suuma's NFL week five «» write-ups inside

What is your definition of luck? The redskins were leading the entire game, had you watched it.

Yes there is a theory for how to manage a sports book, check it out from Mr. Michael "Roxy" Roxborough, focused primarily on US sports.

DrJohn and BulletBob who repeated the statement again "There is no "theory" purporting 50-50 action = profit maximization for sports books"

I never said that the theory "maximized" profits for the sports book.  It is a balance of risk and profit that the above book speaks of and it lays out the basic principals.

Anyway I don't understand your discussion of this because you go on to say that the way books make their money is the commissions and by trying to get 50/50 action, or riskless action and just collect the commission.

What I'm telling you is that it is impossible for the books to get riskless action.  You say that they are going to drive down the risk to zero as much as possible?  How do they do that and if they are doing that then isn't that the same as saying they want 50/50 action on a game?  50/50 action = zero risk and profits = commission in that case.

That is besides my point though, the point is that they can't avoid uneven action.  You have no way as the bookmaker of knowing what your bettors are going to do so there are always going to be games every week that have more money on one side.  

Let's say its your own book.  What are the tools available to you to even up the action and reduce your risk?  You gonna move the line, with your customers it may not even make a difference cause they won't take the other side and they already bet. And if you move it to far out of whack with the other books and market your risking a middle or getting even more one sided action the other way.  Are you going to gamble with it, say go place a bet with another book to offset the one sided action at your own?  If you do you'll be paying juice and thus cutting into or eliminating your profit margin.

So it's easy to say, "they don't care they are just getting 50/50 action and collecting the juice and they don't want any risk" and sure they would love to have it work out that way but when you examine the reality of it you realize that this isn't how it actually works.  It is not that the book maker is trying maximize profits by "winning on sides" as you say, he doesn't have any control over it.  He has one sided action all the time and he is very limited what he can do with line moves or his customer base to change that.

Most still won't understand this and I think it is because people tend to think on a small scale and one game or one week.  Books are able to minimize the day to day and week to week risk because of the churn. There are days or even weeks when they lose money but that money comes back in the door and its this churn that eventually evens out the risk over time.

I watched it. It's about how games played out to get a clou about teams for the future. The Falcons center had some poor snaps, Ryan was inaccurate but it was still enough to own the Redskins in every facet of the game. Redskins got lucky to stay in the game because of the bad breaks the Falcons had. After three quarters Freeman had more yards than the entire Redskins team. But 12 Falcons points after four RZ attempts and two missed FGs sealed the way for the Skins.

I feel your pain.

Up 17-3 and driving with 9 minutes left to go in the third, Charles gets injured in the redzone @ the 9. The whole complexion of the game changed at that point.

No sense crying over it, we just move on.

We'll get them next time  

KC burned me . But as a Bengals fan, I would have gladly paid that $500 to see all those "12's" GTFO of PBS. they got awfully quiet. 

2015 is the year of the GINGER. 

BOL. I will continue to tail to the 

Arizona looks like the easiest game on the board. But how could I bet it when "the public is all over them" lol. So it is 2-2 with limited damage.

Tired of talking here. See you guys next week if I pass on MNF 

i didn't read your entire post as you were erroneous in your first 2/2 points. Maximizing profits is the goal of every person who engages in business, this is simple logic.

2ndly, I NEVER purported what you said I stated.

The simple fact is, the goal of books is to get the lopsided action on the statistically disadvantaged side. Plain and simple. Anyone who says otherwise is WRONG.

It's a shame I can't bet against you every week. I'd take + pts where the team leads for 95% of the game 10/10.

Comprehension is not your strong suite is it

grandpa? is that you ?? 

so far i believe in every single post he has flat out told others that they are wrong when really wats being discussed is to sum degree a matter of conjecture and opinion...it is highly doubtful any person here is privy to the inner workings of the sports gambling industry at large so YES,when making bold,definitive statements it wud be kinda nice to hear sum sort of evidence or source of figures and/or operating procedures.

hmmmmm,now lemme guess wat kind of retort we'll get here.............okay,i think im gonna go with...."i didnt read your whole post because everything contained within the first 5 letters was completely wrong so i considered it beneath me to carry on reading"...yours truly,dr. john(M.D in c.ockology and knobbery).

Thanks again for your picks this week, wasn't feeling quite as strong on KC as you were so I played them as a 'normal' play for myself but I was pleasantly suprised watching the game unfold and then I watched Charles go 'SNAP' and thought uh-oh. I do think Da Bears were getting a little momentum before that but I'll have to go back and watch during the week to double check as I watch all the games at once on 2 TV's so I'm usually watching a game and the red zone all at once.  Anyway with that being said I still agree that even IF I'm correct and they WERE gaining some momentum prior to the injury KC STILL covers if Charles doesn't go down. Some of these people just don't know football and/or just want to be antagonists, FEK'em.

Hey I was curious to ask but only had my phone handy and won't access this site on my phone, why didn't you like NE as a play today? That was my POD, Brady and Belicheck coming off a bye week against a banged up Dallas team seems like money in the bank, just curious what you saw that kept you away from it. I realize the game is over but still wanted to know your thought process?

Thanks for what you do and nice call on the Cards to get back to even on the day!! 

THIS and all of THIS.  

Probably the ONLY thing I would ever disagree with suuma is that capping is all about everyday match ups.  If that was the case, situational capping would never work and the best team would always win.

Personally, I do a mix of everything in capping my games.  I look at matchups.  I look at situations.  I look at lines and try and determine what "vegas" is thinking and what the public perception is (thanks ESPN).  None of these are absolute on it's own or else it'd be too easy i.e. "always bet against a 70%+ concensus".

Oddsmakers know these things and throw just enough misdirection to make it tough.

Like the above posters said, books what the constant "churn"  (I like that word).  Their 50/50 split is really LONG term against certain bettors and not on a single game or single week sample size.  They want the sharps, public, line bettors, situational cappers to all lose 50/50 so that the money moves back and forth and they collect their vig THAT way. Same thing in poker, the house would LOVE for pots to be shipped back and forth and to continue to rake off the same money vs. having one person constantly winning and once that person has those chips, the chance to tax those are gone.

Just my opinion.

I would take Redskins +7.5 10/10 times. I'm a value better. I rely upon my advanced statistical analysis; the underlying premise being, make the correct bet enough times and you will end up in the green.

If you can't learn to use the google search function, there's no use in me commenting in your threads. There is numerous academic literature that examines how the sports betting market oddsmakers are not aiming for 50-50 action. Examine some of it, then I'll be willing to have a discussion.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're the same type of person who disagrees with science.

Personally, I don't consider the team that lead for 90% of the time (hard fact) to be getting lucky when they cover. Perhaps I'm in the minority though.

science???..na,im actually a big fan of science.

you stating your opinion with zero amount of anything to back it up and then calling it fact(whilst in the process telling everyone else they are wrong) is actually the OPPOSITE of science.

how the fu.k wud you know the exact inner workings of the sports betting industry as a whole??     

Give me a break, the "books" could care less. There's not enough dollars for them to care coming from the guys who visit these threads. WOW

The trolls are just a bunch of losers with nothing better to do.