Dealing Two Different Lines

[scott]

BigMoney, By unethical I mean hanging a line then not honoring it when it is played into. Scotty

[BigMoney]

Scott, it is good to hear that Vegas does not employ the two-line policy. It is also good to hear from someone on the book's side of the counter say that the policy would be unethical.

My guess is that most offshore books thought they could get away with it, and the players would never know.

[nickles]

this has been quite an interesting topic if not an a controversial one. i'd like to stick in my 2 cents.. I don't think that dealing a double line is quite as devious or underhanded as some people may beleive.I think it is just a way books protect themselves from the sharp players..the public line is moved according to the action or public opinion so weather it is favorite biased or not is really determined by the way the public plays that particular game on that particular day..and most books will keep another line, one that pretty much follows the screen so not to to be taken advantage of by people who can really affect their bottom line.after all this is a buisness..as for the players having a right to know,I think thats ludicrous, if a wise guy takes advantage of a bad number that makes him sharp. but if a book takes advantage of public betting trends that makes them criminal?Betmaker along with every other book in the world is only there for one reason TO MAKE $$

[scott]

Nickles, What do you mean by being taken advantage of by guys who can affect the bottom line? Scotty

[scott]

My reply #63 on BigMoneys topic didnt get posted. This is the only topic I have problems with. Thanks again, Scotty

[Cons]

What's ludicrous about wanting to know if a book deals double-lines? I don't consider it a fair practice and I'd simply like to know which books resort to this. A book should make it's money in the juice, like Scott mentioned. It really is player against player, and it's the bookmaker's art to set the line so that it splits the action as evenly as possible.

Scott, betting the other side isn't an option for someone like me. To be honest I look at the teams/players first before I look at the odds. Once I do that I check out the odds, and if I think they are decent I take the bet. But first and foremost I make my opinions as to know will win.

I sgree with what I read in February's edition of Odds On. 'Value' is the most misunderstood concept in betting. The search for value bets over the actual finding of winners is quite worrying.

I'm not saying back the team you think will win at any odds, but it doesn't make a difference if say on a futures bet I get 14/1 or 66/1 for that matter, if I don't believe that bet will ever materialize. But for many people the search for value seems to outweigh the search for winners.

Which is why I don't even bother seeing the odds before I see the matchups. Once I have my mind set on what I think will be the probable outcome, I look at the odds.

If they seem beter than expected, I take the bet. Otherwise, I pass. Very rarely would I take the other side, only if the odds were drastically different.

[AussieVamp2]

Cons, I think that odds on article is more applicable to a futures type scenario

would I have bet England at any money to win the rugby world cup? No.

If they played 1000 world cups a year, perhaps.

Say we are talking about the NHL, can get Nashville at 2.50 in a certain game? Do I think they are more likely to win than not?

No, but I think they are likely to win enough times in the long run, or other teams in that situation to win will do the same, so partly dependent on the sample.

It is a tricky one though.

i.e. earlier in the year I remember betting on Feyenoord who were in screaming form at it was paying about 1.18 - not value in this case, but I was sure they would win - which they did, by 3 or 4 goals, so he probably does have a good point that picking winners can be important - depending on how you do it

[thechin]

it seems pretty basic to me ..... you get a quote, you either play or pass .... if the line isn't what you want, go out there and find the best line .... those who shop reap the benefits ... it's like airline tickets-if you knew what everyone else paid sitting around you on any given flight you might be shocked to learn that some got much better deals and some got hosed ... that's life

[scott]

CONS, Well stated and I consider your handicapping/wagering philosophy is arguably the best provided you have the disciplne to stick to it. You will last longer than most. Scotty

[bigtimehoops]

Having read all of the comments concerning the topic, its no suprise to me how intelligent and experienced most of the views are. My experience comes from myself actually doing the profiling for close to two years aT a very reputable book. Back in 96 and 97 so times could have changed.Although this may be no news to most of you , this how we did it...............First we would profile every bettor, some take about 2 seconds and in all those cases SQUARE would be assigned to the particular account #, I would say 75 percent of the time we would get ( ok maybe 85 percent ) play the inflated line with the rest of the times those accounts getting the inflated number on there end. I considered it smart business. with the squares we were also more apt to move there lines when coming in a second time on a particular wager. Meaning they get the Rams at 7 and a half the next time its 8 , maybe higher, fair probably not but those were the rules then. Where as with the WISEGUYS ,OR STREET as we called them much heavier profiling was done and they would basically get the straight Don Best line. The heavier bettors being transferred directly to me where at times i would do my best to know them like the back of my hand , the small things to detect which way they most likely would go and at many times move the line in that direction based on past plays and vey , very heavy analysis of those plays.One thing to Jeff although i think you hit home on many points , i do disagree about small bettors who show a WISEGUY betting mentality being on Square lines. We always put them on STREET lines. We felt there was no reason to give anybody inflated numbers if we knew they were taking them , small play or not.Anyways just my two cents and good luck to all


BTH

[Jeff]

BTH- Good point.

I guess the way I was looking at it, was that a few small sharp guys would help balance the square line.

But I guess a few small sharp guys equals one big sharp guy, and like you said, why give anything away.

What is the average effect this process had on the overall hold?

Was it worth it?

[BigMoney]

I wasn't there, but I'm sure it was "worth it" to the book, provided they didn't get enough bad press to lose customers. Think about what he said - they dealt the basic Don Best line to the wise guys, giving them no value; and screwed the squares out of extra points.

This is the option of the sportsbook, to engage in this practice. But it is in the disadvantage of both types of players. That is the reason I'd like to identify those books that DON'T practice this, and promote them to the players. That is one of the purposes of this site.

So I'd like to see some books come online here and state that they offer the same line to all players. If they'll say that they do, it won't be too hard to verify it. I'm assuming they wouldn't be so dumb as to say they will and not.

[bbuster]

2 things one to the world and one to Scotty.

I feel the squares are not the ones getting taking advantage of by multiple lines, the reasons books have multiple lines in my opinion is to protect themselves from the Wiseguys, players who chase steam and middlers who will play any number regardless of the side if it is far enough from the rest of the market. The Wise guy line is the one that jumps around not the square line. the square line doesnt have to move because the guy is looking to make his play regardless of whether there is a better number elsewhere, where as the wise guy will play any number that has equity in it whether it means middling it or pocketing it.

Scotty-

I have noticed numerous times you stated that 11 is bigger than 10 and also you dont move off air and dont care what the guy down the street number is. Correct?
I have spoken to various bookmakers and for the most part they say the days of balance action and just juicing out money is a pipe dream, they almost always need a side.
Also as to moving on action versus moving on air, I understand how you can only move on action on most games , but when steam hits and the screen goes from -110 to -120's and 22's I dont see how anybody can afford not to move, because if you dont move your gonna get slaughtered with one way action and be trying to get buyback to get flat. rather if you move on air you might avoid a position altogether as the wiseguy missed the number so he passes. you cant give people free middles or let them pocket juice just cause you didnt get hit yet. move the number, consider yourself blessed that they missed you. If you dont you will eventually get hit. If your booking you just cant have the dust at -110 and the mirage -25.

[scott]

BBUSTER, All the moves dont win. Most of the groups that services moniter and players blindly follow go bad from time to time. Most groups have to pull up for a while at best or some just have to quit. Even the groups that have been successful have losing streaks and seasons that bury the followers and fatten up the BM'S. You are exactly right though. Its a little different since I was in action. Still, there is more to winning than laying or playing because the line moves on a service. If thats all it takes lets get three of them and win three times as much. When a service places themselves between player and bookmaker IMO it helpes the player who has done his work and is looking for a # ,value or looking to middle a decision. Its only my opinion/experience that tells me to move #s on action. Let the players play. Eventually they will fall over themselves. They wont need a push. Scotty (great two way conversation just like two way action. Its still possible).

[bbuster]

Cons- the reason why some players look for value is because the majority of us can't pick the winner often enough to make money. If you can you are in the minority, congradulations. For those that can't pick winners they can still make money by finding value on either side because either team can win and will win often enough to be profitable with a juicy price attached to them.

Scotty-

If it is not to personal and you don't mind posting it here, I am curious what you do now? do you work for a book? Play? I thought I read a few months ago you had some sort of business idea in the gaming business that you were looking to find capital to help you with it?