IMO posts like this should really bother guys that gamble.
Books need to WIN to succeed and stay in business? Posts like this are why people should fear sending money offshore. If a book loses then the players are **** out of luck too I guess huh?
Books shouldn't have to win to pay people, they shouldn't be gambling at all. To win or lose means a book has to be lopsided somehow. If books were truly bookmaking and not gambling then the outcome shouldn't matter as to what their profits are.
Again posts like this show just how little bookmaking there really is in the world, and when people are talking about shopping for numbers and thelike they are not really getting a "value" in terms of a bookmaking aspect but a less OPINIONATED line from one plae to the next.
The things that are wrong with sportsbooking brought up by this simple post are so deep that they cannot be covered, even by me, and we all know I can type some epic posts.
But suffice to say that most books do need to gamble to win, and THAT is a VERY SCAREY thought, especially from someone who actually take money out of places from time to time rather than always sending back in.
Books need to WIN to succeed and stay in business? Posts like this are why people should fear sending money offshore. If a book loses then the players are **** out of luck too I guess huh?
Books shouldn't have to win to pay people, they shouldn't be gambling at all. To win or lose means a book has to be lopsided somehow. If books were truly bookmaking and not gambling then the outcome shouldn't matter as to what their profits are.
Again posts like this show just how little bookmaking there really is in the world, and when people are talking about shopping for numbers and thelike they are not really getting a "value" in terms of a bookmaking aspect but a less OPINIONATED line from one plae to the next.
The things that are wrong with sportsbooking brought up by this simple post are so deep that they cannot be covered, even by me, and we all know I can type some epic posts.
But suffice to say that most books do need to gamble to win, and THAT is a VERY SCAREY thought, especially from someone who actually take money out of places from time to time rather than always sending back in.
wantitall4moi said:
Books have winning days and losing days, obviously.
Hopefully, for them, the losing amounts do not outweigh the
dollar winnings beyond what they make on vig, casinos, and
props, etc.
Hopefully they have smart enough linesmen so they don't get
middled like i've heard happened with Aces Gold {on the Super
Bowl?}
This is one reason why many players recommend sticking to
books that are long established & well funded. Or putting only
minimal amounts in more risky places, such as most financial
advisors would advise you in regards to stock investments
{e.g. don't put 50% of your capital in Nortel}.
wantitall4moi..............lol...
everything will be okay..........
imo........Slim was just giving posters some info on how books were doing this week sort of along the lines when.....posters start threads on how "the books got killed" and such.......
none of which has any basis whatsoever on how books are doing......good or bad......
you will be happy to know that most bookmakers will say they had a terrible week.......when it comes to "how they did"........i know a bookmaker who hasnt had a winning season since 1974...just so happens that he bragged about making so much money that year he got busted.....so since then if someone asks the question did you have a good year??? no is the answer...
btw
for SLIM to post this topic..........he had to have had a week so huge, he couldnt contain himself...not just a winning week, a knock their dicks off kinda week...........
WANTITALL4MOI....now i want to point out some statements that you have in your post that are at best misleading.........
1. to win or lose means the book has to be lopsided somehow.......
2. most books need to gamble to win....thats scary..
first of all.........books handle being onesided on a game like this....line adjustment and or increased vig........they cant say "we are only taking bets on so-and-so....call back later......they cant even up the sides like that...so many times the cold reality is the book will have needs..
let me tell you a secret........even in todays sports betting market, huge books like CRIS, GRANDE and PINNY....books that YOU might think are raking it in...not concerned with the outcome of the games...my friend those books are just as onesided on certain games as some local dealing lines out of the newspaper....and on a much higher level.......its always been like that and always will.......unless your shop has a client base made up of only two people...
you say most books gamble to win?........not true, in fact most books that gamble do so in order to even up action on games that are close moneywise on both sides...except its not called gambling its called laying off........(i am not saying this is a good practice)
most books that gamble (lay-off) do so in a way that insures a set amount of profit or loss......
when Slim says everybody and their pet rabbit is on so-and-so........that means that he is lopsided and thier isnt a dam thing he can do about it....
why cant people like you understand this..........
team A............500,000 in action
team B.............75,000 in action
looks like they are a tad heavy on team A........what in gods name are they suppossed to do?? lay off 425k........no need to worry about the outcome of this game right?????....just call around and spread the 425k at different numbers....might even make a nickle........thats what a stockbroker does......not a bookmaker.........
adjusting the price according to action is bookmaking.......being able to get action at -20 instead of -15......knowing that the 75k in action on team B was booked at an opening number of +5 from sharps......and the 500k is being booked at xtra juice and inflated numbers that would make Slim smile......
making every game have equal amounts of action on both sides to insure a profit.....is practiced by a total of 1 sportsbook......the sportsbook that has only two players.......
the basic principles of bookmaking have never changed.....book to your bankroll and deal lines according to the action being bet....books that chose to ignore those principles are the ones that go out of business......
everything will be okay..........
imo........Slim was just giving posters some info on how books were doing this week sort of along the lines when.....posters start threads on how "the books got killed" and such.......
none of which has any basis whatsoever on how books are doing......good or bad......
you will be happy to know that most bookmakers will say they had a terrible week.......when it comes to "how they did"........i know a bookmaker who hasnt had a winning season since 1974...just so happens that he bragged about making so much money that year he got busted.....so since then if someone asks the question did you have a good year??? no is the answer...
btw
for SLIM to post this topic..........he had to have had a week so huge, he couldnt contain himself...not just a winning week, a knock their dicks off kinda week...........
WANTITALL4MOI....now i want to point out some statements that you have in your post that are at best misleading.........
1. to win or lose means the book has to be lopsided somehow.......
2. most books need to gamble to win....thats scary..
first of all.........books handle being onesided on a game like this....line adjustment and or increased vig........they cant say "we are only taking bets on so-and-so....call back later......they cant even up the sides like that...so many times the cold reality is the book will have needs..
let me tell you a secret........even in todays sports betting market, huge books like CRIS, GRANDE and PINNY....books that YOU might think are raking it in...not concerned with the outcome of the games...my friend those books are just as onesided on certain games as some local dealing lines out of the newspaper....and on a much higher level.......its always been like that and always will.......unless your shop has a client base made up of only two people...
you say most books gamble to win?........not true, in fact most books that gamble do so in order to even up action on games that are close moneywise on both sides...except its not called gambling its called laying off........(i am not saying this is a good practice)
most books that gamble (lay-off) do so in a way that insures a set amount of profit or loss......
when Slim says everybody and their pet rabbit is on so-and-so........that means that he is lopsided and thier isnt a dam thing he can do about it....
why cant people like you understand this..........
team A............500,000 in action
team B.............75,000 in action
looks like they are a tad heavy on team A........what in gods name are they suppossed to do?? lay off 425k........no need to worry about the outcome of this game right?????....just call around and spread the 425k at different numbers....might even make a nickle........thats what a stockbroker does......not a bookmaker.........
adjusting the price according to action is bookmaking.......being able to get action at -20 instead of -15......knowing that the 75k in action on team B was booked at an opening number of +5 from sharps......and the 500k is being booked at xtra juice and inflated numbers that would make Slim smile......
making every game have equal amounts of action on both sides to insure a profit.....is practiced by a total of 1 sportsbook......the sportsbook that has only two players.......
the basic principles of bookmaking have never changed.....book to your bankroll and deal lines according to the action being bet....books that chose to ignore those principles are the ones that go out of business......
good post dime.
true, its not like im jumping up with glee when I see I cant get team B bet at all....but there isnt that much one can do.... Im not going to set myself up to get fukked both ways, even though we have unique lines which Im sure many enjoy here and there *specially on halfs*
Bottom line, decisions will always exist. I dont think Pinnacle reached their current status by taking 110 on each side....
true, its not like im jumping up with glee when I see I cant get team B bet at all....but there isnt that much one can do.... Im not going to set myself up to get fukked both ways, even though we have unique lines which Im sure many enjoy here and there *specially on halfs*
Bottom line, decisions will always exist. I dont think Pinnacle reached their current status by taking 110 on each side....
