Interesting question

[Blue]

Vegas East is AC Screw Andrews. Geez.

[Screw Andrews]

Nope too far east.....google is your friend youngin

[Timely Hitting]

Depends how much you want to gamble as a bookmaker.  Any time your books aren't balanced, you're gambling.  Bookmakers are pretty blind to the inherent fair value of a line.  So, the market (or the bettors history) might be telling that bookmaker at that point in time that the action is square.  But they don't truly know where the market closes.  Plenty of people like Billy Walters have used known squares to beard for them.  Maybe, that bet is actually sharp.  Or maybe the market moves with their bet and you're stuck loaded up on a side where a square whale happened to play the sharp side heavily.  In any case, you're gambling.  A bookmaker should always try to balance their books to minimize variance.  The more variance they incur, the greater their risk of ruin.  That's why laying off isn't a terrible idea.  The bookmaker just needs to minimize the games where they take imbalanced action so that it's not a common occurrence.

OK, you got me in for one more question because I still don't see it that way.

 

What % are you saying a sharp gambler is hitting vs -110 (which obviously is a stipulation that is kind of unfair to assume). The ROI is what, 2-3% for a winning gambler? So are we putting them at 56%. Assuming all your lopsided action isn't sharp action, that 56% on the fictitious 90% is closer to 80% assuming 10%-10% square actions on the other side which is clearly poor but we'll do it anyway. Given how few lopsided games you should have, why shouldn't you just accept that action and not lay it off? with the assumed hold of all bets held by a bookie, even with sharp (56-58% money) on one lopsided side, you really aren't that vulnerable over a large enough sample to warrant a lay off? this is assuming a properly funded book. if you are setting numbers causing a high frequency of lopsided action the you're doing something wrong and you're not in line with the market.

[Screw Andrews]

OK, you got me in for one more question because I still don't see it that way.

 

What % are you saying a sharp gambler is hitting vs -110 (which obviously is a stipulation that is kind of unfair to assume). The ROI is what, 2-3% for a winning gambler? So are we putting them at 56%. Assuming all your lopsided action isn't sharp action, that 56% on the fictitious 90% is closer to 80% assuming 10%-10% square actions on the other side which is clearly poor but we'll do it anyway. Given how few lopsided games you should have, why shouldn't you just accept that action and not lay it off? with the assumed hold of all bets held by a bookie, even with sharp (56-58% money) on one lopsided side, you really aren't that vulnerable over a large enough sample to warrant a lay off? this is assuming a properly funded book. if you are setting numbers causing a high frequency of lopsided action the you're doing something wrong and you're not in line with the market.

If you think a real sharp on a heater is 55%-56% that's the problem with your math...

[ACH]

Kicked out of a bonus book and told they don't want your action, you get stiffed. Case closed.

 

HRWager not going to lay off or adjust lines. They are paying for a line and going to use it.

 

The guy knew he was taking a chance and lost.

[Guest pocketrockets]

2% of gamblers - that might be generous - are winning. Now the 2% volume is certainly higher than the average loser by a lot, but if the market was inefficient there would be a higher % of winners than exist today.

 

way generous... think its closer to %0.05-%1 really do in the LONG LONG run... anyone can win 3-4 years... 12-15, now thats hard

[Sam Odom]

Guy is obviously Bonus Hustling 

 

When told not to come back yet did as 3 accts he is clearly in the wrong and should be penalized - Think of it as trespassing or breaking a TRO

[D-Hustle]

I love when George gets pounded

[MonkeyF0cker]

OK, you got me in for one more question because I still don't see it that way.

 

What % are you saying a sharp gambler is hitting vs -110 (which obviously is a stipulation that is kind of unfair to assume). The ROI is what, 2-3% for a winning gambler? So are we putting them at 56%. Assuming all your lopsided action isn't sharp action, that 56% on the fictitious 90% is closer to 80% assuming 10%-10% square actions on the other side which is clearly poor but we'll do it anyway. Given how few lopsided games you should have, why shouldn't you just accept that action and not lay it off? with the assumed hold of all bets held by a bookie, even with sharp (56-58% money) on one lopsided side, you really aren't that vulnerable over a large enough sample to warrant a lay off? this is assuming a properly funded book. if you are setting numbers causing a high frequency of lopsided action the you're doing something wrong and you're not in line with the market.

 

Well, that's rather simplified again since the edge on that particular game is blind.  But if you want to look at in a macro perspective (which isn't necessarily the right way to approach it), let's do the math....

 

For simplicity's sake, let's assume the line was 3.5 rather than 3 so we can disregard pushes.

 

BAL +3.5 $10,000

IND -3.5  $90,000

 

So, the total exposure for each team is (wager totals @ -110):

 

BAL:  $9,090.91

IND:   $81,818.18

 

Total win for each side is then (total volume on opposing side - exposure):

 

BAL:  $80,909.09

IND:  -$71,818.20

 

We'll make IND as 56% to cover and BAL +3.5 is 46% to cover.  So, the books expected value on the game is:

 

BAL:  0.44 * 80909.09 = $35,600

IND:   0.56 * -71818.2 = -$40,218.20

 

So, our total expected return is a loss of $4,618.18.

 

Now, laying off some of that action could certainly minimize that expected loss.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Sorry, that should say "BAL +3.5 is 44% to cover".  Just mistyped it there.

[plommer]

If you dressed like a clown and tried to place a bet and they caught you after giving you a receipt what do you think would happen?

I think the Meatman does dress like a clown.

[johnnyonthespot]

Better than being a beached whale and having to wear a tarp.

[Dark Raver Camper]

I'm late to the party and stopped reading, just now, when George said he had proof or determined they are the same/collusion.

 

Prior to that, I would have been interested in the town, just to get a feel on population, but now understand why it wasn't specifically disclosed. Age range of all peeps involved. While this info would have been good to gauge, it shouldn't have been disclosed, so I don't know what I was thinking.

 

I will resume reading from where I left off.

[WVU]

Proof isn't proof unless it is public

[Fecal Tornado]

this is funny   

[trytrytry]

WOW!

 

Anybody that bets with you is NUTS.

 

You would actually STEAL the guys money?

 

DOUBLE WOW!!

 

 

Dave "The MeatMan" Scandaliato

 

Dave  preaching about stealing.  LOL

 

Dave as you know its your pals at oddsmaker that steals  the  players money, the site you have  had promo affiliate deals with.  And you have bragged openly about also stealing and using those  oddsmaker funds for your own  vacations.

[trytrytry]

No it's not.

 

You stuck your foot in your mouth by telling us you steal players money.

 

 

Dave "The MeatMan" Scandaliato

 

 

DAve you are serious your pals and business partners at Oddsmaker owe me over 42k,  which you verified and know.  and you are preaching about a paying book and good guy like George?

get your shit together son and then preach.

[Guest pocketrockets]

DAve you are serious your pals and business partners at Oddsmaker owe me over 42k,  which you verified and know.  and you are preaching about a paying book and good guy like George?

get your shit together son and then preach.

 

wowww

[HRWager]

So I have an update. I just spoke to the guy, the conversation was great. When I told him I was going to seize the money from the other accounts he asked whats going to happen to the money. I told him that he would be slow paid for the deposits but if he chose to purse this any further he might end up with nothing. So he switched to those accounts belong to my friends, not to me, so I asked him if thats the case how do you know that they have any balance in there. It was a lot of fun.

[slyone66]

So I have an update. I just spoke to the guy, the conversation was great. When I told him I was going to seize the money from the other accounts he asked whats going to happen to the money. I told him that he would be slow paid for the deposits but if he chose to purse this any further he might end up with nothing. So he switched to those accounts belong to my friends, not to me, so I asked him if thats the case how do you know that they have any balance in there. It was a lot of fun.

[Guest pocketrockets]

well done... has he ever posted here????

[HRWager]

well done... has he ever posted here????

I dont remember his poster name but he did ask some stuff about us at the sbr forum in May I believe.

[Teddy kgb]

So was the guy a Sharp or a steam chaser or a modeler?

[WVU]

So I have an update. I just spoke to the guy, the conversation was great. When I told him I was going to seize the money from the other accounts he asked whats going to happen to the money. I told him that he would be slow paid for the deposits but if he chose to purse this any further he might end up with nothing. So he switched to those accounts belong to my friends, not to me, so I asked him if thats the case how do you know that they have any balance in there. It was a lot of fun.

looks like you handled this pretty well.  Do you think this guy made up these new accounts or are they real people?  This was the issue between myself, tent city, and 1vice.  I didn't do anything wrong in that case.  All I did was tell some close friends/family about a great NBA promotion.  They deposited and made plays themselves.  But I was not banned at 1vice and they eventually gave in to the fact that these were all real people who deposited their own real money.  I am not sure the details in your case, but just because someone suggests to another to deposit in a book, does not necessarily make that player a multi accounting scammer.  I proved this to 1vice and ultimately settled with them amicably.

[WVU]

So was the guy a Sharp or a steam chaser or a modeler?

none of the above.  Just a bonus whore.  And a very sloppy one at that.