Jump to content

Interesting question


HRWager
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

http://forums.eog.com/showthread.php/356558-My-Knowledge-Of-A-Bookie-To-Be-Successful?highlight=laying+off+action

 

a great read. 

 

 

 

 

Wantitallformoi- Here is where you are mathematically WRONG. You view each GAME as a independant event. Smart bookmakers, with large enough bankrolls, veiw each game as 1 part of a larger series, forming "the long run". The bookmaker will win exactly 50% of those imbalanced games, and therefore, it plays out mathematically just as though he had EVERY game balanced...but, by not moving the number, he has collected for himself 4-5 times the amount of PROFIT (vig) than he would have given away using your Method of balancing EACH AND EVERY GAME!

 

YOUR WAY (with a two game scenario)

$10,000 on BAltimore+3

$90,0000 on INDY-3

 

YOUR WAY suggests that it is smart for the bookmaker to call off 80,000 of his action, and "guarantee" himself ($1,000 profit), I say guarantee as if we are talking about post up money. 

 

GAME 2

90,000 on Denver-4.5

10,000 on Miami +4.5

 

YOUR WAY again suggest calling off 80,000 (80% of your action, you've generated by advertising, promoting, and earning a solid reputation) in order that you GUARANTEE yourself $1,000 profit.

 

So, your way, we have NO RISK and guarantee a grand total profit of $2000 of 220,000, a hold of 1%...wooooo hooooo.

 

THE SHARP BOOKMAKERS WAY(given a large enough bankroll)

 

GAME 1

$10,000 on BAltimore+3

$90,0000 on INDY-3

 

GAME 2

90,000 on Denver-4.5

10,000 on Miami +4.5

 

THE MATHEMATICALLY SAVY bookmaker keeps it all, expecting to win 50% of all decisions, regardless of how heavy or inbalanced the sides are...He splits here, losing 79,000 on the Indy game and Winning 89,000 on the Miami game..for a NET PROFIT of 10,000 of of 220000 (net hold of 4.54%), the mathematically expected vig earned by a good bookmaker

 

So, unless you just plain DON"T believe in math, you're way is WRONG! Take these two examples and do the calculations over 2000 games and see which results you like best, and stop calling sharp bookmakers, idiots, Please!

 

:+signs9-1 

 

Iron.

 

 

Jesus Christ.  Anyone quoting wanti as a reference should really question their sanity.

 

Such a simplified, dopey scenario.  The book forgot to move the fucking line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jesus Christ. Anyone quoting wanti as a reference should really question their sanity.

 

Such a simplified, dopey scenario. The book forgot to move the fucking line?

that guy is critiquing wantits opinion you dope. Read the entire thread. You think I'd quote wantit? Good lord.

 

Ironically enough by ripping that guys opinion you are the one siding with and backing wantit lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you should never lay off action. that is what would be considered scared bookmaking, imo. boot the player and move on, but don't lay off his action. if you are laying off a players action, you have no business booking his plays. you have gone from being the business man, to the gambler, in that situation. a good bookmaker isn't in this to gamble. you give away every ounce of edge you have when you lay off action.

 

That is just pure nonsense.  When you're taking one sided action as a bookmaker, you're the one gambling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pocketrockets

Whenever people say we need more female posters because iag is the only one I always laugh and ask... why do people ignore Blue?

 

With his sensitivity it's a lock.

 

spot on  :laugh

 

 

but I meant HOT female posters... this bluefuck not my type pal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just pure nonsense. When you're taking one sided action as a bookmaker, you're the one gambling.

How so? So you're viewing bookmaking as a collection of singular events as opposed to a collection of millions of events? When taking unbalanced action you should be winning 50% of those - roughly. Therefore they should balance eachother out over a large enough sample to matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure you are one of two guys....answer me this...did you ever post in the Costa Rica forum at therx and did you play in the 1st annual CR poster softball game?

No and no. but I hae been reading forums much longer than posting at them....I'm just old and cranky now so it's fun to post...and I have no clue in case you haven't noticed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so? So you're viewing bookmaking as a collection of singular events as opposed to a collection of millions of events? When taking unbalanced action you should be winning 50% of those - roughly. Therefore they should balance eachother out over a large enough sample to matter.

 

Roughly 50%?  How do you figure?  The line that was loaded up on was off market.

 

That's why your math is off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...