Book Question?

Search

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
706
Tokens
In theory, I realize the goal is to get 50% on each side of the game and make your profit on the vig. Was wondering if that happens alot? If not, do you take the risk on the unbalanced action or do you hedge with another account to get back to the 50%? Always intriqued and always wondered how you guys function. Thanks.
 

RX Local
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
24,032
Tokens
layoff wouldnt be done unless there was action beyond what you could handle.. most books swing from day to day or even week to week but in the end the book is more than likely going to be the one laughing it up puff_>>


-murph
 

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
706
Tokens
Thanks for the reply. Lots of squares like me out there!! Does it land 50% alot or rarely?
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
99,709
Tokens
What Murphy said.

unless there's a landslide of one way action, the book Should be able to handle it.. If not, they need to get out of he business !
 

Retired; APRIL 2014 Thank You Gambling
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
12,632
Tokens
rarely

Pinnacle produced an open forum early this year,,, you should look for it,, they answerd Most questions asked to them,,, and specifically they said they welcome Unbalnced action, and thats where they made huge profits..

gl to you
tater
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
99,709
Tokens
rarely

Pinnacle produced an open forum early this year,,, you should look for it,, they answerd Most questions asked to them,,, and specifically they said they welcome Unbalnced action, and thats where they made huge profits..

gl to you
tater

huge shops can withstand the unbalanced action.

not too many out there. Cris is another.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
706
Tokens
rarely

Pinnacle produced an open forum early this year,,, you should look for it,, they answerd Most questions asked to them,,, and specifically they said they welcome Unbalnced action, and thats where they made huge profits..

gl to you
tater

Thanks for the info. I will check this out.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
891
Tokens
More often than not books are exposed on a side and or total.That 50-50 stuff only works in a perfect world,which is not the case here.You will find books regularly rooting for sides and or totals because of overexposure on one or the other.In reality books couldnt make it on just the juice.As tater posted above, books make there money on unbalanced action.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
706
Tokens
[h=4]Found at the Pinnacle website. Not related to this topic, but might explain why we bettors are square.


Gamblers frequently bet on a feeling or gut instinct. Unfortunately your gut is far more irrational than you might think, utilising ready made rules of thumb – known in psychology as heuristics – which can be unsuitable tools for successful betting.[/h]There is a very good reason we rely on heuristics – evolution. Our distant ancestors when faced with complex life-threatening problems didn’t have time to weigh up the situation, so developed quick-fire methods. Those that worked were passed down through generations, and we are still relying on them, often when we shouldn’t.
[h=3]Introducing The Common Heuristics[/h][h=4]Anchoring[/h]Anchoring affects people’s ability to estimate the most probable number of items of a particular kind or the most probable value along a sequence.
Example: A group is asked to guess the percentage of African countries in the United Nations. Before answering they witness a random process to produce a number (the anchor), and are asked whether the percentage of African Nations is above or below that anchor. They then make their actual estimate of African countries in the United Nations. The estimates given will track the anchor, even though the participants know it is random.
Without realising it, the individuals are anchoring their estimate to a totally arbitrary point. The reason for this is thought to be because the anchor is taken as a working hypothesis, a starting point from which the individual is reluctant to move too far away from.
This phenomenon is widely exploited in marketing and is very relevant to betting. Bettors should beware anchors in bet wording, and realise how handicaps, and spread values will influence your judgements, without you even realising.
[h=4]Availability Bias[/h]Availability bias manifests in people’s tendency to attach greater significance to events that leave the strongest impression, or are easier to recall.
Examples of this include the way people over-estimate the risk associated with dramatic and traumatic events such as a terrorist attack or earthquakes. The sale of earthquake insurance goes up immediately after earthquakes though the risk is greatly diminished, while people are prepared to pay a higher premium to insure against death from an act of terrorism than insurance against death of any kind (which would obviously include terrorism).
From a betting perspective be wary of assigning excessive significance to more recent or memorable results. Ask yourself whether you find it easier to recall a 0-0 draw or a high-scoring game.
It’s likely to be the latter, but it doesn’t mean it is more probable. In soccer bettors tend to over-estimate the frequency of events like red-cards and corners, because they are important and easily recalled. This impacts perceived probability and betting behaviour.
It is linked to a common phenomenon of bettors favouring the Over in Totals markets, or buying on a Spread, as availability bias leads them to wrongly conclude the event concerned is more likely than in reality.
[h=4]Diversification[/h]This heuristic describes how people tend to demonstrate greater diversity when confronted with simultaneous rather than sequential choices.
Example: When asked to choose five chocolates from a selection box, with an equal number of varieties, individuals make more diverse selections than when they make five sequential choices.
With relation to betting, punters tend to invest more when the opportunity appears to be more diversified. A good example would be backing the draw and the away team based on the perception of a more diversified bet, as opposed to simply laying the home team. There isn’t, however a logical reason why you should bet more, unless the Expected Value is greater.
[h=4]Escalation of Commitment or Sunk Cost[/h]This heuristic describes how people feel compelled to justify a commitment by increasing the cumulative investment despite the potential cost going forward outweighing the potential benefit.
This is commonly described as ‘throwing good money after bad’. An example would be to sit through a film that you are not enjoying just because you have already invested time and money in watching it, and therefore determined to justify that investment.
From a betting perspective this can be seen when punters persist with a bet that has a high probability of incurring a large cost rather than taking a certain immediate, but smaller loss. People in these situations tend to display an irrational determination to justify their original decision, instead of ‘cutting their losses’.
[h=4]Representativeness, or the Gamblers Fallacy[/h]People tend to believe short sequences of random events are representative of longer ones, ignoring the fact that these events are statistically independent.
Example: The gambler’s fallacy is also known as the Monte Carlo Fallacy because in 1913 Black come up 26 times in a row on a roulette table at the Monte Carlo casino. After the fifteenth Black bettors were piling onto Red, assuming the chances of yet another Black number were becoming astronomical, thereby illustrating an irrational belief that one spin somehow influences the next.
The gambler’s fallacy is closely related to the Hot Hand Fallacy, which is the belief in streaks of good/bad luck. Where someone experience what seems like an atypical sequence of events, they infer some special significance i.e. I am on a hot streak, or my luck is out.
It has come to be known as the Hot Hand Fallacy after a study in the 1980s suggested a basketball player who successfully makes a shot is no more likely to be successful the next time they throw just because of their initial success.
This is particularly relevant in betting for random games of chance such as roulette, lotteries and dice games.
Humans aren’t machines, we try to be rational, but our instincts often get in the way. This can be costly for gamblers, so as much as possible ignore what your gut is saying unless its time for lunch.
If this article has struck a chord with you, then further reading of Daniel Kahneman & (the late) Amos Tversky is highly recommended. The pair a widely credited with ground-breaking work in the field of cognitive biases and Kanheman went on to win the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, despite not being an economist. He recent best seller “Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow’ summarises much of his work, and will open the eyes of anyone interested in how people deal with making based decisions under uncertainty, which is exactly what betting is.
<!-- Article End -->*Odds subject to change
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
2,168
Tokens
In theory, I realize the goal is to get 50% on each side of the game and make your profit on the vig. Was wondering if that happens alot? If not, do you take the risk on the unbalanced action or do you hedge with another account to get back to the 50%? Always intriqued and always wondered how you guys function. Thanks.

In theory it sounds good. But in the real world there is always more action one way. I know I was in business for over 20 years before the internet. You rode the waves up and down. I dealt with 100 to 125 people a week.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
706
Tokens
How often is the herd wrong? Two-thirds of the time? More? Really appreciate the insights.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
99,709
Tokens
In theory it sounds good. But in the real world there is always more action one way. I know I was in business for over 20 years before the internet. You rode the waves up and down. I dealt with 100 to 125 people a week.

very bad example with being an Ex-"Local" Bookie with only 100+ players

We are talking about Shops that are dealing with 10,000 customers

add in the fact that 'Smart' Money coming into some of these shops. a Local in most cases is a Square Sheet. of course you will have a lot of one sided action.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
2,168
Tokens
very bad example with being an Ex-"Local" Bookie with only 100+ players

We are talking about Shops that are dealing with 10,000 customers

add in the fact that 'Smart' Money coming into some of these shops. a Local in most cases is a Square Sheet. of course you will have a lot of one sided action.

If you look at what I said it was before the Internet was born.
 

Retired; APRIL 2014 Thank You Gambling
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
12,632
Tokens
The herd is wrong 54% of the time. This # is close... the question yiur really asking is how can I profit frim it... lol
That is the trick.. that is a scenerio that changes several times in a season of each specific sport..
I use several systems that encorperate that element.
Gl
Tater
 

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
706
Tokens
The herd is wrong 54% of the time. This # is close... the question yiur really asking is how can I profit frim it... lol
That is the trick.. that is a scenerio that changes several times in a season of each specific sport..
I use several systems that encorperate that element.
Gl
Tater

The one aspect of this that I have noticied is when the herd and "experts" are all lined up on a certain side of a game, it is best to be on the other.I would have guessed larger than 54%. Thanks for the reply and willingness to answer.
 

Rx Senior
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Messages
18,351
Tokens
bookies are degenerate as well...they like having one sided action cause they can cheer for someone....and they still usually win.

I think only when it is something they cannot handle they will lay some off somewhere else.

reality is far from a perfect world. You have to consider even if you get 50/50 action, how many of the losing 50 is going to stiff you....that will change ur numbers
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
2,168
Tokens
bookies are degenerate as well...they like having one sided action cause they can cheer for someone....and they still usually win.

I think only when it is something they cannot handle they will lay some off somewhere else.

reality is far from a perfect world. You have to consider even if you get 50/50 action, how many of the losing 50 is going to stiff you....that will change ur numbers

You are so right that's the way it was back in the day. The people I knew never liked to layoff. It was like a dirty word.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,106,844
Messages
13,439,192
Members
99,339
Latest member
billcunninghamhomeloans
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com