4 ms·

I don't totally understand why the bookmakers would limit their accounts. The bookmaker wants to balance his book for each game to make sure he makes a profit

by watoc 9y ago

I don't totally understand why the bookmakers would limit their accounts. The bookmaker wants to balance his book for each game to make sure he makes a profit no matter what the outcome is. To balance their books they might give better odds for an outcome than what a statistical model might suggest. But what difference does it make if the bettor who helps them balance their books is a consistent winner or not? Do they prefer to give these "good" odds to people who are losing money long term?

joosters 9y ago
It’s really simple: For a bookie, if a customer is winning money, then you are losing money. Doesn’t matter if they are helping balance your books or not. So why take their bets? Likewise, bookmakers will happily take bets from guessers all day long. If they are lucky enough to get a ‘whale’ placing huge (but dumb) bets, they can easily lay off those bets elsewhere to manage their risk. They don’t need skilful gamblers to help balance their books.
hudibras 9y ago
Don't try to overthink it: imagine the bookies having a dashboard that shows everybody's win rate (or alternatively, how much the bookie is losing) and then they ban or limit the top performers. Instant and legal profit for them.
- watoc 9y ago
  Shouldn't they try to maximize their profits overall and minimize their risk at the same time rather than try to maximize profit for each of their clients individually?
s17n 9y ago
Probably the bookmakers are actually OK with the betting activity that is described in the paper, but they have limits on successful accounts as a safety mechanism to prevent themselves from losing too much money in the event that somebody comes up with an unforeseen method of winning lots of money.
- watoc 9y ago
  Makes sense. But then they are depriving themselves of liquidity provided by these professional gamblers. They might have to increase the odds even more so that an average joe will bet on an unpopular team where as the professional bettor would have taken it at a lower price recognizing the statistical edge. The aim of the bookie is to have a guaranteed profit on each and every game. Whereas the professional gambler tries to make a guaranteed profit over multiple games. Seems to me that they can benefit each other rather than be against each other.
  - wc- 9y ago
    What you are saying makes total sense and seems reasonable but the reality is the books don't need the sharp action and don't really care about having a perfectly even balance. They will make more money just letting squares fire away at 1.9 or -110 odds and print money. Someone above said it perfectly, having the balanced action via sharp players will reduce variance but will eat into profits, and the books have the capital required to ride out any variance (entire seasons where squares win at a higher than expected rate for example). edit: the books (at least the ones that open with respected lines, not the ones that copy the big books' lines) DO want sharp action when they are trying to set the right line. They will have a private group of handicappers that get to take shots at the new lines before they are publicly listed for smaller bet sizes, then they open the lines publicly for very small bet sizes. By the time the full bet limits are allowed and the square punter is picking a game 30 minutes before it begins, the books have no more fears. on the topic of this paper, the arb'ing or picking off "off" lines is kind of a crowded space and opportunities don't last for long. I wouldn't get into it with high expectations of profit. edit 2: source: i've been heavily involved in the industry on the betting / modeling side for years in the past.
iopq 9y ago
Because people who bet sharply on lines reduce the long term profitability of the bookies. While they reduce the variance, they take directly from the profits. Defeats the point of being a bookie when better bettors imbalance the book in one direction and win.
- watoc 9y ago
  If they imbalance the book yes. But in this case the authors got the statistical edge because the bookie is trying to balance the book. What difference does it make if the $10k the bookie needs at 4/1 to balance the book comes from professional better Bob or from long term loser Joe? As soon as the book gets imbalanced again they would have to change the lines again.
  - iopq 9y ago
    Because Bob bets when it is profitable - when the line is wrong. Taken as aggregate, Joes bet on both outcomes, the unprofitable ones and profitable ones.
dmurray 9y ago
> The bookmaker wants to balance his book for each game to make sure he makes a profit no matter what the outcome is. This part is not really true. Bookies will very often have an unbalanced book and will be happy to keep taking action on the side that increases their exposure, if the price is right.
- watoc 9y ago
  That's fine. Although the strategy works here because the bookie moves the line to make it more attractive to bet on it. If he does not care about balancing the book, why move the line? He could just keep increasing his exposure

by watoc 9y ago

joosters 9y ago

It’s really simple: For a bookie, if a customer is winning money, then you are losing money. Doesn’t matter if they are helping balance your books or not. So why take their bets? Likewise, bookmakers will happily take bets from guessers all day long. If they are lucky enough to get a ‘whale’ placing huge (but dumb) bets, they can easily lay off those bets elsewhere to manage their risk. They don’t need skilful gamblers to help balance their books.

hudibras 9y ago

Don't try to overthink it: imagine the bookies having a dashboard that shows everybody's win rate (or alternatively, how much the bookie is losing) and then they ban or limit the top performers. Instant and legal profit for them.

watoc 9y ago
Shouldn't they try to maximize their profits overall and minimize their risk at the same time rather than try to maximize profit for each of their clients individually?

s17n 9y ago

Probably the bookmakers are actually OK with the betting activity that is described in the paper, but they have limits on successful accounts as a safety mechanism to prevent themselves from losing too much money in the event that somebody comes up with an unforeseen method of winning lots of money.

watoc 9y ago
Makes sense. But then they are depriving themselves of liquidity provided by these professional gamblers. They might have to increase the odds even more so that an average joe will bet on an unpopular team where as the professional bettor would have taken it at a lower price recognizing the statistical edge. The aim of the bookie is to have a guaranteed profit on each and every game. Whereas the professional gambler tries to make a guaranteed profit over multiple games. Seems to me that they can benefit each other rather than be against each other.
- wc- 9y ago
  What you are saying makes total sense and seems reasonable but the reality is the books don't need the sharp action and don't really care about having a perfectly even balance. They will make more money just letting squares fire away at 1.9 or -110 odds and print money. Someone above said it perfectly, having the balanced action via sharp players will reduce variance but will eat into profits, and the books have the capital required to ride out any variance (entire seasons where squares win at a higher than expected rate for example). edit: the books (at least the ones that open with respected lines, not the ones that copy the big books' lines) DO want sharp action when they are trying to set the right line. They will have a private group of handicappers that get to take shots at the new lines before they are publicly listed for smaller bet sizes, then they open the lines publicly for very small bet sizes. By the time the full bet limits are allowed and the square punter is picking a game 30 minutes before it begins, the books have no more fears. on the topic of this paper, the arb'ing or picking off "off" lines is kind of a crowded space and opportunities don't last for long. I wouldn't get into it with high expectations of profit. edit 2: source: i've been heavily involved in the industry on the betting / modeling side for years in the past.

iopq 9y ago

Because people who bet sharply on lines reduce the long term profitability of the bookies. While they reduce the variance, they take directly from the profits. Defeats the point of being a bookie when better bettors imbalance the book in one direction and win.

watoc 9y ago
If they imbalance the book yes. But in this case the authors got the statistical edge because the bookie is trying to balance the book. What difference does it make if the $10k the bookie needs at 4/1 to balance the book comes from professional better Bob or from long term loser Joe? As soon as the book gets imbalanced again they would have to change the lines again.
- iopq 9y ago
  Because Bob bets when it is profitable - when the line is wrong. Taken as aggregate, Joes bet on both outcomes, the unprofitable ones and profitable ones.

dmurray 9y ago

> The bookmaker wants to balance his book for each game to make sure he makes a profit no matter what the outcome is. This part is not really true. Bookies will very often have an unbalanced book and will be happy to keep taking action on the side that increases their exposure, if the price is right.

watoc 9y ago
That's fine. Although the strategy works here because the bookie moves the line to make it more attractive to bet on it. If he does not care about balancing the book, why move the line? He could just keep increasing his exposure