take the higher number."
Most astute gamblers agree with that assessment, and expressed bewilderment at why the line was set so high at the start.
"The Patriots are a good team, but they’re not that good," says Jerry "Poochy" Poochigian, a regular player at one of the Station sports books. "There were enough tell-tale signs going into the game to indicate the Giants had a real shot."
Indeed, those signs were delineated in a GamingToday article, "Giants Set to Spoil Pats Coronation," that ran the week before Super Bowl XLII. Among the reasons for backing the Giants:
• New England built its reputation in the first half of the season, when it beat mostly losing teams by an average, 41-15. But against winning squads, their average score was only 29-20.
• The Patriots had some narrow escapes, games they could have easily lost, against Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Baltimore and the Giants in Week 17.
• The aging Patriots defense was pushed around at times in the regular season, and the Giants are among the most physical teams in the NFL.
• The Giants showed tremendous heart, winning 10 straight road contests, including three straight in the post season.
• In the Patriots three previous Super Bowl victories, the winning margin was only 3 points in each.
"I guess the books underestimated the ability of the public to handicap the teams," Poochigian said. "Even if you liked New England to win the game, you had to feel the Giants would keep it close."
As it turned out, most sports book directors – in a poll before the game – overwhelmingly said they thought New England would win the game.
The problem with betting the Patriots to win outright was a "money line" bet of about 1-4, meaning a $1 bet resulted in a 25¢ win.
"Who among us is going to bet odds of 1-4?" Poochigian said. "You have to pretty certain you’re going to win, or have tons of money to throw away."
Apparently neither showed up on Super Bowl Sunday.

[Jeff Jones]

Dave is just trying to make a living at what we know we can't make a living at.

Gambling.

You want to write about gambling.

You don't want to actually do it.

[The General]

Good thread guys and I appreciate the information.

[livinthedream]

Based on the number of people the game brings to Vegas they were still way up

[skyweasel]

If Poochy Poochigian can figure it out, anyone can.