Phil Ivey Giving Great Odds

[Canary3 1]

This post is a must-read and is exactly right. In fact in my 2009 football season so far, I've probably made a half dozen "no plays" or reverse side plays based exactly on this notion, and the success rate is near perfect. So i had the theory with me, but this defines it very well!

the success rate for reverse line changes is nowhere near perfect but I'm glad you are seeing my point. Anyone who studies sports betting and line movements would agree with me that the books don't want even action on both sides in many games that they offer.

[MaxStPolish 4]

Here's my concluding thought. Well first, I don't factually know what I'm talking about.Lol, now that that's out there. Canary is correct. But the divide is in apparent frequency that you purport vegas finds an edge and openly takes on risk.I'm sure it happens often....but in the grand scheme, I can't see it being over 10% of the time. This is a business, and this business is essentially printing money when it takes a 10% vig on a perfectly bet game. Obviously, as a business, they are willing to take on some risk in a situation that are favorable for the house (after running their math models and taking in public sentiment), but as smart businessmen, they also know that they need to toe the line and only take on limited risk, regardless.Does this sound reasonable to everyone??Back to the ivey talk!!

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I'm sure it happens often....but in the grand scheme, I can't see it being over 10% of the time. This is a business, and this business is essentially printing money when it takes a 10% vig on a perfectly bet game. Obviously, as a business, they are willing to take on some risk in a situation that are favorable for the house (after running their math models and taking in public sentiment), but as smart businessmen, they also know that they need to toe the line and only take on limited risk, regardless.Does this sound reasonable to everyone??Back to the ivey talk!!

You just asked a question and then tried to change the subject.Do smart businessmen try to avoid risk or maximize profit?I don't know what the number is either, but I think the books will take a stand whenever they think it's profitable for them to do so.As an extreme example, let's say the books have crunched the numbers and they believe that in every NFL game for the week, the home team is a 2 point dog. But, they also know the public believes that every home team is a 10 point favorite. Do you think the books would only try to exploit this information on a few games to keep their risk down or do you think they would try to exploit it on every single one?

[mrdannyg 274]

This post is a must-read and is exactly right. In fact in my 2009 football season so far, I've probably made a half dozen "no plays" or reverse side plays based exactly on this notion, and the success rate is near perfect. So i had the theory with me, but this defines it very well!

Mr Bear is responding and will probably say that I'm wrong, but I think his post was initially a joke.As recently discussed, if the house does take a side, they do so rarely. It then follows that guessing on when they are taking a side is the same as any other time you're 'beating the spread' which few people, if anyone, can do with regularity.

[mrdannyg 274]

You just asked a question and then tried to change the subject.Do smart businessmen try to avoid risk or maximize profit?

This is an unfair question. Smart businessmen try to maximize risk-adjusted profit. And the significant majority of the time, a very high volume of very low risk profit is preferred to a lesser volume of higher profit, at a higher risk.

[Canary3 1]

Mr Bear is responding and will probably say that I'm wrong, but I think his post was initially a joke.As recently discussed, if the house does take a side, they do so rarely. It then follows that guessing on when they are taking a side is the same as any other time you're 'beating the spread' which few people, if anyone, can do with regularity.

The house takes 75-80% action on one side daily without moving the spread.

[Tactical Bear 3]

Uh, the ultimate goal of ANY book is to get even action. The books don't want to gamble, they want 10%....every single time.The line attempts to factor in all gamble variables to attract equal action. Any line movements are done in the attempt to reattain harmony and even betting.....to get that sure full juice w/o risk.

Are you... fucking kidding me? You make this claim with an air of authority, but it has absolutely no reasonable basis, from neither a logical perspective nor an anecdotal one. If the books are looking to attract balanced action, then why don't they, you know, attract balanced action?

It is amazing that someone could write something that is so incredibly condescending and self-assured, yet at the same time be entirely incorrect. There is no need to argue and to draft eloquent prose on the subject. You are wrong. It is that simple. Anyone on here who knows anything about how sportsbooks works knows that (I would say except you, but you would appear to be excluded based on the "anyone on here who knows anything"). The part about "knowing the true line in every game and every situation" is particularly amusing though.

Raise your hand if you've wagered more than $500,000 on sports in a fiscal year. (Tactical Bear raises his hand.)Raise your hand if you have experience making book. (Tactical Bear raises his hand.)Raise your hand if you have contacts at high-volume off-shore sportsbooks. (Tactical Bear raises his hand.)Begin masturbating angrily while looking in a mirror, then start crying, then use your tears as lubrication while you masturbate if you're out of your depth and just totally making shit up. (Pivvy2001 begins masturbating angrily while looking in a mirror, then starts crying, then uses his tears as lubrication while he masturbates.)I'm not exactly a sharp, and I'm worthless as a handicapper. But there are any number of smaller off-shores that would really rather not take my action. I'm evening the ledger -- betting on the Pirates and the Nationals and the Milwaukee Bucks -- and I am not a popular client. Why do you think that is? Why do you think, if I'm taking positions that make the books less off-side than they were before, they have my account flagged, and look for any excuse to close my account and cash me out? I have more knowledge of the sports-betting market than most people in here. I've made book myself, talked to lots of locals, and had a few conversations with line-jockeys ex post facto, and you want to know something that totally destroys your "understanding" of the sports-betting industry? THE BOOK DOESN'T NEED THE JUICE TO SHOW A PROFIT.Think about that. The book could offer sides without vigorish and they'd still win. If I look at my results, remove the vigorish I charge (including parlays, ignoring teasers and futures), my clients pick winners at a little better than 44%. The juice actually makes up less than half my profits. I could sit here and give you analogies all day -- "think about poker, and the difference between game-theoretically perfect play, and exploitative play" -- but it wouldn't do any good. Why on Earth would the books care about eliminating risk? And, if they did, why haven't they eliminated risk? Why would they care about balancing the ledger when they know the public has an financially-irrational preference for large-market teams, favorites, and overs? And if they did, why can't they balance the ledger? Stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. Stupid stupid dumb ignoramus dumb. You.

I guess there is no way to be sure that sites like vegasinsider are releasing the correcting betting trends. But sites like these do track the % amount bet on each side.

Covers/Wagerline and Vegas Insider are okay, but there are better sites out there.

I'm sure it happens often....but in the grand scheme, I can't see it being over 10% of the time. This is a business, and this business is essentially printing money when it takes a 10% vig on a perfectly bet game.

I have no idea what the number is, but you're absolutely correct that the books aren't taking a position on every single game. A lot of people ignore things like moneylines (which always attract dog action), and don't account for the significantly larger average wager for sharps who are more likely to drop bombs on anti-public sides.

[Tactical Bear 3]

It then follows that guessing on when they are taking a side is the same as any other time you're 'beating the spread' which few people, if anyone, can do with regularity.

I don't know why you think people are just guessing. It's not like I draw names out of a hat or some shit, man. We have information about the public's preference, the action that big shops are taking; all that stuff is publicly available. I have no idea what the number SHOULD be, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if 75% of the money wagered is on one side, it is more likely that the value lies on the other.

[Balloon guy 158]

Pretty sure no bookie would go on the hook without a systemAnd once a system established itself that worked, no bookie would take action against that systemWhich would mean only uninformed bookies would give any action, but they wouldn't last, which gets us back to only having bookies who abide by the system.So the trick is to find someone who doesn't know the system, or else they will just lay off their bets elsewhere to cover themselves and just live off the non-stop juice that is guaranteed for each and every game ever played ever.So I think we need some insight into that system

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The house takes 75-80% action on one side daily without moving the spread.

No again. If the house saw off balance action they would off load their excess to balance their risk.

[Canary3 1]

No again. If the house saw off balance action they would off load their excess to balance their risk.

You are just making yourself look silly by ignoring the facts. The betting trends are available to the public.

[MaxStPolish 4]

TB, thanks. I realized very quickly the folly of my original thought. Do I get at least partial credit for that? lol.Your response reminds me of my reading of Michael Konik's "The Smart Money", good book BTW.This is a fantasic conversation that has started FWIW.

[Tactical Bear 3]

No again. If the house saw off balance action they would off load their excess to balance their risk.

To whom? Please think carefully before you answer, and consider the follow-up questions that I will ask. Actually, no. **** it. I'll just make my point without waiting. It would be gratifying to watch you fumble around for a while, but I don't have the time. The only place the books can go to sell off their action is to the wagering public. And if they were doing that, then THEY WOULD BE GETTING SPLIT FUCKING ACTION, and you wouldn't see the books take a bath without getting middled or something.Books can only sell their action to the public. Books will very often take unbalanced action. This means (1) they don't want to, but they're too stupid and incompetent to do their job or (2) they want to take unbalanced action. If they want to take unbalanced action, then they're either (1) stupid and incompetent and just giving money away or (2) there is a reason for it. Just follow that logical train to the very end, and you'll get there eventually. Or you will behave irrationally because you're attached to the position you've recently expressed. Lots of people are like that. Their brains just stop working if they have to challenge previously held assumptions because it makes them very uncomfortable.

[Balloon guy 158]

To whom? Please think carefully before you answer, and consider the follow-up questions that I will ask. Actually, no. **** it. I'll just make my point without waiting. It would be gratifying to watch you fumble around for a while, but I don't have the time. The only place the books can go to sell off their action is to the wagering public. And if they were doing that, then THEY WOULD BE GETTING SPLIT FUCKING ACTION, and you wouldn't see the books take a bath without getting middled or something.Books can only sell their action to the public. Books will very often take unbalanced action. This means (1) they don't want to, but they're too stupid and incompetent to do their job or (2) they want to take unbalanced action. If they want to take unbalanced action, then they're either (1) stupid and incompetent and just giving money away or (2) there is a reason for it. Just follow that logical train to the very end, and you'll get there eventually. Or you will behave irrationally because you're attached to the position you've recently expressed. Lots of people are like that. Their brains just stop working if they have to challenge previously held assumptions because it makes them very uncomfortable.

It's the system isn't it?I knew it.Sneaky guys

[Canary3 1]

To whom? Please think carefully before you answer, and consider the follow-up questions that I will ask. Actually, no. **** it. I'll just make my point without waiting. It would be gratifying to watch you fumble around for a while, but I don't have the time. The only place the books can go to sell off their action is to the wagering public. And if they were doing that, then THEY WOULD BE GETTING SPLIT FUCKING ACTION, and you wouldn't see the books take a bath without getting middled or something.Books can only sell their action to the public. Books will very often take unbalanced action. This means (1) they don't want to, but they're too stupid and incompetent to do their job or (2) they want to take unbalanced action. If they want to take unbalanced action, then they're either (1) stupid and incompetent and just giving money away or (2) there is a reason for it. Just follow that logical train to the very end, and you'll get there eventually. Or you will behave irrationally because you're attached to the position you've recently expressed. Lots of people are like that. Their brains just stop working if they have to challenge previously held assumptions because it makes them very uncomfortable.

I appreciate the bolded. I really felt like I was tapping the glass last night arguing. Thanks for sharing your insight

[Balloon guy 158]

I appreciate the bolded. I really felt like I was tapping the glass last night arguing. Thanks for sharing your insight

Don't thank him till he reveals his system.

[Pivvy2001 0]

Begin masturbating angrily while looking in a mirror, then start crying, then use your tears as lubrication while you masturbate if you're out of your depth and just totally making shit up. (Pivvy2001 begins masturbating angrily while looking in a mirror, then starts crying, then uses his tears as lubrication while he masturbates.)

I thought this part was cleverly done. I thought the rest of your post was reminiscent of Canary's. Lots of bold proclamations and assertions with no support whatsoever to back it up. If you are so brilliant and knowledgeable on the subject, stop asking rhetorical questions and explain what a book's M.O. is when making lines. Telling us how much money you wager and how often you make lines, etc. strikes me as nothing more than pissing in the wind. I don't know you. Hence, I have no idea whether you have any credibility or are merely bragging about things that are unverifiable. I can tell you however, that what you are saying flies in the face of what I have heard previously and that you have failed to attach any facts or sources that prove your argument. Again, I am willing to change my viewpoint, but I need a reason to do so. I attach no vanity to my views on this website. If you can prove that me (and others agreeing with me) are wrong, I will appreciate you doing so. Unfortunately, all you have proven thus far is an ability to type inordinately long and overconfident message.As an aside, if you are truly that good at gambling that books are actively avoiding your action, then Kudos. Of that I am jealous.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

I really hope tbear is bored.

[Balloon guy 158]

I thought this part was cleverly done. I thought the rest of your post was reminiscent of Canary's. Lots of bold proclamations and assertions with no support whatsoever to back it up. If you are so brilliant and knowledgeable on the subject, stop asking rhetorical questions and explain what a book's M.O. is when making lines. Telling us how much money you wager and how often you make lines, etc. strikes me as nothing more than pissing in the wind. I don't know you. Hence, I have no idea whether you have any credibility or are merely bragging about things that are unverifiable. I can tell you however, that what you are saying flies in the face of what I have heard previously and that you have failed to attach any facts or sources that prove your argument. Again, I am willing to change my viewpoint, but I need a reason to do so. I attach no vanity to my views on this website. If you can prove that me (and others agreeing with me) are wrong, I will appreciate you doing so. Unfortunately, all you have proven thus far is an ability to type inordinately long and overconfident message.As an aside, if you are truly that good at gambling that books are actively avoiding your action, then Kudos. Of that I am jealous.

I think this sums up Pivvy's side very well.TB?

[Canary3 1]

The proof is the public knowledge that the books very often take uneven action willingly. Use your own brain to figure out why they would do that.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

The proof is the public knowledge that the books very often take uneven action willingly. Use your own brain to figure out why they would do that.

That's not good enough. I'm going to need an affidavit from a sizable bookmaker.

[Balloon guy 158]

That's not good enough. I'm going to need an affidavit from a sizable bookmaker.

Or at least a poll of the entire public to make this claim.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I think this sums up Pivvy's side very well.TB?

Reminds me of the great Mr. Sparco/pele_br debate.Oh look!4 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 1 Anonymous Users)2 Members: KingJames, Mr. Sparco

[KingJames 11]

Reminds me of the great Mr. Sparco/pele_br debate.Oh look!4 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 1 Anonymous Users)2 Members: KingJames, Mr. Sparco

couple of great minds, imoBut seriously this is an interesting debate

[Mr. Sparco 2]

couple of great minds, imoBut seriously this is an interesting debate

I agree with at least 75% of this.(That means 3:1, for all you sports betting freaks.)