My Knowledge Of A Bookie To Be Successful.
Page 1 of 9 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 284

Thread: My Knowledge Of A Bookie To Be Successful.

  1. #1

    Default My Knowledge Of A Bookie To Be Successful.

    I think a bookie should never move a line off of COLD money, I think in a long run you will beat the square and pay the Wiseguy. I think the biggest KEY is VOLUME, the problem that kills alot of books is GREED, they all want to be a MILLIONAIRE in one week, it doesnt work like that if you want to be successful you must have alot of patience.

  2. #2
    Another Day, Another Dollar The General's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    A real precarious world.....
    Posts
    53,397

    Default

    Very solid post rainbow.

    Greed has destroyed many in all kinds of business and patience is a MUST have.

  3. #3

    Default

    In the current times you don't have to be a bookmaker at all. With all the clones and guys following everyone else all you need to do is have the ability to move your money around and keep balanced. Moving off a number means NOTHING anymore, as long as everyone else moves to the same number everyone is protected. Even if guys are mving on air they can call someone they know who might be heavy the other way and simply swap the money off.


    Most of these books are now run by businessmen who understand numbers and balance. Only when books are run by guys who know gambling or THINK they know gambling and gamblers do they get in trouble.

    Say what you want about the books in Vegas, that have been handcuffed by the corporations that now run the hotels. They are going to stay in business, and they will always be there to take bets. And for 95% of people that bet, their limits are more than enough.

    I would rather have a book stay in business hand take 1000 limits than have a book open up to all comers, have a couple bad weeks, and go away with my money and everyone elses.

    SMART bookmaking entails two things. BALANCE and CONFORMITY. If you have balance you can't lose, if you have the same line as everyone else you will not entice inbalance, thus holding the first commandment.

  4. #4

    Default

    Book to your bankroll.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wantitall4moi
    In the current times you don't have to be a bookmaker at all. With all the clones and guys following everyone else all you need to do is have the ability to move your money around and keep balanced. Moving off a number means NOTHING anymore, as long as everyone else moves to the same number everyone is protected. Even if guys are mving on air they can call someone they know who might be heavy the other way and simply swap the money off.


    Most of these books are now run by businessmen who understand numbers and balance. Only when books are run by guys who know gambling or THINK they know gambling and gamblers do they get in trouble.

    Say what you want about the books in Vegas, that have been handcuffed by the corporations that now run the hotels. They are going to stay in business, and they will always be there to take bets. And for 95% of people that bet, their limits are more than enough.

    I would rather have a book stay in business hand take 1000 limits than have a book open up to all comers, have a couple bad weeks, and go away with my money and everyone elses.

    SMART bookmaking entails two things. BALANCE and CONFORMITY. If you have balance you can't lose, if you have the same line as everyone else you will not entice inbalance, thus holding the first commandment.
    I have to dissagree with you 100%, all the smart books I know will NEVER dry move and never move a line off of COLD money, you have to be real sharp, I cant explain to you in words, it would take me like 3 pages to write.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Willy Loman
    Book to your bankroll.
    Including your capability to borrow! LOL!

  7. #7
    Another Day, Another Dollar The General's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    A real precarious world.....
    Posts
    53,397

    Default

    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?

  8. #8

    Default

    ZZ, personally I don't believe in that, but alot of successful guys do.

  9. #9

    Default

    General, if their clientelle is almost all square, maybe. Would be difficult however.

  10. #10

    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?
    I think without a doubt they can as long as the person that is moving the lines knows what he is doing, that's the whole key.

  11. #11
    Another Day, Another Dollar The General's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    A real precarious world.....
    Posts
    53,397

    Default

    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?

  12. #12

    Default

    You think the Syndicate would mind booking at even money?

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Willy Loman
    ZZ, personally I don't believe in that, but alot of successful guys do.
    You got that right Willy, know alot of big names offshore that have gone that route! Bad practice but sometimes a necessary evil! You are very sharp, bytheway!

  14. #14
    Another Day, Another Dollar The General's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    A real precarious world.....
    Posts
    53,397

    Default

    Hey Rainbow, I am asking the questions here. :D

    I am not a Bookie.

  15. #15

    Default

    Rainbow, don't try and tell me books don't move off "cold" numbers, I see them do it all the time. You of the great "steam doesn't lose" mantra.


    This fantasy that books are smarter than we are is getting old. Or even that bettors aresmarter. There is no better or smarter. There is only who does it the right way to survive.

    I will tell you the singular reason why offshore books are even still in business. There are simply so many of them.

    With all the books out there dividing up the pie they greatly diminish the LOSSES that THEY take in certain weeks. Books do not win every week. It is impossible. But then again to win or lose they have to GAMBLE. So in the truest term they are not BOOKMAKING, they are gambling.

    While it is nearly impossible to get balanced action, having so many books in exisatnce makes it a hell of a lot easier. I am not even talking about laying bets off between each other either.

    If you trimmed the books in existance down to say 100, I would bet my life that NONE of them would be offering -104/105, bonueses, free withdrawals, et al. They would more than likely be broke. But because they have th eability and foresight to see what others are doing and mimic it, they GREATLY reduce their exposure.

    Just like when someone bets a game for themsleves, and it moves huge. Most guys are going to buy insurance. That is basically bookmaking. Covering your self in case the worst happens. Figuring out how you can make some thing no matter what happens.

    General...in answer to your question. That would not be bookmaking, that would be gambling. Unless they had other place they could lay the +100 bets off for +101 or more BOTH ways they would only make money if they won the best they covered. So even with huge volume they are not taking a hold. Even Pinnacle at -104 each way. They have to be handling HUGE volume to make money off that hold. Factoring in expences and advertising and marketing, and personel, they HAVEE to be gambling to some extent.

    Now, what they are dong makes me nervous, they have always had enough money, and balanced their books enough to make it work. But I am also smart enough to know that when you gamble, no matter who you are or how much money you have, you are going to lose in the long run, be it book or bettor.

    Obviously with the action they take they can hide it in other areas, and increase their holds to make up for the losses for sure. But I am not convinced that the volumes in those sports is enough for them to "live" on.

    All I know is that if you give me two numbers I can make money, if you give me 3 numbers(sets of odds not spreads) I will never lose. That is how book makers are SUPPOSED to think.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The General
    Hey Rainbow, I am asking the dam questions here. :D

    I am a Bookie. and a very paid one.

    nice Pete good luck tonight

  17. #17
    Another Day, Another Dollar The General's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    A real precarious world.....
    Posts
    53,397

    Default

    Want, good post as usual. Now factor in the online Casino and you have a slightly less need for a typical or average hold in sports betting.

  18. #18
    EOG FOUNDER THE SHRINK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    36,107

    Default

    Does it concern anyone besides me that other bookmakers are lowering their vigorish in order to gain more customers and give books like Pinnacle a run for their money?

    Personally, I look at WHICH book is lowering their vigorish to make the call...

    Places like WSEX, CASCADE, & HOLLYWOOD offering reduced JUICE don't give me the heebeegeebees but if 3463hbb3wbetonsportsbwrgf did, I'd be VERY WORRIED!!!

    THE SHRINK

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

    Default

    Hey park, are you putting words into my mouth or am I having flashbacks?

  20. #20
    Father of 3 Ironlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 17, 2005
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    826

    Default

    Rainbow is right on, and in this case wantitallformoi is in over his head. If the BANKROLL is sufficient, why would a bookmaker move a number that is attracted in inordinate amount of money (cold money) from huge squares.

    Wantitallformoi- Here is where you are mathematically WRONG. You view each GAME as a independant event. Smart bookmakers, with large enough bankrolls, veiw each game as 1 part of a larger series, forming "the long run". The bookmaker will win exactly 50% of those imbalanced games, and therefore, it plays out mathematically just as though he had EVERY game balanced...but, by not moving the number, he has collected for himself 4-5 times the amount of PROFIT (vig) than he would have given away using your Method of balancing EACH AND EVERY GAME!

    YOUR WAY (with a two game scenario)
    $10,000 on BAltimore+3
    $90,0000 on INDY-3

    YOUR WAY suggests that it is smart for the bookmaker to call off 80,000 of his action, and "guarantee" himself ($1,000 profit), I say guarantee as if we are talking about post up money.

    GAME 2
    90,000 on Denver-4.5
    10,000 on Miami +4.5

    YOUR WAY again suggest calling off 80,000 (80% of your action, you've generated by advertising, promoting, and earning a solid reputation) in order that you GUARANTEE yourself $1,000 profit.

    So, your way, we have NO RISK and guarantee a grand total profit of $2000 of 220,000, a hold of 1%...wooooo hooooo.

    THE SHARP BOOKMAKERS WAY(given a large enough bankroll)

    GAME 1
    $10,000 on BAltimore+3
    $90,0000 on INDY-3

    GAME 2
    90,000 on Denver-4.5
    10,000 on Miami +4.5

    THE MATHEMATICALLY SAVY bookmaker keeps it all, expecting to win 50% of all decisions, regardless of how heavy or inbalanced the sides are...He splits here, losing 79,000 on the Indy game and Winning 89,000 on the Miami game..for a NET PROFIT of 10,000 of of 220000 (net hold of 4.54%), the mathematically expected vig earned by a good bookmaker

    So, unless you just plain DON"T believe in math, you're way is WRONG! Take these two examples and do the calculations over 2000 games and see which results you like best, and stop calling sharp bookmakers, idiots, Please!

    :+signs9-1

    Iron.

  21. #21
    EOG FOUNDER THE SHRINK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    36,107

    Default

    what he said...

  22. #22

    Default

    I hope people are reading. We got quite a bit of knowledge at this site.

  23. #23

    Default

    great thread lots of info

  24. #24

    Default

    Want, I never said nobody moves a line off of COLD money or DRY MOVES a GAME, my arguement is you are making the WRONG move.

  25. #25
    Father of 3 Ironlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 17, 2005
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    826

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wantitall4moi
    With all the books out there dividing up the pie they greatly diminish the LOSSES that THEY take in certain weeks. Books do not win every week. It is impossible. But then again to win or lose they have to GAMBLE. So in the truest term they are not BOOKMAKING, they are gambling.
    YOu aren't serious when saying that betting +110 on a 50% outcome is GAMBLING are you?

    I'll flip quarters with you ALL DAY LONG for a dime a flip if you give me +110. Of course you won't, which will thereby invalidate your theory, unless of course you resort to the statement that the lines in the NFL are not good enough to provide 50% probablity on outcomes.....and here again, you'd be DEAD wrong.

    The only way that a bettor has positive expectation is if he has a better number than the bookmaker, and you can't be suggesting that this percentage of the gambling public is any more than 1/5 of 1%, are you?

    Is every gambler out there cabable of beating -110 now? Please point them out to me....in ten years, I've only discovered about 10 of them, and ran across THOUSANDS of gamblers.

    You have no idea what the spectrum of ANY given book's clientele looks like, and therefore are not qualified in making judgements about how they book.

    Iron.

  26. #26

    Default

    Maybe I didn't explain it out right. I think NOT moving a number is THE SMARTEST thing that books can do. I also think many hold number longer or adjust vig. to help them balance it out if/when they do move the psread.

    I mentioned this before somewhere. If books posted a number and NEVER moved it, it would be very difficult for bettors to make money (assuming they do now.

    But I also would doubt your figures in terms of 50/50. When you have a man made number you skew the results slightly from a 50% balance. Also what happens IF he lose both those game?

    How soon we forget Aces Gold. MATHEMATICALLY Charlie had an 90% chance to win the games he was straddling the 3 on. He just happened to do it in a year where the 3 hit 21% of the time, a HUGE anomoly. Also factor in that a lot of places were using his numbers as a middle shot, that doubled the problem, because he pissed the other shops off that people were betting the other side of their middle at.

    While a season is a short term, and not a long term thing, I am not sure how many books could sustain a huge losing streak post up or credit. For them ost part when I make these arguments it is on a psot up basis.

    As it is right now. I am not sure how many books can handle a run on their bank on money in their accounts that is POST UP mney as it is.

    How many books do you think could pay out EVERY penny that is on clients balance sheets? I know I keep some pretty nice chunks in balances in some accounts, especially if I don't use that account or can't find a nuimber there. But say there are 100 guys like me with 40-75K in their accounts. We all asked for our money all at once. , that is 4-7.5 million dollars in post up money that is suddenly gone from their coffers.

    How many books actually balance their books well enough to not only have that money for those 100 players, but will also have enough money to pay the 3-5 thousand other players that have 100 to 10,000 dollars in their ac****s as well?

    Of course this is all guess work, and fodder for fear. But Don't you think for a moment it isn't always in the back of my mind. While I do have a bit of money out there, most assuredly there are guys with more, not to mention the credit balances that may be outstanding.

    How many books can pay everything they owe credit and post up and still have enough cash on hand to operate and pay?

    The answer would scare you, and ANY book that CANNOT do that, is not a BOOKMAKING operation, it is a GAMBLING operation.:+signs9-1

  27. #27
    Father of 3 Ironlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 17, 2005
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    826

    Default

    And again, here we have Wantitallformoi calling bookmakers "gamblers"...

    Quote "Books do not win every week. It is impossible. But then again to win or lose they have to GAMBLE. So in the truest term they are not BOOKMAKING, they are gambling."

    Wantitallformaoi-
    You cannot possibly be suggesting that betting +110 on a 50% outcome is "gambling" can you? If so, I'll flip you quarters for a dime a flip if you give me +110 all day and all night until you're BROKE.

    If not, then you must be suggesting that NFL lines do not provide 50% outcomes on either side of the line, if so, please provide info, and also provide me the list of players that beat -110, becuase over the THOUSANDS of handicappers I've met, I've only found about 5.

    Seriously though, you're problem is that you are speculating on the quality of decisions made by bookmakers, without knowing their particular spectrum of clientele, and there is the defining data that will lead the sharp bookmaker to the correct line moves/ calling off/keeping all etc....gamblers gamble, bookmakers WORK, unless of course thier bankroll is insufficient.

    Correct or NO?

    Iron.

  28. #28
    EOG FOUNDER THE SHRINK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    36,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wantitall4moi

    With all the books out there dividing up the pie they greatly diminish the LOSSES that THEY take in certain weeks. Books do not win every week. It is impossible. But then again to win or lose they have to GAMBLE. So in the truest term they are not BOOKMAKING, they are gambling.
    I don't want it to appear that I am piling on either, but the above paragraph I am quoting you on makes absolutely no sense at all to me...

    I strongly DISAGREE with what you said because having anywhere between a 2-5% rate of return LONGTERM isn't GAMBLING...

    It's only considered GAMBLING when you risk LOSING, and while we are it, let's look at the number of gamblers who have gone broke and compare them to how many bookmakers who have gone broke...

    The margin is off the charts..

    THE SHRINK

  29. #29

    Default

    The line has nothing to do with the 50/50 split, it is the teams. EVERY game since the beginning fo time could have been lined -3 andyou would have about a 50/50 split.


    Since 1989 the MEDIAN line for home teams has been -2.6, and the ATS record has been 1874-1848-109 (50.3%)

    So theoretically you could have eliminates all the other spreads, and simply made every home team -3, and you would still have had close to a 50/50 split.

    It might gives some bettors a few more "obvious" winner, but in the long run as you like to say the books think, they would still have their 50/50 run.

  30. #30

    Default

    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.

    BTW Ironlock if a book is habitually 8-1 one way, that is definately gambling. Whether he has a supposed 50% chance of "winning" a game or not. That is definately GREED thinking. Or at least rationalization. Basically it is how a gambler thinks. If I can lay of that money and guarantee a $1000 I am bookmaking. If I let them both go I am SPECULATING(gambling).

    Every bettor that makes a bet supposedly has a 50% chance of winning. if they do, then why do they go broke so fast? They should be winning enough and losing enough so that only vig is getting eaten up when they collect, so they should have enough money to survive for awhile. But they don't. That is turning your example on its head. Books supposedly have a lot more money.

    But again, if everyone tried to withdraw their balances how many books would be able to pay them all?

  31. #31

    Default

    Want, I never said nothing about a book going broke, my whole point is I wouldnt give COLD money to Wiseguys, if you dont understand what COLD money is, you are in the wrong business.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wantitall4moi

    Now, what they are dong makes me nervous, they have always had enough money, and balanced their books enough to make it work. But I am also smart enough to know that when you gamble, no matter who you are or how much money you have, you are going to lose in the long run, be it book or bettor.

    Want so who wins?

  33. #33
    EOG FOUNDER THE SHRINK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    36,107

    Default

    wantitall4moi,

    You are a GREAT poster but I am PENALIZING you 15 yards for "CIRCULAR MOTION!"

  34. #34
    Father of 3 Ironlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 17, 2005
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    826

    Default

    It's obvious you've noted a flaw in your logic and are now resorting to circular logic, one in which you can agree with detractors and yet, still stand by your statement, the very ones your detractors disagree with.

    YOU SAY...

    "BTW Ironlock if a book is habitually 8-1 one way, that is definately gambling. Whether he has a supposed 50% chance of "winning" a game or not. That is definately GREED thinking. Or at least rationalization. Basically it is how a gambler thinks. If I can lay of that money and guarantee a $1000 I am bookmaking. If I let them both go I am SPECULATING(gambling)."

    Again, you are mathematically, get that "MATHEMATICALLY" incorrect! Given that the outcome is 50% (which you have graciously done, thank you), and given that the bookmaker has a sufficient bankroll (which you have not done and is clearly the key to your keeping on), then how is it GAMBLING if one is getting +110 on a 50% proposition, it simply is NOT, mathematically....it is mathematically GUARANTEED a 4.54% return on investment. What do you not understand here? It wouldn't matter if the ratio where 10000 to 1, if the expectation is positive, and the bankroll is sufficient, there is NO GAMBLING at all! :+signs9-1


    YOU ALSO SAY:
    Every bettor that makes a bet supposedly has a 50% chance of winning. if they do, then why do they go broke so fast? They should be winning enough and losing enough so that only vig is getting eaten up when they collect, so they should have enough money to survive for awhile. But they don't. That is turning your example on its head.

    Yes, gamblers go broke faster than bookmakers? WTF? For one thing, bm's have a positive expectation which usually helps. The better on the other hand, has a negative one, which tends to hurt.

    Secondly, gamblers have a LIMITED bankroll. Limited bankroll+ negative expecation versus SUFFICIENT BANROLL+postive expectation=Gamblers going broke. Now which part of the above "turned my example on its head"....?

  35. #35

    Default

    Rainbow I was commenting to Shrink on that one. I was getting bombarded from all sides there. As I say you and I wil always disagree on the line and steam issue which is OK. Differing sides definately gives people two sides to look at and figure out what makes more sense. But since my posts are too long to read, and I rarey make sense.It looks good for you :+thumbs-2


    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.

    Obviously the excitement is still there. The fulfillment of getting a buyback and buying the good side of a predicted line move. That is the extent of my gambling. But I always come back to it. Maybe because I do think I am smarter than the books or the people moving the lines. But I also think I am smart enough to not get too smart. (me not making sense again)

    Moon...as for who wins. Books shouldn't have to win. If they have a hold of 4.54% (-110) they are supposed to make $4.54 cents out of every $100 they pay out to people that DO win. Books are supposed to be auction houses for buying and selling two sides of an event. Look at these exchanges that let people buy and sell shares. THOSE places are the future, because they do do it the right way.

    As for bettors, some win, and some lose. Again in a vaccum, the bettors will eventually go broke from having vig taken out of winners.

    So I guess the only "winners" are place like this that take the advertising dollars. :D

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
  •