Tips for Tikay

[Tal]

norman on floyd

i thought i liked carolina -3 earlier in the week and still do to an extent (carolina run game looks so powerful and arizona struggled last week in that area) but the panthers will need to get pressure on palmer as otherwise there are so many big play options if he has time.

in their favour of course kuechly and davis are brilliant linebackers with tonnes of range to help out the secondary

wouldn't be surprised if it was a 50+ point game think the line is 47

 

I also like overs on the points. Partly what has drawn me to the anytime touchdown market.

[nellberg]

Another monotonous ODI series starts tonight at 10pm, NZ hosting Pakistan. NZ have become a very proficient ODI side, built on attacking batting and bowling. Their bowling normally revolves around Southee and Boult, but Southee misses out today with injury. Boult's became a real force in the last 18 months, bowls a very attacking length and will be the Kiwi's go-to man tonight. Korral have him evens to take more than 1.5 wickets, 8/11 less than 1.5 wickets.

In 28 ODI's he's taken 49 wickets.
In 18 home ODI's he's taken 36 wickets.
12/18 home ODI's he's taken more than 1.5 wickets.
6/6 last home ODI's - all over 1.5 wickets.
9/11 last home ODI's he's taken more than 1.5 wickets.

In Cricinfo's preview they say "This match will be the first ODI at the Basin Reserve since 2005, so average scores at the venue can only say so much. Grant Elliott felt the surface was hard, and should have a bit of pace and bounce. Overhead conditions may be conducive to swing bowling, with cloud forecast for parts of the day - though they are not expected to bring rain.", so that's a positive for Boult to be able to have conditions in his favour here. Whilst he hasn't played a ODI here, his test record is 20 wickets in 4 games here, so that's another tick in the box. Given his recent strong form and the frailty of the Pakistan batsman against the moving ball, evens looks too big here, recommend £30. No oddschecker link I'm afraid.  

[arbboy]

Goffin will never play that good and lose 6-1 6-2 6-4 in his life.  Feel for the guy.

[Tal]

Hills in Vegas reckon 85% of the money they've taken on the first game has been on the Patriots, but they're holding firm at -3.

Firstly, why on Earth would they do that rather than lay off at least some of the money by splitting the handle, when they just need to do what the Wynn did in the week and go -3.5 for a couple of hours, take the bets off the sharps and move it back to -3 before anyone has noticed?

Secondly, since when did bookmakers decide they were going to have opinions on bets, standing firm when they fancied an outcome at the risk of losing money if they were wrong?

[TightEnd]

Over 1.5 EVS
New Zealand v Pakistan 1st ODI - 24/01/2016
Stake £30.00
Estimated Return:£60.00
Total Stake: £30.00
Potential Return: £60.00

[TightEnd]

norman on floyd

i thought i liked carolina -3 earlier in the week and still do to an extent (carolina run game looks so powerful and arizona struggled last week in that area) but the panthers will need to get pressure on palmer as otherwise there are so many big play options if he has time.

in their favour of course kuechly and davis are brilliant linebackers with tonnes of range to help out the secondary

wouldn't be surprised if it was a 50+ point game think the line is 47

 

I also like overs on the points. Partly what has drawn me to the anytime touchdown market.

yup. around all afternoon (cheering on chelsea, the shame of it) if you want to formalise JJ Nelson or anyone else

[arbboy]

Hills in Vegas reckon 85% of the money they've taken on the first game has been on the Patriots, but they're holding firm at -3.

Firstly, why on Earth would they do that rather than lay off at least some of the money by splitting the handle, when they just need to do what the Wynn did in the week and go -3.5 for a couple of hours, take the bets off the sharps and move it back to -3 before anyone has noticed?

Secondly, since when did bookmakers decide they were going to have opinions on bets, standing firm when they fancied an outcome at the risk of losing money if they were wrong?

Assume this is a level and not serious?  Well written and witty if it is a level.

[Tal]

Hills in Vegas reckon 85% of the money they've taken on the first game has been on the Patriots, but they're holding firm at -3.

Firstly, why on Earth would they do that rather than lay off at least some of the money by splitting the handle, when they just need to do what the Wynn did in the week and go -3.5 for a couple of hours, take the bets off the sharps and move it back to -3 before anyone has noticed?

Secondly, since when did bookmakers decide they were going to have opinions on bets, standing firm when they fancied an outcome at the risk of losing money if they were wrong?

Assume this is a level and not serious?  Well written and witty if it is a level.

http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/14632234/money-continues-pile-new-england-patriots-las-vegas

[arbboy]

Why would you ever move off square money to accommodate pro's as a bookmaker?  If the pros take the +3.5 you just sit at +3 and know you are getting 11/10 on the sharp side and suck up the swings.    Would take a brave layer to lay -3 to the squares then +3.5 to the pros and get middled and do your cash.  GL explaining that to your boss as a trading director.

It is a total myth bookmakers try to balance action.  Every firm i have ever worked for never had any intention of trying to balance action on any event.  I gtd you every casual punter bookmaker alive (outside of Asia) will not have balanced action on any major event on tv on any sport.  If they do it will be just by chance as they should never be looking to get balanced action as it costs them money longer term.

Does a casino who has a high roller having £1m on red wait until they have laid £1m on black and £35k on zero before they spin the wheel?    Also would you go 11/10 Black and 40/1 zero in order to balance your action (akin to going +3.5 on this nfl game)?  Simple answer is of course you wouldn't so why as a bookmaker would you in a major NFL game when the line is rock solid and the sharps only want to play at +3.5 and not +3.

Good article.  ty for the link Tal.

[Tal]

Why would you ever move off square money to accommodate pro's as a bookmaker?  If the pros take the +3.5 you just sit at +3 and know you are getting 11/10 on the sharp side and suck up the swings.    Would take a brave layer to lay -3 to the squares then +3.5 to the pros and get middled and do your cash.  GL explaining that to your boss as a trading director.

It is a total myth bookmakers try to balance action.  Every firm i have ever worked for never had any intention of trying to balance action on any event.  I gtd you every casual punter bookmaker alive (outside of Asia) will not have balanced action on any major event on tv on any sport.  If they do it will be just by chance as they should never be looking to get balanced action as it costs them money longer term.

Does a casino who has a high roller having £1m on red wait until they have laid £1m on black and £35k on zero before they spin the wheel?  

That's interesting. I'm at a massive knowledge/experience deficit here so there's no point arguing with any of that. I'll ask a few questions though

1. Why do bookies move lines if it's not because of the money? Sometimes, it'll be team news, sure, but if "lolapool and manure" are routinely overbet by the fish, why should we be laying them if their prices aren't artificially short? Talbet would have them 10% shorter than they should be every week because I know the money will still come.

2. The casino example doesn't seem to be a fair comparator because it's a completely perfect system for the House mathematically and, when Billy Big Bananas has walked out with his two million, Charlie Cash will be in to bet on the same market and the House gets to level their exposure by running the bet a million times. This is a one off game and (I guess) the second biggest football game they'll be taking bets on all year. It is also an imperfect game, because you have incomplete information and variables the casino doesn't. I can see why the casino doesn't lay it off but can you see why I'd believe the bookmaker would lay off the bets on the NFL?

3. On your first point, am I right in saying it's foolish to move to 3.5 because then, if you believe a 3 point deficit is the most likely outcome, you'll lose more money when that happens because you pay out when it was otherwise a push? That's fine, but although it is the most likely individual outcome, it is still unlikely as an outcome, so you are still playing a favourable game by limiting the massive downswings, even if you sacrifice some EV to do so.

4. The alternative is to keep the line but change the price. As opposed to -3 and 10/11 both sides, go Evens and 4/6. Is that more likely or is it just as simple as the bookies only play the maths and trust their reasoning?

[superwomble]

Good stuff Rich, thank you.

I rather enjoyed these 2 deadpan lines.....

i have also taken the Leicester to be relegated bet as a loser

you might have noticed, but Leicester are top with 15 games to go


Very good.

I preferred " Charlton's charge to the playoffs began with a home draw"

I preferred the image of the League 2 table 😀

[arbboy]

Why would you ever move off square money to accommodate pro's as a bookmaker?  If the pros take the +3.5 you just sit at +3 and know you are getting 11/10 on the sharp side and suck up the swings.    Would take a brave layer to lay -3 to the squares then +3.5 to the pros and get middled and do your cash.  GL explaining that to your boss as a trading director.

It is a total myth bookmakers try to balance action.  Every firm i have ever worked for never had any intention of trying to balance action on any event.  I gtd you every casual punter bookmaker alive (outside of Asia) will not have balanced action on any major event on tv on any sport.  If they do it will be just by chance as they should never be looking to get balanced action as it costs them money longer term.

Does a casino who has a high roller having £1m on red wait until they have laid £1m on black and £35k on zero before they spin the wheel?  

That's interesting. I'm at a massive knowledge/experience deficit here so there's no point arguing with any of that. I'll ask a few questions though

1. Why do bookies move lines if it's not because of the money? Sometimes, it'll be team news, sure, but if "lolapool and manure" are routinely overbet by the fish, why should we be laying them if their prices aren't artificially short? Talbet would have them 10% shorter than they should be every week because I know the money will still come.

2. The casino example doesn't seem to be a fair comparator because it's a completely perfect system for the House mathematically and, when Billy Big Bananas has walked out with his two million, Charlie Cash will be in to bet on the same market and the House gets to level their exposure by running the bet a million times. This is a one off game and (I guess) the second biggest football game they'll be taking bets on all year. It is also an imperfect game, because you have incomplete information and variables the casino doesn't. I can see why the casino doesn't lay it off but can you see why I'd believe the bookmaker would lay off the bets on the NFL?  The ideal spot in heaven is to have your best two marks on your firm backing each side.  Then you know you can just sit there and just not move the number and be happy to lay whatever and nick the 4.5% juice.

The ideal spot in heaven is to have your best two marks on your firm backing each side.  Then you know you can just sit there and just not move the number and be happy to lay whatever and nick the 4.5% juice.

3. On your first point, am I right in saying it's foolish to move to 3.5 because then, if you believe a 3 point deficit is the most likely outcome, you'll lose more money when that happens because you pay out when it was otherwise a push? That's fine, but although it is the most likely individual outcome, it is still unlikely as an outcome, so you are still playing a favourable game by limiting the massive downswings, even if you sacrifice some EV to do so.

4. The alternative is to keep the line but change the price. As opposed to -3 and 10/11 both sides, go Evens and 4/6. Is that more likely or is it just as simple as the bookies only play the maths and trust their reasoning?

1 - talbet wouldn't take any money with that strategy nowadays as every firm uses high profile sporting events as a loss leader to attract casuals into the lair of casinos and other 'easy' products.  Most high profile games are bet to 101% generally.  Would have worked 15+ years ago.  Not in 2016.

2 - You are correct about the perfect information angle.  However i would argue that a casino wouldn't lay £1m on red every day either (or million spins of it a year) so the argument that it is a one off event still stands.   Why, as a billion pound company with the bankroll to adequately cope with the swings, would you ever want to set fire to EV?  Hills might as well drive down the vegas strip throwing $100 bills out of the window of a limo if they are going to do this.  It is effectively the same thing.  As a sharp bookmaker you only take bets from pros to get a mark.  Your aim is to pay as little as possible for that mark (but enough to know the sharp isn't sending you the wrong way).  It is a careful balancing act.  Once you know for sure he wants +3.5 and you respect his opinion why on earth would you want to oppose him?  You are not taking his bets in the first place to make money from him.  You know he is going to beat you.  Therefore you have to take enough on the other side to make sure you are with him to justify 'paying' him for his mark and win enough on top for yourself.  If you don't do this you would be better just not accommodating his action full stop and closing his account.

3 - The reason you don't want to move to 3.5 predominately is because the price is wrong for you and the pros want to back it.  Course it is still unlikely it lands on 3.  But the option of getting middled by laying -3 and +3.5 doesn't have risk/reward in your favour.  You are actially increasing risk potentially doing this, not reducing variance as you think.  Just because it is unlikely to happen doesn't mean it reduces variance.  When it does happen it will cost you a shit load of money compared to the small amount of juice you nick everytime it doesn't.  All risk/reward.

4 - Juicing the number (moving off traditional 10/11 each of two prices) is done to usually suck another 5 or 10 cents out of the wagons.  ie 5/6 -3 evens +3.  This should still stop the pros coming in at evens but sucks another 10 cents out of the wagons so you get 6/5 the sharp side as a bookmaker rather than 11/10.  I have worked at several firms which operated a 'two line' policy where they dealt a 'square' line to normal punters and anyone marked sharp/restricted got a potentially different 'sharp line' so when they came into back the dog and hoover any value they never got the wagon line for the dog at an enhanced price.  So you might offer -3 5/6 for the wagons.  The sharps would still see the line at -3 10/11 each so they can't hoover the evens on the dog +3.  This allows you as a firm to nick a few more spots of EV over a year.

The reality is juicing numbers is the same as moving to another number if you juice it sufficiently depending how significant a number you are moving off is.  Obviously 3 and 7 are the key numbers and would need juicing more.

Juicing also deters some wagons from betting as they prefer -110 or 10/11 in vegas.  They don't like it juiced.  They want £1100 to win £1000 at whatever the number is.

All of this is just my preferred way of trading.  Numerous people will disagree with me i am sure.  Most firms don't operate in this way either.  They choose just to not take sharp action which is quite acceptable as a bookmaker should you wish to go down that route.  I am just a punter by nature and think you make more money long term doing it this way.  It is also more fun which is what the game is all about as well.  

You also know when you are laying sharp action as you don't still take it from numerous other accounts because you are constantly closing sharp accounts and having to find them again.  Sharps don't stop betting.  They will always get on with your firm.  My view is it makes sense to know what they want to bet, accommodate them at the lowest possible price (they are an expense to the business and all expenses in any business need to be minimized) and then use that information to your advantage (usually involving accommodating a lot of arbers).  
This means you are effectively, via arbers, betting the sharp side with your rivals and hurting them whilst making yourself rich.  Lolbrokes suffered at the wrong end of this for years and it is an undiscussed reason why they are so fucked as a company nowadays.

This is pretty much what Pinnacle does which is why they advertise as they 'actively like winners/arbers'.  They need them for their business model to effectively bet for them at other firms and offer them 1% of their turnover gtd to do so.

[Chompy]

Still makes me rofl.

[Tal]

Thanks, arb. Much appreciated.

[arbboy]

.