Close

Complete Captcha

• 1 year - 53 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 29 Goods vs 31 No Goods

1. Economist
   1875
   

   You're clearly a retarded undergrad. Do you even know what an arbitrage is? If the public is overestimating a Tiger win then betting against a tiger win will, over time, yield, with almost certainty, massive profits. That's why book matching is dumb. based on public betting patterns, Woods has an implied 33% chance of winning any given major, which is extremely high given the level of play on Tour these days. You would have to be a moron to bet on Tiger at those s**tty odds. As a bookie, you should offer better odds and risk it.

   They're matching based on subjective beliefs (money coming in) rather than objective beliefs. You're suggesting that there are clear and obvious arbitrage opportunities. I'm saying that sportsbooks don't create intentional arbitrage opportunities. You might be able to find "dynamic" arbitrage opportunities across time, but that's not true arbitrage with guaranteed returns.

   If that were the case then a smart person would bet against the crowd and make $$ over time.

   Sportsbooks don't try to make money by gambling on bettor beliefs. They try to match bets on both sides and take a cut. Same basic idea as poker tables taking rake but more difficult.
   - Industry bro working at a gambling company
   

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

2. Economist
   db72
   

   I do know what arbitrage is, but you don't seem to. Arbitrage is when you can make simultaneous purchases and/or sales (or bets) and guarantee yourself a riskless profit.

   Have you ever tried to make simultaneous bets on different sites while guaranteeing yourself a riskless profit? My guess is that you haven't.

   You also seem to be thinking that bookmakers operate in isolation. This might be true for an illegal book but not for a public bookmaker. Bookmakers can still screw themselves by accepting bets that are too large or not adjusting odds frequently enough.

   You're clearly a retarded undergrad. Do you even know what an arbitrage is? If the public is overestimating a Tiger win then betting against a tiger win will, over time, yield, with almost certainty, massive profits. That's why book matching is dumb. based on public betting patterns, Woods has an implied 33% chance of winning any given major, which is extremely high given the level of play on Tour these days. You would have to be a moron to bet on Tiger at those s**tty odds. As a bookie, you should offer better odds and risk it.

   They're matching based on subjective beliefs (money coming in) rather than objective beliefs. You're suggesting that there are clear and obvious arbitrage opportunities. I'm saying that sportsbooks don't create intentional arbitrage opportunities. You might be able to find "dynamic" arbitrage opportunities across time, but that's not true arbitrage with guaranteed returns.

   If that were the case then a smart person would bet against the crowd and make $$ over time.

   Sportsbooks don't try to make money by gambling on bettor beliefs. They try to match bets on both sides and take a cut. Same basic idea as poker tables taking rake but more difficult.
   - Industry bro working at a gambling company

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

3. Economist
   8270
   

   What the idiots who’ve never made an actual bet don’t understand is that if they shade the line against Tiger it doesn’t mean that betting against Tiger is profitable. That’s because there’s still a commission, a vig, juice.

   If you bet against Tiger you would just lose less, or at best break even.

   There are arbitrage opportunities but you have to watch carefully for them and act quickly. You can’t just bet against the public blindly.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

4. Economist
   8270
   

   The poker rake example is horrendous

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

5. Economist
   8270
   

   By the way please let me know how if Tiger is overpriced you profit by arbitraging against him when there’s a field of dozens of other players, and betting on each of them would involve paying vig?

   You’re going to bet on D Johnson, Michelson, etc., every person who could win? Good luck with that arbitrage.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

6. Economist
   1875
   

   What I'm interested in knowing is whether sites like bet365 try to balance the books and hedge all risk or whether they estimate the probablities themselves and then proceed to offering bad odds to the public. People on here seem to be saying that gambling sites aren't interested in true probabilities and just try to hedge away all the risk while capturing a commission. From what I can gather, different sites offer different odds which might indicate that book balancing isn't necessarily what they're doing. There's absolutely no way effing way they were balancing the books with the odds they were giving Tiger woods to win the masters after round 3.

   What the idiots who’ve never made an actual bet don’t understand is that if they shade the line against Tiger it doesn’t mean that betting against Tiger is profitable. That’s because there’s still a commission, a vig, juice.
   If you bet against Tiger you would just lose less, or at best break even.
   There are arbitrage opportunities but you have to watch carefully for them and act quickly. You can’t just bet against the public blindly.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

7. Economist
   1875
   

   The betting sites give s**t odds on every player. You could bet on each player and come out with a really bad expected value. That's how gambling sites make money.

   By the way please let me know how if Tiger is overpriced you profit by arbitraging against him when there’s a field of dozens of other players, and betting on each of them would involve paying vig?
   You’re going to bet on D Johnson, Michelson, etc., every person who could win? Good luck with that arbitrage.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

8. Economist
   8270
   

   The betting sites give s**t odds on every player. You could bet on each player and come out with a really bad expected value. That's how gambling sites make money.

   By the way please let me know how if Tiger is overpriced you profit by arbitraging against him when there’s a field of dozens of other players, and betting on each of them would involve paying vig?
   You’re going to bet on D Johnson, Michelson, etc., every person who could win? Good luck with that arbitrage.
   

   That’s my point. It’s impossible to arbitrage. That’s why if you make the Patriots 2:1 to win the 2020 super bowl (atrocious odds), there’s no way to get 1:2 on The Field to win the super bowl.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

9. Economist
   8270
   

   What I'm interested in knowing is whether sites like bet365 try to balance the books and hedge all risk or whether they estimate the probablities themselves and then proceed to offering bad odds to the public. People on here seem to be saying that gambling sites aren't interested in true probabilities and just try to hedge away all the risk while capturing a commission. From what I can gather, different sites offer different odds which might indicate that book balancing isn't necessarily what they're doing. There's absolutely no way effing way they were balancing the books with the odds they were giving Tiger woods to win the masters after round 3.

   What the idiots who’ve never made an actual bet don’t understand is that if they shade the line against Tiger it doesn’t mean that betting against Tiger is profitable. That’s because there’s still a commission, a vig, juice.
   If you bet against Tiger you would just lose less, or at best break even.
   There are arbitrage opportunities but you have to watch carefully for them and act quickly. You can’t just bet against the public blindly.
   

   No large book balances. They can handle the swings. Your local bookie at the bar is the only one who might buy back.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

10. Economist
    1875
    

    What I'm saying is that if the bookies are balancing books, then you might be able to find some interesting imbalances and bet against the public perception. But I don't think gambling sites follow book balancing as much as people are saying on here.

    The betting sites give s**t odds on every player. You could bet on each player and come out with a really bad expected value. That's how gambling sites make money.

    By the way please let me know how if Tiger is overpriced you profit by arbitraging against him when there’s a field of dozens of other players, and betting on each of them would involve paying vig?
    You’re going to bet on D Johnson, Michelson, etc., every person who could win? Good luck with that arbitrage.
    

    That’s my point. It’s impossible to arbitrage. That’s why if you make the Patriots 2:1 to win the 2020 super bowl (atrocious odds), there’s no way to get 1:2 on The Field to win the super bowl.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

11. Economist
    8270
    

    What I'm saying is that if the bookies are balancing books, then you might be able to find some interesting imbalances and bet against the public perception. But I don't think gambling sites follow book balancing as much as people are saying on here.

    The betting sites give s**t odds on every player. You could bet on each player and come out with a really bad expected value. That's how gambling sites make money.

    By the way please let me know how if Tiger is overpriced you profit by arbitraging against him when there’s a field of dozens of other players, and betting on each of them would involve paying vig?
    You’re going to bet on D Johnson, Michelson, etc., every person who could win? Good luck with that arbitrage.
    

    That’s my point. It’s impossible to arbitrage. That’s why if you make the Patriots 2:1 to win the 2020 super bowl (atrocious odds), there’s no way to get 1:2 on The Field to win the super bowl.
    

    Correct. The people who say they do don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

12. Economist
    1a67
    

    "Bookmakers can still screw themselves by accepting bets that are too large or not adjusting odds frequently enough."

    Sure; there are incompetent bookmakers who lose money and eventually go out of business. They can't "screw themselves" systematically and stay in business.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

13. Economist
    1a67
    

    What I'm saying is that if the bookies are balancing books, then you might be able to find some interesting imbalances and bet against the public perception. But I don't think gambling sites follow book balancing as much as people are saying on here.

    Then these gambling sites are gambling rather than, or in additi0n to, bookmaking.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

Reply

Post <blockquote>They'll make it all back.</blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.