My Knowledge Of A Bookie To Be Successful. - Page 2
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 36 to 70 of 284

Thread: My Knowledge Of A Bookie To Be Successful.

  1. #36
    EOG FOUNDER THE SHRINK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    36,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wantitall4moi

    So I guess the only "winners" are place like this that take the advertising dollars. :D
    Another Penalty, this time OFFSIDES for 5 yards!!! :+signs99-

  2. #37
    Father of 3 Ironlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 17, 2005
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    826

    Default

    Wantiallformoi says, "All I know is I am MR Safety. I will take the SURE money over the "mathematically probable" money any day. I make money every year without fail. I do not get rich, but I made enough to live on for a few years, and enough to venture out into more main stream less stressful avenues."

    THis surely does not surprise me and I think that has alot to do with how you see all things containing risk "gambling". It reminds me of a professor of mine who said that a stock with 0 beta (no risk) with a guaranteed return of 1% was "better" (by some rediculous risk measurement system), than an alternative stock with a .0001 beta (extremely low risk) with an expected 100% return on investment.

    You see, the system wanted the return to be divided by the beta to determine its "value". Well, the example above, in my "wild gambling man" mind, said to me, this tool is bullshit, I'll take the virtuallly NO RISK (.001) stock with a 100% return anyday over that GUARANTEED 1$ return stock.

    Anyway, she argued with me for 30 minutes. This debate reminds me of that one. I guess it depends on your personality as to what one would define as "gambling" which is my main issue with your comments.

    Bottom line: Given sufficient bankroll, a bookmaker is not a gambler.

    Iron.

  3. #38

    Default

    Iron, I totally agree with you, this concept is a major factor in poker (which I play professionally, for the time being), we call it variance. A crazy game, with a lot of loose raising (from bad/drunk/stupid players), has a much higher propensity to damage your bankroll, but is always the most profitable in the long run. The only thing I am wondering, is what would be an bankroll large enough that you can garauntee you wont go broke, in poker its 300bb for ring and 500bb for shorthaned, is there anyway to equate that to bookmaking? Ie, maximum bet size is 5 dimes, you need X amt of $, to make sure you dont go broke.

  4. #39
    EOG FOUNDER THE SHRINK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    36,107

    Default

    True story...

    Although I was a bookmaker in High School, I NEVER booked a bet afterwards, because I enjoyed the thrill of gambling and for many years, I was the typical square...

    Well, I was very fortunate to meet some "brilliant" mathematical minds in the past 5-6 years, and suddenly I went from losing to winning at sports betting...

    Now ONE year, a very WEALTHY man who was a Friend of a Friend of mine decided he wanted to bet offshore. I put him into an "out," (50% with a MAKE-UP FOR GUARANTEEING someone who was worth 100 million, lol)...

    After watching the results for 4 weeks, I had SEEN enough. Magically, he got thrown out of this book after losing 300k in one month (40k average bet and he was betting the entire board) and was MINE...

    One year later, he lost over 7 FIGURES, so help me GOD!!!

    Yeah, if that's REALLY GAMBLING, then PRAISE THE LORD!!! :+excited-

    THE SHRINK

  5. #40
    Another Day, Another Dollar The General's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    A real precarious world.....
    Posts
    53,397

    Default

    Welcome to EOG King.

  6. #41

    Default

    Atleast 7 DIGITS, sorry that was to KING OF THE HILL responce.

  7. #42

    Default

    Thanks, General.
    Semper Fi.

  8. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rainbow
    Atleast 7 DIGITS.
    Wow, way more than I thought at first glance, but after I thought about it, it is really only about 200bb.

  9. #44

    Default

    I have seen people start with less. As they earn, they increase what they hold on a game. I have aslo seen people start with more, and go broke.

  10. #45
    Father of 3 Ironlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 17, 2005
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    826

    Default

    Welcome to EOG King ofthe Hill!

    Your question is completely dependant on a million things, but in general.....

    I would say something like 10 times Sunday's total volume's risk would be sufficient. So if you could potentially lose 30 dimes on Sunday, you'd need about 300,000 to guarantee survival.

    Just guessing....If you were a lucky man, or a gambling man, just have enough to pay each wager if they all won (70% of day 1 action) and see if the first day is your lucky day...lol.

  11. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wantitall4moi
    Book should NEVER go broke. How hard is that to understand?


    I don't care what expectation is. You take that expectation out when you balance BEFORE hand.

    Who among us when they see a game that is -110/100 somewhere and -125/+115 somwhere else isn't going to scalp that play? The only ones who won't do it are gamblers. You just said it yourselves, not many gamblers win. Long term or even short term.

    The guys that win are doing just what I do, taking both sides and getting the best of the ODDS/HOLDS not a SPREAD.

    As for the quote you guys are mentioning. Let 100 books take all the bets for every bettor in the world. No fringe books, no rogue books, simply let those books have to balance and take unlimited action for the billions of dollars that is bet every year in sports.

    I will guarantee their numbers would be a lot less opinionated, and their holds would increase. While their volumes would increase, their exposure would also.

    If they were truly bookmaking it would be a windfall, but since many are gambling, it would mean they would have to tighten up the way they did business. You surely wouldn't see some of the opening baseball numbers you see.

    I totally get what you guys are saying, but you are still thinking as GAMBLERS. You have to think that you have no positive expectation.

    In a vaccuum then books are supposed to make money no matter what. Whether due to opinion or simpley putting up a "bad" number sometimes it is impossible to balance action.

    That is why I say, if the number of books was reduced, those "mistake" the books make would eventually break them.

    The analogoy Shrink used. Bettors don't really lose, they just make mistakes. The more money you have the more mistakes you are allowed to make. But eventually you make your last mistake and you are broke.
    Who said a book was going to go broke? my whole point is NEVER MOVE THE LINE OFF OF COLD MONEY, IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT COLD MONEY IS, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG BUSINESS.

  12. #47
    EOG FOUNDER THE SHRINK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    36,107

    Default

    Time out for Gambling 101 Definitions...

    COLD MONEY= money left in your jeans when it is snowing outside and you wake up hungover not realizing you had it or where it is...

    HOT MONEY=money you always have a keen awareness of because it is always sunny, warm and en fuego for these people..

    :+signs99-

  13. #48

    Default

    LOL my computer crashed I was taking it so hard in this thread.


    Iron I went back and reread what I wrote, and what you wrote.

    We are basically saying the same things, But you are exaggerating yours, while I am trying to keep it as theoretically possible as I can.

    Even IF a book has a 54.54% PROBABLE advantage/probability to "win" (the 50/50 and the 4.54 for the hold) Why RISK it at all by keeping so lopsided? You used 80000 and 10000 and 10000 and 80000. IF they BALANVED that actions BEFORE, there would be NO NEED to "win" one or the other. All letting those two best stay that lopsided does is give the book the POSSIBILITY to "win" both. To me that is gambling. If they make sure they cannot "lose" BEFORE the games go off that is BOOKMAKING.

    We both agree that the end result is going to be the same if they "win" one and "lose" one. If the do it "right" to begin with it takes that risk out of it.

    What if a book does this habitually, and that math doesn't come back to a 50% return as probability would state? What if they have 5-6 weeks of this and people finally have enough money in their accounts to actually make a withdrawal worth while?

    So say 3000 customers ask for 1000 apiece,that is 3 million dollars they need to come up with. NOW theoretically they should have that money. But they obviously do not since they were toatally unbalanced in those games. So what if they do not have it even in escrow? Then what?

    When there is ANY risk of an inability to pay ESPECIALLY post up bets, that is gambnling, no ifs ands or buts about it.

    It may be circular logic, t may be a lot of things. but it is so much simpler to get the money balcned BEFORE than it does HOPING you hit both, but doing OK if you hit just one.

    I know full well books do this, that is why I say books gamble. Most have gotten away with it. Many haven't. Sooner or later more are going to get caught or get a run on the ban kwiththeir pants down. I am sure a lot of the SLOW PAY issues are for the EXACT "bookmaking" practice that places employ, that you have described.

    So does that make it right? Does it make it sfe? No and NO. Just because everyone does it, and because it is theoretically gong to "even out". The times that it doesn't is when there is a problem.
    We can argue this all day, we are taking opposite sides of the same discussion. I am "the sky is falling" guy.You are the one that thinks eventually the suckers will lose enough to pay the winners off. You look at gambling as a gambler. Hoping that losers lose enough to pay the winners of. I look at gambling as hoping the books balance their action enough to make their cuts and stillhave enough money to stay in business and pay me when I want a withdrawal.

    When there is ANY possibility of the books going broke it is gambling. No matter how much money people think they have. I am not sure how many books have 10 million dollars on hand to pay post up and credit guys, but I have to think it is a very small list. But any book with 500 or so decent sized players runs that possibilty everyday of having to pay that much out. That is only $2000 a piece per player.

    I myself have booked more than my fair share of bets when I was in colege, and not small time bets either. But you can be damned sure I was always balanced and had my action laid off or bet at favorable odds. Even though my volume wasn't huge, I could make 1500-2500 a week with out gambling a bit, and in the late 80s early 90's that was pretty decent money for a 20 year old kid in college. Had I been in Vegas or had the interent I might have added 50% to that amount by betting reduced vigs.

    So ultimately it may be greed that ruins bookmakers which gets back to the original post. But if they were running a legitimate book making action balancing system then greed doesn't factor in.

  14. #49

    Default

    Basically rainbow, you are hinging you not moving the line, on the fact that the first line given, makes the bet 50/50, and as long as its a bunch of squares taking -110, write as much and as fast as possible. But how are you garuanteed the line given makes the game 50/50?

  15. #50

    Default

    I think rainbow has said several times, that books have to have a large enough bankroll to sustain itself. He shows the most profit, long term, as long as you avhe hte bank, you show the way to build a bank w/o risk.

  16. #51

    Default

    Rainbow I did answer that question but my computer crashed. Shrink mentioned books going broke, so I was commenting to him. I had 3 guys coming at me at once so it was hard to keep up even when I can type 60 wpm.


    Books should never go brokwe, nor should they ever have to slow pay, as long as they balance action before hand that is.

    As far as cold money and dry money. Again we agree to disgree on those points. You have your theories I have mine. Somewhere in themiddle is probably the true answer.

    The bottomline is that a spread is only right or wrong after a game is over.

    Books could post -3 for 75% of the NFL games and have better balance than they do now. While we have our opinions beofre or after how good or bad that number is, the final score is what determines it.

    I am sure everyone thought Balt was a good number yesterday, even after it moved a couple times. In the long run the good lines and bad lines are going to run together.

  17. #52
    Father of 3 Ironlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 17, 2005
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    826

    Default

    Obviously you don't get it.

    Last word:

    More bookmakers have WENT BROKE doing what you advise (balancing action) than have gone broke keeping it all.

    What happens is they end up owing the guy they laid off too, and they're credit players stiff them for a portion of the debt owed to him. FACT...JACK!

    Your bookmaking arguments, virtually all of them, in regards to this, steam, pinnacle's leans, etc....are better suited to fantasy land.

    If you stick to what you know, NO RISK SCALPING and grinding it out, your "voice of reason" tag will be much more meaningful. Your tune has changed so many times in this thread it should be "voice of seasons"...

    Good luck to you my friend.

    IRON>

  18. #53

    Default

    And BTW Ironlock...books with reduced vigs make the practice you have described exponetially more dangerous.


    VERY few books are -110 (4.5%)these days.

    At -107 they are 3.3%
    At -105 they are 2.4%
    At -104 they are 1.9% (Pinnies curent hold)

    SO they have basically given up a 2.5% (58% of the total they had originally) "advantage" according to your model. I don't know about you, but that is a scarey though if they are indeed gambling.

    IMHO thevery best have just about a 4% adavantage in going better than 50/50 on average and that is only because they understand where to get the advetageous holds, and not necessarilly that much of a better ability to pick winners, just better SPOTS.

  19. #54

    Default

    Ironlock, you don't get it. That is why I said if books actually adhered to book making they wouldn't be offering reduced vigs,they couldnt afford to. Nor would they be offering credit to players who they couldn't make pay. You think Vegas gives credit to guys that they don't have collateral or paperwork on? Something they can take into a court and use as a default? Not hardly. I mentioned Vegas in here somewhere.


    Your arguments make my points for me. I said it more than once. Books cannot afford to have these reduced holds without gambling. I just said it in my previous post.

    They can't make enough money with balanced action, with a 4.54% hold, they surely won't make it with a <2% hold, even with a huge volume. Tey make it by doing what you say, staying lopsided praying they win more than they lose, and hope they do not have a run on their bank.

    If you call that bookmaking then God Bless You, I surely wouldn't define it as that.

  20. #55

    Default

    Not many BMs concern themselves with writing balanced action. Pretty much a thing of the past. However you do need to know exactly how much you are willing to hold on any one descion. Than when you hit the #, move the line.

  21. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by THE SHRINK
    Time out for Gambling 101 Definitions...

    COLD MONEY= money left in your jeans when it is snowing outside and you wake up hungover not realizing you had it or where it is...

    HOT MONEY=money you always have a keen awareness of because it is always sunny, warm and en fuego for these people..

    :+signs99-
    You must have miss your FLIGHT in JULY to COSTA RICA.

  22. #57

    Default

    Moi, I agree there is only so low the vig can go and the book remain profitable. Unless you are only booking faces. And that would still be difficult at no juice.

  23. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Willy Loman
    Not many BMs concern themselves with writing balanced action. Pretty much a thing of the past. However you do need to know exactly how much you are willing to hold on any one descion. Than when you hit the #, move the line.
    Yes if you are dealing with all SQUARES, no if you are dealing with both.

  24. #59

    Default

    Valid point.

  25. #60

    Default

    Want your posts give me a headache.

  26. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho Sanza
    Want your posts give me a headache.
    LOL as soon as I saw your name I figured you would have something to say about me. That was a little nicer than I thought.

    I am sure if we were discussing this rather than debating in written form, it would make a lot more sense and points could be made a little easier.

    We all know what is up. I am just more of a realist than guys that think books can continue to have losers line up constantly over and over again to keep them in business.

    I do not disagre with anything anyone said in this thread for the most part. I just do not think it is the "correct" way of doing it.

  27. #62
    Another Day, Another Dollar The General's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    A real precarious world.....
    Posts
    53,397

    Lightbulb

    I knew there was a reason I had this Ironlock kid around other than the fact when I met him in vegas I could tell he was a stud and Maybe someday he could get me hooked up with a hot & clean cook.

    :smoke

  28. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The General
    Hey guys, since we are here. Could a major book prosper by writing even money wagers on the major sports which were standard vig of 110 sides and totals in years past, IF they have the proper & large enough volume?
    Absolutely not.

    More on all of this later.

    But for now, let me leave you with this thought.

    The definition of "gambling" is to wager at unfavorable odds. A properly run book is wagering at favorable odds, not gambling.

  29. #64

    Default

    If Lockhorns is right, why all the movement in games. everyone wants to be a book because its so easy to make money, just put in the right price, get a load of squares, sit back and keep banking:+signs11- why does a question on bookmaking bring out so many guessers closet layers.:+textinbu



    the smilies are up the swannee again:D

  30. #65

    Default

    The bankroll is everything. There are so many fly by nights out there with small bankrolls they must move quickly or it becomes gambling for them.

    Is that right?

  31. #66

    Default

    First off I'm not a bookmaker or linesman but here are my opinions.

    Wantitall is bookmaking like a square book as SIA would book. They have small limits and will move off of cold money. The others are talking about sharp books that will not move off of cold money.

    I've always felt, which is the opposite of most, that televised games such as the Super Bowl offer great value. The higher the percentage and volume of square money being bet compared to a normal event has a direct affect on line movement off of cold money.

    Shrink- 50% with a red is nice unless you have a bunch of McIrish's.

  32. #67

    Default

    I just have one question, that I have asked about half a dozen times in here...


    How many books could pay out every outstanding debt they have? Outstanding debt being every balance to the penny that is on their books, and every credit player that has a balance also. How many could pay that and not only have enough money, but continue to pay advertisers and employees?

    Like everyone is say the amount of money they have is important. Post up books shouldn't need any money if they were bookmakig properly. Call it "square" book making or whatever you want. But books that keep unbalanced holds on games are relying on players to lose more than they win. If players start winning more than they lose there is a problem.

    Everytimethere is a close up, or a slow pay, or a "problem" with a book, you guys are THE FIRST to cry foul and claim they are shady and have a problem. But in this thread you are basically condoning what they do. If they had a little more moeney they would be an A+ book in most guys eyes. They could be losing their asses every week, but because they have "deep pockets" it makes them safe.

    THAT is the major porblem. Because this is common practice these days it is acceptable. With "smarter" players, and easier ways to move money around, it makes those "bookmaking" practices extremely volatile.

    MY whole point is that if the books balanced before the games it would be a lot smarter, and truer bookmaking. That actually takes some math skills to do, so I understand why some places don't do it. But as the list of shady books and close ups continue, just remember that most of the guys here see nothing wrong with what these places are doing, they simply needed more money to do it "properly". These places keep "booking and booking" all the time getting deeper and deeper in the hole. Sooner or later they go beyond their available resources. So basically yhey are now "booking" with money they do not have. They ares till taking postups and using that money to pay winners. They still take unbalanced action (because according to all you THAT is actually bookmaking), and they are hoping and praying they don't have a run on their bank. They are barely staying afloat, so everyone says they are solid and nothing to worry about. But sooner or later the bottom falls out. How many times have we heard this story?

    But ANYONE answer me how many books right now could pay every balance they have in their accounts and still afford to book bets the way they do(this incorrect unbalanced way) every week and still pay their expences (employees, advertising, taxes, etc)? And I don't want guesses, or wishful thinking.

    I also don't want to go into forums and see anyone that has said that these places are "sharp" bookmakers when they go tits up from lack of funds. When you accept these practices then you definately have to face the consequences when they lose too many games and can't pay anyone off.

  33. #68
    Father of 3 Ironlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 17, 2005
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    826

    Default

    Wantitallformoi-

    I have a question for you? As a percentage, how much San Francisco action was there, WORLD WIDE, versus STL action?

    Also, Please inform the bookmakers of the world how to call off all their unbalanced teaser and parlay action?

    YOU LIVE IN A DREAMLAND! FANTASY LAND! LA LA LAND!

    If you think that these games are "balanced enough", to balance them all, pay for all the expenses offshore, phones, broadband, clerks, ads, licenses, etc....and then you think they can remain profitable "calling off at least 50% of their volume"....you are NUTS!

    You ask a question that cannot be answered by anyone, continually. Yet, you refuse to ask the many questins I've posed to you in this thead that demolish, your shortsided, mathematically incorrect, no-risk approach.

    Like I said, if a bookmaker was stupid enough to book your way, they would be broke in a few weeks, for a number of reasons.

    IRON>

  34. #69
    Another Day, Another Dollar The General's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    A real precarious world.....
    Posts
    53,397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The General
    Thanks for the replies and hypothetically speaking IF 10 books came along and had what it took to do this, what affect would it have on line services?
    Anyone?

  35. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JC
    Absolutely not.

    More on all of this later.

    But for now, let me leave you with this thought.

    The definition of "gambling" is to wager at unfavorable odds. A properly run book is wagering at favorable odds, not gambling.
    Well I'm going to have to dissagree with you 100%, it all depends who is sitting behind the COMPUTER, take my word it defintely can be done, the KEY is to know your CUSTOMERS, if you dont know them , you have no chance to win doing it, so many people in this INDUSTRY cannot SEPARATE REAL MONEY FROM COLD MONEY, if you can do that, you want have no problem doing it. this might really get interesting.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •