*** Official August - October Chatter Thread ***

[Piece of Cake]

I'd like to take this one step further. I see books and sites advertise with "beat the house" and "break the sportsbook" and "how to beat the oddsmakers". All of these concepts seem comical to me since, it is not them who I betting against. I mean, imo that's kin to selling a poker book with the title "Beat the dealer".

I assume sportsbooks/casinos are only in the business of matching buyers with sellers and taking a finders fee off the top. They could care less if the people wanted to bet USF-20 and Rutgers+20 as long as they had equal amounts on each side and they could take their 10% of the top. Your comment however leads me to believe this very basic assumption is factually incorrect.

[hedgie43]

[ QUOTE ]
Afaik casinos don't have exposure to any side. Is this an incorrect assumption. Are you saying that casinos "possibly" had exposure to the rutgers side last night because of the majority of bets were on USF? And if USF won, are you saying that they would've taken a loss? I thought that was the farthest thing from the truth and that they simply set/moved the line in order to balance exposure on each side and were only in the business of providing the action and taking their juice off the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common misnomer amongst the public.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Afaik casinos don't have exposure to any side. Is this an incorrect assumption. Are you saying that casinos "possibly" had exposure to the rutgers side last night because of the majority of bets were on USF? And if USF won, are you saying that they would've taken a loss? I thought that was the farthest thing from the truth and that they simply set/moved the line in order to balance exposure on each side and were only in the business of providing the action and taking their juice off the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common misnomer amongst the public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

and pretending that any site knows the far majority of action on a given game is utterly ridiculous. Sites like that take 3-4 sites and call it 'the market' so they can sell a product.

That's like saying what stocks are being bought by retail in Vermont, Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Arizona, so you should sell them because that's 'the market.' No.

[Piece of Cake]

Thank you for humoring my uneducated comments. I actually appreciate it.

I don't claim that any site knows the "majority" of action. And I agree, that no site possibly can.

Of course if you had a bookie in NJ and a bookie in south florida, I suspect their orders on those two games would look much different. But I assumed any good sportsbook was only in the business of providing action and was settling up at the end of the day.

Are you saying that sportsbooks are not only in the business of providing action but also in taking exposure to a particular side?

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that sportsbooks are not only in the business of providing action but also in taking exposure to a particular side?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Piece of Cake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that sportsbooks are not only in the business of providing action but also in taking exposure to a particular side?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]


If this is the case, how does fading an irrational demand for one side in a contest become less viable?

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that sportsbooks are not only in the business of providing action but also in taking exposure to a particular side?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, how does fading an irrational demand for one side in a contest become less viable?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not here to explain to you how you can or cannot beat sports. Good luck.

[Piece of Cake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that sportsbooks are not only in the business of providing action but also in taking exposure to a particular side?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, how does fading an irrational demand for one side in a contest become less viable?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not here to explain to you how you can or cannot beat sports. Good luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. My mistake for the phrasing of the question. I actually did not mean to phrase it as a proof for fading the public. I rather meant to simply rhetorically say that if a sportsbook is also taking a side, this doesn't necessarily imply that an oddsmaker has set a line in order to predict the most likely score. If anything this would add fuel to the thought that odds/spreads are mispriced, whether it be from unequal demand, or a direct attempt to profit.

[MyTurn2Raise]

piece of cake...you're on a good path I think

don't mind Thremp
sportsbetting forum is full of plenty of sharp, curt replies

the fact he didn't rip you a new one means you're on a good path

[Piece of Cake]

Well I imagine posters of my type show up every day thinking they found a new surefire way or beating the system or worse think that someone here will tell them some secret that will win them millions.

I'm simply seeking to fully understand the battlefield.

I'm also not here to debate whether or not sportsbetting can be beat. And my question was phrased in haste to sound that way.

In capping, like with poker, I would assume the aim is to make money from donks not the casinos. It appears however, that I'm somewhat misinformed about the level of interest casinos actually have in the events though. This is what I'm trying to get a better grasp at this moment.