BOOKMAKERS WHO GAMBLE

Although this will appear on Home Page later today, I thought I'd present it here for some discussion. Here's my opinion...

Is this right, wrong, or does it really matter?

If you are a bookmaker who gambles, then shame on you! I believe it is WRONG to be engaged in both activities at the same time.

I have been giving this topic a lot of thought lately, because SOME of the offshore sports book operators I know actually GAMBLE on ballgames for themselves.

Either be a bookmaker or a player, but please DON'T play both sides of the fence.

An analogy that comes to mind is a drug dealer. What does one think about someone who not only sells illicit drugs to others, but who also uses these same drugs for himself? How long will he stay in business?

If you are a bookmaker, then be a bookmaker. With profits being so thin these days due to the tremendous competition and multiple perks that are being offered, the bookmaker who also gamblers will EVENTUALLY do more harm than good to himself and his customers.

To be a successful bookmaker is a FULL TIME job. To compete in today's market takes not only a good linesman, but a good advertising team as well.

To be an accomplished PLAYER is also a FULL TIME job which is very burdensome. It requires dedication, discipline, and a firm understanding about numbers and value.

There is simply not enough hours in the day for someone to be successful at bookmaking and gambling. I do not know of ANYONE who consistently WINS as a Bookmaker and a Player.

Here's a scarey thought.

What if the person who is bookmaking and betting himself should run into a LOSING streak in BOTH arenas?

The odds of going BROKE clearly DOUBLE because of this.

Everyone knows that bankrolls are extremely volatile for a Bookmaker and a Player.

However, what happens when the bookmaker who is gambling finds himself betting on the same side of a ballgame that his customers are also on?

Or, what if the bookmaker is betting on ballgames that are opposite his customers?

Do you see how confusing this all becomes?

Imagine how the bookmaker who gambles must feel like. Who should he root for?

He cannot WIN when gamblers are betting the SAME games into him that he, himself bets on!

There are bookmakers who have gone broke without wearing two hats. There are MORE bookmakers who have gone broke when they book and gamble concurrently.

Personally, I truly believe that the majority of bookmakers that gamble have a GAMBLING PROBLEM. Since the odds are clearly in favor of the person who BOOKS the bet, then it is only a matter of time before an offshore bookmaker who gambles will lose all of his profits, period.

With the evolution of the offshore gambling industry becoming more like Fortune 500 companies, it is WRONG for a successful sports book to be betting on ballgames.

In conclusion, let's look closely at WHO many would consider to be the CREME of the crop in the offshore gaming sector today.

OLYMPIC SPORTS, WORLD SPORTS EXCHANGE, WWTS, CRIS, CARIBE, and BETONSPORTS are amongst the offshore leaders in this industry. Almost everyone I know would list these sports books at the top.

Guess how many of these successful sports books gamble on ballgames themselves?

The answer is ZERO.

NADA!

That, in itself, should speak VOLUMES about the position I take.

Regards,

THE SHRINK




[This message has been edited by THE SHRINK (edited 09-12-2000).]

are you sure spiro doesnt bet because i hear different.

For the most part I agree - this is good common sense. But it is also unfair to force a bookmaker to not gamble, as that should be his right and choice.

To put it bluntly, you can't stop the bookmaker, but I am not so certain I would be placing my money with a bookie who also bets.

Hey Shrink,

I think you might be surpised at the number of BM that gamble. This is not at all uncommon. But I beleive where they get caught is when they also reflect thier opinion in their line, then they lose twice. I agree with you this is not good practice, but hey, the BM for the most part is the biggest gambler out there....

I put the following under a new topic heading, not realzing a thread had already been started.

Here's what I wrote (except for the part where the name of NASA's owner, who goes by the alias Greg Champion, is inexplicably blacked out.) How come moderators on this site address some posters by their proper names but "protect" the identity of (advertising) bookies?. . .

"Either be a bookmaker or a player, but please DON'T play both sides of the fence." -- The Shrink
I laughed heartily at this latest gem from the Master of Fence-Splitting.

True, bookies shouldn't gamble -- it's bad business and probably unethical. Sort of like being a paid shill for those you are supposedly judging.

Here's a guy, Ken Weitzner, whose persona is that of an advocate, a "watchdog" for the burgeoning off-shore gambling industry. Yet, as everyone knows, he accepts money from those he's allegedly watching over, going so far as to include crooks like **** ****** (NASA) on The Prescription's increasingly worthless "reputable" list.

Anyone who agrees with The Shrink's noble declaration "Either be a bookmaker or a player, but please DON'T play both sides of the fence" would probably agree with this plea, too: "Either be a player's advocate or a tool of the sportsbooks, but please DON'T play both sides of the fence."

Let the equivocations begin!

Shrink, good post

Square Sucker,
Just because you don't agree with the Shrink's business practices doesn't invalidate his opinion. He can run his site like he wants, and I for one value his opinion because he has proved himself to be knowlegdable about this business. If you don't like it, don't come here.

I totally disagree,book or bet if I'm sharper than you i'll get your money every time.I've personally bet for over fifteen years and never been close to having a losing year, months many but never a year.By booking you obviously get the better of it but look where you have to live.If you have a good opinion use it or if you know people who have good opinions use them.This weekend all your no opinion clone bookies got killed by sharps and squares.I know most of them personally.
Those with opinions or those who respect movement faired much better than those who don't.If you have no feeling on a game just write,if you love the Pats and their still betting you plus +4.5 go ahead and take a position plus 5.5 or 6. I take offence with people who,lets be honest here,have opened these sites primarily because of their unsuccessful gambling attempts advising people much brighter than them how to earn.
JMO.

I obviously should have added,if you don't have a good opinion you should never gamble!
Let the #'s work for you. I personally would never risk my own money on some of these lines you see. Do you honestly believe any entity can make sharp lines on dozens of games a day,let alone the numerous props you see popping up. BTW "brighter than"was a bad choice of words in my previous post.You people are obviously much "brighter"than the people I refer to in running a gambling site.

SQUARESUCKER,

Your arguement makes no sense. In order to be a "WATCHDOG," then by definition, a person must be tuned into BOTH the Players Side and that of the Sports Book as well!

Just because we accept advertising revenues from Sports Books (as do many fine sites), does not disqualify us from helping out the PLAYERS, period.

Furthermore, we have always listed many sports books who do not advertise on The Prescription.

THE SHRINK

In order to be a watchdog, a site must be impartial to both sides. It is clear that The Prescription does its best to do just that.

However, for someone like Ken to do this, there must be some cost involved as well. Since he does not ask for money from the players, he instead allows respectable sportsbooks to advertise on his site if they should so wish.

To me, that is how it should be. I face this same BS argument all the time on my site. But if you players want to donate to my cause, I will gladly give you an advertisement-free website.

Let's get real, squaresucker. Would YOU do all this work gratis? If you say yes, then go ahead and be our guest. I can't say that I'm rich enough to donate 14 hours a day to trying to provide quality information for casinos and players alike - and I could never expect Ken to do the same.

Unfortunately, as advertising is accepted, their will always be a perception of a conflict of interest.

However, where else in society are there such perceptions regarding "watchdogs"? How about newspapers - How many newspapers in the country accept advertising from Firestone? How many have crucified Firestone in their editorial pages?

How about television? How many millions do networks reap from advertising? How many of them have news programs where an investigative reporter jumps down someone's throat? How about 60 Minutes?

How about magazines?...etc....

Squaresucker, do you apply the same standards to these organizations? If so, then in your world the only watchdogs would be governmental agencies (since they do not accept advertising). Would you and everybody really be better off?...I think not.

Shrink,

Back in sports betting's heyday in 94 in Vegas, I used to bet professionally. Most books in those days had guys like Jimmy V who didn't really sweat the action too much. They had leeway to let you bet a large amount and didn't seem to think much of it. They took action because they were real bookmakers, guys that knew you had to give a little to make a lot. Most good bookmakers want to have a balanced book, but won't do it at the expense of costing themselves action. In the end the books math is quite good as long as they have a lot of money coming in, even if it leads to many decisions.

Skip ahead now to 2000. The Horseshoe who used to boast about the biggest wagers allowed is an utter joke now! I saw people saying 1,000 online limits were weak, well what do they think about 1,000 limits on some college sides??? The Horseshoe like all other books has been absolutely gutted and its sad. The reason is that bookmakers and their superiors think just like you! Everything is a decision. Us against them. A good bookmaker will be well funded and long term oriented. I don't really know Jimmy V well but I am certain the change in mentality had a lot to do with switching back to the other side of the counter, and for good. There seems to be a divide offshore now as well. The books that seem to sweat the money and who chase off the wise guys like NASA and the books that welcome them to a degree and accept that decisions are not a terrible thing. Anyways when you look at it from a books perspective, most of the time the players would have to pick winners about 60% or more to beat them on their "decision" games.

My point in all this is if you were referring to real bookmakers then you missed the boat with this article. Bookmakers should not even be thought of as gamblers when it comes to their side of the counter. They are just taking the positivie side of a long term propostion. If they win this week should make no difference to them, they need to have a deep enough bankroll to cover themselves. Beyond that though, they shouldn't even be thinking of themselves as gamblers. Further almost all these head lines guys you seem to refer to should be allowed to gamble too don't you think? After all we all enjoy it and do if for fun, what are they not allowed to have fun? Most of them aren't betting anything near an amount that would cause them distress and further almost all of them are surely more focused on their jobs at hand. They should as a result of their line of work get a good feel for where the better line value is and where the sharper bettors are putting their money in. If they get an account with other books and play their own money I see nothing wrong with that, but I do see something wrong with you perpetuating the faulty thought processes of the lousy bookmakers that are growing in number these days.

I am almost 100% positive SPIRO (Olympic) is a bettor. I dont know many Greeks that dont bet.

Isn't that comment just a bit racist???

Thats pretty much what you hear in foreign countries about Americans and its pretty appaling stuff. I was in Mexico last year and one woman insisted that all American men cheat on their wives! I asked how she knew, she said, "EVERYONE KNOWS THAT!"

Besides in a time where we would all like to get authorities and the government off our backs isn't it a bit intrusive to make comments about someone's betting? Isn't that their own business? Shrink has not made one argument that should convince a personal bettor himself that betting is bad for us. Maybe for the owners or the line makers, but most of these operations surely don't seem ready to tank because of a couple of bad numbers. As it is now, a linemaker can only shade his numbers a bit, he really can't justify going way off the consensus worldwide line unless he has taken sufficient action to back it up.

WILDBILL,

My opinion was thrown out for a discussion. I do not see how taking a postition that Bookmakers who gamble are in more of a position to FAIL with their books than those who don't is racist. Now, that's quite a stretch!!

SOME of the offshore operators I am the friendliest with do gamble, but that doesn't mean I believe it is in their best interest to do so and I don't!!

I have already received some telephone calls from bookmakers who gamble. One of them "rationalizes" by saying he is not gambling when he bets but rather, he is "investing" since he always gets a favorable number.

Personally, I stand by my opinion in the column that it is NOT in the best interest of a sports book operator if they are booking bets and gambling at the same time.

Do I still have accounts with some of these sports books who gamble? Hell Yes!!!

Bottom Line...

If you REALLY believe that it is OK for a sports book to be gambling at the same time that they are bookmaking, please name me ONE elite sports book who is a succcessful at both????

Thanks,

THE SHRINK

Me Shrink!!!!

I win the weekly office pool at least three times during the course of the football season. LOL

It keeps in Subway Sandwiches throughout the year.

Doug Davidson

Gambling with ones own money is fine, gambling with customers money isn't(that is irresponsible and puts the customers post up at risk). Of course it is a little hard to know exactly what a bookmaker is actually doing. If a book is keeping all of its customer balances (liabilities) liquid in a seperate bank account, that is adjusted say weekly, who cares what he does with his own money. If he wants to take a 100 K side on the Pats, and he has the 100 K to add to the till if he loses, isn't that his perogative. If he wants to gamble with an edge, I do not blame him, I consider it investing laying 11/10 so what would you call it for a skilled bettor getting 11/10(a much safer investment).

Out of curiousity, isn't it considered sharp bookmaking to shade your lines based off your sharp player's action? Isn't that in essence gambling? Smart gambling but gambling nonetheless.

Are you going to tell me that Jimmy V didn't bet when he was booking at the Mirage??? He seemed to run a pretty good shop there at that time the premier sports book in the world. He gave it up because word around town was that he was making many times his sports book salary betting the games. I know everyone likes to jump on anyone that works as a tout, but word was that he was one of the best insider personnel at betting the games. The fact is though none of us really know who the best sports bettors are. Billy Walters was only known because the Computer Group got busted up, but there are quite a few very sterling players out there that none of you have ever heard of that regularly pull in couple hundred thousand a year and are not even part of any syndicates.

Hello group,

I hope I don't have to fade any heat because you guys have never seen a post from me in the past.


In my opinion The Shrink's original post has a problem with terminology.
It's not that the bookmaker who shouldn't bet, it's the LINEMAKER who shouldn't be betting with an establishment he supplies odds to.
Whether Jimmy V. (who I know) bet or did not bet is irrelevant.
But back in LV over the last 15+ year's it was Roxy (who I know too) who supplied the majority of the LV books with their odds that a cloud could have been over if he bet.
I want to make a point here that I never heard of Roxy making a sports bet once he created LVSC!!
The point being that an oddsmaker would have an conflict of interest if he was betting. But the bookie wouldn't.

Today who knows where some of these off-shore books get their line's. I'm guessing that they just copy the Don Best screen?? Plus many online books write that they have an in-house oddsmaker, yeah right??
LV didn't have enough qualified people over the last 20 years to run the sports books in town, let alone be an oddsmaker. But now we have a couple of hundred online books with oddsmakers?? I don't think so!!!

Personally if I owned an online sports book, I would let all the new-age bookies bet me juice free /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Well all except that guy at___? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,
LV711
That's as in Yoooo Eleven not the damn store /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lv711,
welcome aboard...

Your post makes a lot of sense and your point is well-taken sir!!!

THE SHRINK