Sportsbook is no where near a big money maker for casinos both in aggregate win and % of wagers held - you can get this from the state gaming numbers.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tomflush" <tomflush@...> wrote:
>
> I"ve had a good year at sports betting, having won about 60% of my bets. But
> the VIG kills you, and I only eeeked out a modest profit. I would have been
> better off playing $100 9/5 Jacks or better. I bet sports because its fun,
> as far as an edge ...total nonsense. Perhaps elite pro's can make money by
> fixing events, insider information , and scouts at various betting parlors
> and bookies taking odds adjustments which are favorable. Most average Joes
> find themselves on the short end of the stick, despite winning more bets
> than lost because of the high VIG. Sports betting is one of the largest
> money makers for the casinos, and will stay that way for many more years to
> come.
> just my 2 cents...Tom
> PS - take the GIANTS and under !!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "GURU PERF" <guruperf@...>
> To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 10 JAN 2012
>
>
> One difference that Bob doesn't mention (and I'm not entirely disagreeing
> with his article) is that betting on sports, as opposed to VP, is that
> sports betting, particularly NFL betting is a constantly mutating animal.
> Yes, I know that new games, and paytables and comp rates change for VP, but
> they are mathematically quantifiable into a predetermined +/- %. But there
> are a number of factors that cannot be predetermined in NFL betting that may
> have changed without anyone's knowledge.
>
> In the 1970's there were a number of specific situations that would come up
> that had very predictable winning percentages. Using the comparatively
> primitive computers of the day, the patterns became clearly evident by data
> mining through historic databases. You would not be guaranteed a win every
> time, but the winning percentage of these plays could approach or even
> exceed 80%. One such example, as I recall, was non-divisional games where
> the spread on the home team was P'em to -1 1/2. Of course, there weren't
> very many games that fit into this limited set of characteristics, probably
> fewer than 8-10 a year. But there were many different angles that could be
> played, some of which used information that was not available to the average
> bettor, or most probably to bookies. So on any given Sunday, there were
> almost always one or more plays that fit into one of the angles. And if you
> were playing with an 80% or better edge, one could make quite a nice living.
>
> As computers became more widespread, more people became aware of the
> patterns, including those setting the lines. Or as one bookie once told me,
> "I like your play, even though you win, because it offsets the way the rest
> of the bettors are going, and I don't have to lay so much off." As the
> knowledge of the angles spread, the winning percentages went down, because
> the lines were adjusted to reflect increased public betting on the angle
> plays. Where a team might have been a 1 point favorite, it was now 3 or 3
> 1/2 or 4. Fairly subtle difference, but enough to take away the edge from
> the play.
>
> So my point is, where Bob has every reason to expect that he will have a
> winning year next year because he is playing against definable mathematical
> certainties , Fezzik has been handicapping using certain criteria that may
> have been changed on him. Unless he adapts to the "new normal" and revises
> his methodology, there is probably a very good chance that he will have
> another losing season next year as well. That being said, since he has been
> successful for a long time, it speaks well of his ability to adapt, and I
> would expect that he could, and would, do so.
>
>
> Certainly the game is rigged. Don’t let that stop you; if you don’t bet, you
> can’t win. -Lazarus Long
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
> practice, there is. -Yogi Berra
> There is no such thing as luck. There is only adequate or inadequate
> preparation to cope with a statistical universe. -Robert Heinlein
>
