hi mdorsey,,,
managing a package of wise has to be diff,,,
at the first stage, if a wise hit 3 in a row
and hard, they limit you, so an agent profit could be less than 0...
in this case im slope to take that action,
on 5% on every deposit...
getting credit it depends in your loyalty and your action history... (good pattern) let's say, your posted up, 10 times you get 10% on credit...
managing a package of wise has to be diff,,,
at the first stage, if a wise hit 3 in a row
and hard, they limit you, so an agent profit could be less than 0...
in this case im slope to take that action,
on 5% on every deposit...
getting credit it depends in your loyalty and your action history... (good pattern) let's say, your posted up, 10 times you get 10% on credit...
MDORSEY,
Welcome to TheRx.com and I appreciate the thread...
If the "agent" has a large enough package, he can still make a lot of money allowng "wise Guys" to play...
I think what may be overrated a tad is the fact that "wise" guys don't always have winning years either...
Alos, the more "wise guys" you have, the less likely that these players will be chasing steam because wise guys do not take bad numbers.
There is also a chance that they will go opposite one another too...
Lastly, the industry NORM for not making a % on net losses is about 1% of total volume...
Hope this helps some...
THE SHRINK
Welcome to TheRx.com and I appreciate the thread...
If the "agent" has a large enough package, he can still make a lot of money allowng "wise Guys" to play...
I think what may be overrated a tad is the fact that "wise" guys don't always have winning years either...
Alos, the more "wise guys" you have, the less likely that these players will be chasing steam because wise guys do not take bad numbers.
There is also a chance that they will go opposite one another too...
Lastly, the industry NORM for not making a % on net losses is about 1% of total volume...
Hope this helps some...
THE SHRINK
thanks Shrink. So if you're an agent and you bring in a square, you would opt for the "losses back" but if you were to bring in a sharp then you would opt for the 1% net volume? Ok that sounds easy enough..but then what about the book? Surely if you win they would limit you yea? This is why I always wondered how Billy Walters gets down on his plays...Ok he recruits a sydicate to come in..ok fine..but what about after the syndicate gets kicked out? They just keep bearding in new recruits?
Shrink, you mentioned the agent can still make money if he has a large enough package, sure. But unless he takes the 1% volume, then this the particular customer who wins will cut into his kickback, hense the player would be a liability to the agent. Just getting a feel for this aspect of the game.
one scenario that frequently happens is if the agent falls into a very big make up figure. to try to climb out of it, he brings in people who bet big. often times they are wise guys but at least the agent has chance to get back to even if they are making big bets.
it is kind of like when navy falls behind by 2 touchdowns late in the 4th quarter. passing on every down is likely to lead to a bigger deficit but it is worth a shot.
it is kind of like when navy falls behind by 2 touchdowns late in the 4th quarter. passing on every down is likely to lead to a bigger deficit but it is worth a shot.
Buck Naked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>one scenario that frequently happens is if the agent falls into a very big make up figure. to try to climb out of it, he brings in people who bet big. often times they are wise guys but at least the agent has chance to get back to even if they are making big bets.
it is kind of like when navy falls behind by 2 touchdowns late in the 4th quarter. passing on every down is likely to lead to a bigger deficit but it is worth a shot <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is that wise? Has it ever worked out good for you?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>one scenario that frequently happens is if the agent falls into a very big make up figure. to try to climb out of it, he brings in people who bet big. often times they are wise guys but at least the agent has chance to get back to even if they are making big bets.
it is kind of like when navy falls behind by 2 touchdowns late in the 4th quarter. passing on every down is likely to lead to a bigger deficit but it is worth a shot <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is that wise? Has it ever worked out good for you?
another way is for the wise guy to offer the agent a percentage of his wins. say the agent gets a percentage on losses than if the sharp player lost he would make money and if the player would win he would make money. the problem lies in getting a sheet with one player i'm guessing it wouldn't happen. so the player would play on multipe accts on the sheet so in essence he would be the only one playing. there are very few people who's action is sharp enough that they cant find books to take their plays. if they could get a few dimes on their plays with each of the major books and hit them off of the board before that. most any super sharp would be happy
of course as with any thing there are exceptions
of course as with any thing there are exceptions
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The General:
If Someone can identify that a player is a wiseguy, then they should have no problems making money along with him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree...
Most bookmakers have HUGE problems because the WISE GUY gets the BEST number...
THE SHRINK
If Someone can identify that a player is a wiseguy, then they should have no problems making money along with him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree...
Most bookmakers have HUGE problems because the WISE GUY gets the BEST number...
THE SHRINK
You've been wrong before SHRINK
I can see this, but If I had a true wiseguy like you on my book, I would hire one of them clerks for $3 per hour and have them watch your account only.
When you bet I would know it
I am sure its not that easy, but I think you can see my point. Or just say STFU dumbass General.
I can see this, but If I had a true wiseguy like you on my book, I would hire one of them clerks for $3 per hour and have them watch your account only.
When you bet I would know it
I am sure its not that easy, but I think you can see my point. Or just say STFU dumbass General.
