The end of an era: Is Scalping Gone Forever?

[reno]

I've stated it before and I'll state it again: Scalpers do NOT make their money off sportsbooks; they make their money off squares and bandwagoners. No sportsbook in its right mind is the least bit concerned about scalpers. But, then again, I would be the last guy to claim that all sportsbooks are in their right mind.

[Boomer]

As a bonus to all my Bettorsworld friends, those of you who come into McDonalds on Coast Highway in Newport Beach and mention Boomer, you will get a McFlurry with the add-in of your choice for free with your order.

I just want to give a little back to the gambling community here.

[Greedo]

Actually my first ever real job when I was 15 was at the local Raunchy Ron's as we liked to refer to it. And oh boy did it suck.

I think in that one year of employment I ate enough Big Macs to last a life time. Had to give them up for 3 years after that as I was very sick of them.

Fortunately I've rediscovered my taste for them and their grease ladden fries.

However I do love Bette's idea of Reno opening up a Hagen Daz outlet and us all coming to work there. Of course our customer service may suffer when big line moves hit and we all race for the phone at the same time.

[bucky]

Reno:
If scalpers scalped less and books got burned more would it create a more profitable climate in the long run?

[Boomer]

Reno,

I disagree with you on your theory that scalpers like myself never cost a book money. When things were good, I never made a wager unless I had the other side covered. So if I'm making wagers at Book A and Book B, but never ever taking a loss, where do you think my substantial profits were coming from.

You can say that the squares were picking up the tab, or you can say that other scalpers were picking up the tab, but the bottom line is this: I was making substantial money and the books had no chance of beating me over the long haul. Eventually everyone paid.

Pitting slow books against fast books in the earlier days means that if the steam was hot, the slow books were going to lose and lose alot. If the steam was cold, than the slow books were going to make all the money.

Last year the steam was so hot that it caused many slow books to either get faster or one or two even closed their doors because they lost so much.

I never kidded myself and knew that what was going to happen was more consistency and sameness among books. It's only good business sense. How many times do you have to get beat up until you figure out that you should put a $10.00 hour employee on the software and stop yourself from losing tens of thousands of dollars on a weekly basis.

Now it's my opinion we have reached the equivalent of parimutuel wagering in the sports world. Unless you are so good that you can recognize which way the lines are going to move with consistency enough to beat the spreads, the days of 5, 10, 20 and higher scalps are gone.

And believe me Reno, there are very few like yourself who can do it with such frequency.

The rest of us will be serving burgers "your way." Like I said it was fun while it lasted. For every one like you Reno, there are a hundred potential burger flippers like me.

Or maybe some will continue to gamble and give back the scalping profits. I prefer to make burgers for my friends.

[reno]

Bucky, the most profitable climate for books is plenty of two-way action. The job of a scalper is to ensure that books get plenty of two-way action, thus enabling them to balance their books. Scalpers are, in actuality, the Guardian Angels of sportsbooks. It is never a healthy climate when sportsbooks gets burned. I am a big fan of sportsbooks. I want the squares and bandwagoners to lose and the books to win
and make millions. Any money that I happen to make while scalping will be donated to poor Asian women (for services rendered). I therefore consider myself a non-profit, one-man organization.

Boomer, if you re-read the post thread "Moving on Air," I explain why a scalper makes money off other players and not the books. Famous ex-Stardust BM Scot Shettler agrees with my logic. If I truly believed that I was making money off the books...well, I'd probably quit scalping and manage a fast-food restaurant, and spend my spare time in confession with Father Guido.

[Boomer]

That's it Reno, I had enough of your BS. Meet me in the "steele cage". Whoops, its gone.

Sorry, I must just be a little nervous about my new job Monday.

[bbuster]

Reno- I think you are fooling yourself thinking that you don't make money of the books. You are a partner of the sportbook, one which does'nt have to pay for employees, phone lines, office space, computers etc.. If square 1 who is supposed to be a lifetime loser at sports betting lays -110 and the lines goes to -115 and you take +05 you have reduced the sportsbook short term risk and also their longterm profit. You are a partner, taking their position at a worse price. When you win they win, if you were'nt there when they win they would win more. It seems to me you cost them money.

[bbuster]

PS. - The most profitable situation for books is not 2 way action. That is the most risk adverse route to making money, the most profitable route to make money is only book the square/suckers, and just take the day to day ups and downs.

[reno]

Bbuster, you are talking about gambling, not booking. If the squares have a hot season, which has happened before, a book could end up in trouble. Furthermore, by just booking squares, a book limits it's handle and profit potential. A sharp book makes money from sharp players and welcomes all action.

[Hamhog]

BBuster,

If the book didn't want the buyback they should have kept their line at -110 instead of moving it to -115/+105.

[bucky]

Hamhog,
Your point is well taken. The bm knows a scalper will likely take a # and they still put it out so obviously they must want it to get the safe two way action.
Back to your post Reno, makes sense unless the balance of nature (i.e. squares,bandwagoners,whales, etc. get beat badly and quit) gets out of whack. Seems to me the whole system needs to maintain an equillibrium. Bookmakers don't get two way action without scalpers, scalpers don't get action without squares,bandwagons, whales. If the whales and squares lose too bad both the scalpers and bm's lose volume. So, I am back to my college days again. "Let's save the whales!"

[Railbird]

I am up thousands of dollars scalping baseball this year,thatis because I know what I am doing.I bought 22 season tickets to pac-bell.

[scott]

Reno...I couldnt agree more. Without scalpers/middlers I would have been in big doo doo. We encouraged wiseguy business but only for volume. I am not smart enough to beat them but with my scalpers around I didnt worry. We just held everyones money, paid the winners with the loosers money and kept the rest. Getting 'middled' was not a bad word for us. It was the price I paid for the life I chose as Michael Corleon said. Never did anybody say they just middled our book and they are keeping the money and quitting. Just the opposit. I did everything I could to keep every wiseguy, outfit, scalper & square close. I installed a phone room with free phones for them, gave them clipboards, calculators, access to all the information on the wires, fed them & gave them rooms, provided close parking and even threw a big dinner every year for them. All so they would give us their business. It was simply a huge grind joint, but it wouldnt work without my scalpers, bless their hearts...Scotty

[scott]

Corleone...Scotty