Fishy Super Bowl??

2dueces · February 5, 2006 1:05PM

Let me start off saying I am not a fan of either team. Bills fan, but thats another story.
1) The line before either team was set was the AFC Champion -10..Vegas line.
2) Every time Seattle had a big play, holding penalty.
3) 3rd quarter score 14-10. Seattle down to the Pittsburgh 1 yard line. But wait..phantom holding penalty, barely touched on by Madden. Very next play..Alexander sweep..Obvious horse collar on the play..No call and no comment from the booth. Next play interception...game over...Spread 11 points..Boy vegas is smart..

Not saying anything about fix or rigged but man that's pretty fishy on the national stage.

Big money on this game.....Outcome was right on script and I'm not complaining as I went with the city that is not wrong too often. Las Vegas baby!!!

lawnmowerman · February 5, 2006 1:11PM

<< Bills fan, but thats another story.
>>

Sorry to hear that

Matt

2dueces · February 5, 2006 1:12PM

LOL....Nothing in sports could ever harm me again...BTW, I live in Texas..Ouch

kingraider75 · February 5, 2006 1:16PM

I dont' think it was that fishy, just Seattle killing themselves. Poor play calling and horrible time/clock management.

67standup · February 5, 2006 1:21PM

Worse than average ref calls (or no calls) for sure!

2dueces · February 5, 2006 1:22PM

I cant believe with 8 of the best officials in the game, not one of them was looking at the guy that was carrying the ball!! LOL

Stone193 · February 5, 2006 1:42PM

I'm gonna go with a "vast right wing conspiracy" theory.

wolfbear · February 5, 2006 2:18PM

Actually the worst thing that can happen to Vegas and all the Sportsbooks is for the game to hit the spread.

If Seattle would have scored one more TD and kicked a PAT,
Pittsburg would have won by 4 points which has been the line for the last two weeks.

Bettors on both sides would have gotten their money back and the books would have made nothing ...

jmbkb4 · February 5, 2006 2:25PM

<< I'm gonna go with a "vast right wing conspiracy" theory.

>>

stevek · February 5, 2006 2:34PM

<<< Actually the worst thing that can happen to Vegas and all the Sportsbooks is for the game to hit the spread. >>>

Nope, not necessarily. The books don't always get even action on a game, in fact individual books rarely get even action per game, but overall they always grind out all the players over a period of time over a certain amount of games. The more games you play, the sooner your bankroll gets completely crushed. Sports betting in reality is simply playing random numbers with the bookie's house edge, called the vig, always beating you.

earlycalguy · February 5, 2006 3:02PM

living in Seattle and being a Steeler fan is going to be a fun week. can't wait until work tomorrow. all the crap I took last week...just hope everyone pays up on their bets.

wolfbear · February 5, 2006 3:48PM

<< Nope, not necessarily. The books don't always get even action on a game, in fact individual books rarely get even action per game >>

stevek - I know you're our resident anti-gambling crusader but this was my only point :

Say 1000 people bet 110 to get back 210 on the Seahawks + 4
and say 1000 people bet 110 to get back 210 on the Steelers - 4

Unless the Steelers win by exactly 4, the book makes 1000 times 10 or 10000 bucks.
If the Steelers win by exactly 4, then everyone just gets their 110 back and the book makes nothing.

I understand that the action is not always even, but if it had been too lopsided either way the line would haved changed.

Not trying to promote gambling, just making the observation that the books would have hated to see a final score of 21 to 17 ...

stevek · February 5, 2006 5:01PM

Wolfbear - Technically your overall point is correct. My response was basically that in case it was implied, that the bookies are the last people who need to fix a game and risk prison time to win people's money - they always win the money sooner or later anyway. And that the bookies really wouldn't care that much about a tie game (with the spread) because they'll windup eventually winning that money from the sportsbettor's that stay in action on future games. I would have to think that most if not virtually all of the money from any "push" in a Super Bowl would quickly find its way back to the Vegas bookie's betting windows.

Nobody can beat a bookie in the long-run...he can only beat you (my anti-gambling crusade tip of the day

)

wolfbear · February 5, 2006 6:12PM

<< I would have to think that most if not virtually all of the money from any "push" in a Super Bowl would quickly find its way back to the Vegas bookie's betting windows. >>

Agreed! In fact, a push would be considered a WIN by most gamblers.
You know our old gambler's prayer : "God ... please allow me to break even today ... because I could sure use the money"

Southerncards · February 5, 2006 9:04PM

I'm not complaining. I won $100 on a $5 pick. I didnt care for either team, I was only in it for the money.

daneyb · February 5, 2006 9:40PM

First off neither teamed deserved to win the game. The seahawks missed 3 fg and the te dropped how many balls, along with the horrible late minute play calling and QB execution. Now for the winning team 2 big interceptions, a TD that wasnt, the best pass of the night was by the WR. And the referes were horrible. The game should have ended in a scoreless tie with no winner for 2005/6 season. I just feel kinda cheated after watching the whole season for that lousy game.

Stingray · February 5, 2006 9:44PM

<< I'm not complaining. I won $100 on a $5 pick. I didnt care for either team, I was only in it for the money. >>

That missed field goal to end the first half cost me $100!!!

Stingray

Stone193 · February 5, 2006 11:36PM

Heck,

I enjoyed the game - but I'm neither a Pittsburg nor Seattle fan.

Bad calls, even in the SB, are part of the game.

And, IMO, the bad calls did not lose the game for Seattle - they lost the game.

mike

NewJerseyMeatHook · February 6, 2006 12:52AM

Agree, Mike. But I also think you have to look at momentum, or lack there of . . . the end zone "push off" was terrible. Let the fellas play, for crissakes.

FavreFan1971 · February 6, 2006 12:58AM

What we all failed to realize here is no one bets the AFC team before the teams were decided. 99% of the bets happen one the teams are decided.

The spread was -4 for the AFC (Steelers).

jlbsquared · February 6, 2006 1:09AM

It wasn't just this game - as someone who watched more than a few games (college and pro) and with a "keen interest" in 95% of them - the refs made calls this year that influenced quite a few games very heavily. It's just too widespread to even be a conspiracy, most of these guys are just inept. The same play gets called different ways frequently, even the reviews seem arbitrary. (remember that crazy fumble in a late-season monday night falcons game? the polamanu INT in the playoffs?)

Maybe the NFL and NCAA should look at hiring some younger officials - get some ex-NFL players, review game films and each call and stringently grade each ref's performance. (I know that they do something somewhat similar with performance reviews now, but it's obviously not working.) Maybe then by the Super Bowl every year they can come up with a crew who calls the game fairly and by the book.

stevek · February 6, 2006 1:13AM

It was interesting that towards the end of the game, the Seahawks looked as though they could score a relatively "cheap" touchdown. Then of course for sure, trailing by 4 points if kicking just the extra point, they would have to go for the two point conversion to get to 3 points, and within a field goal of tying the game by hoping to gain possession with an onsides kick. Tough of course to get the onsides kick and tough to get into field goal range with virtually no time on the clock and no timeouts, so the game would have most likely ended at Pittsburgh winning by 3 or 5 points with of course the spread being at 4 points. So that would have been a very, VERY intensely watched two point conversion by millions of people.

Stone193 · February 6, 2006 1:16AM

On the Refs

It could always be better - the instant replay "review" helps - tho it does slow an already long game down.

But, this stuff is happening in a nanosecond and it's just hard to tell.

There was a play that one ref called a late hit that I knew would be reversed by other officials - the hit was a "continuation" of the initial hit by another player and not a late hit.

There aren't enough games in FB to have a totally annually salaried staff I would guess?

All and all, they do a great job under less than ideal conditions with players and coaches screaming in their ears.

I do think momentum plays a part - but mistakes with interceptions played a part in that momentum also.

This is part of the fun of sports for me - the discussions about "what if" - thanx
mike

Stingray · February 6, 2006 1:19AM

I was rooting for Pittsburg. The game was just so-so. The thing that bugs me is how many times do I see a ref 5 seconds after the play is over pull out the yellow flag, because some player starts throwing his arm up in disgust. If it happened then throw the flag immediately.

Stingray

gosteelers · February 6, 2006 1:49AM

Some of the questionable calls were simply payback for that HORRIBLE Polamalu call in the Indy game

FRNAllStar · February 6, 2006 2:06AM

No way all wrong.

I live in seattle. The problem was SHaun Alexander was not used. How many times did mike holmgren call pass plays on 1st down. Almost exclusevly. IT is a disgusting feeling to be at 2nd and 10 over and over. Also I just am shocked as a seattle fan Shaun Alexander was not used enough.

This game was an obvious platform for shaun alexander to be the super bowl MVP 4.8 yds carry only 20 carries. That is crazy.

Mike holmgren is a passing coach and matt hasselbeck is his student. No way did he want Shaun alexander to get super bowl mvp They want matt hasselbeck to get the MVP and that is your CONSPIRACY! 49 Pass attempts are you crazy. Walter JONES WHO is that just some guy who sits and pass blocks NO WAY.

It is very disturbing that a prolific Scoring machine (shaun alexander and his Offensive line) WERE NOT USED.

FISHY COACH!

fsjeter · February 6, 2006 4:02AM

<>

Actually, it did change. It moved to Pittsburgh -4.5 and the o/u dropped to 47 at the Las Vegas Hilton (where most of the betting happened). A half point may not sound like much, but that's a few million dollars one way to move those lines. Late in the week all the big/smart money went to Pittsburgh and the under which caused the line change. Either way, I lost my money. I'll just wait till next year. Go Colts!!!

Scott

xbaggypants · February 6, 2006 5:00AM

<< Let me start off saying I am not a fan of either team. Bills fan, but thats another story.
1) The line before either team was set was the AFC Champion -10..Vegas line.
2) Every time Seattle had a big play, holding penalty.
3) 3rd quarter score 14-10. Seattle down to the Pittsburgh 1 yard line. But wait..phantom holding penalty, barely touched on by Madden. Very next play..Alexander sweep..Obvious horse collar on the play..No call and no comment from the booth. Next play interception...game over...Spread 11 points..Boy vegas is smart..

Not saying anything about fix or rigged but man that's pretty fishy on the national stage.

Big money on this game.....Outcome was right on script and I'm not complaining as I went with the city that is not wrong too often. Las Vegas baby!!! >>

I was thinking all of these things watching this game and had actually mentioned while watching it that it looked like it was fixed

detroitfan2 · February 6, 2006 11:57AM

<<Agreed! In fact, a push would be considered a WIN by most gamblers.>>

Back in high school (20+ year ago), we would play these "cards" where you picked a number of games (typically 4) against the spread and to win money, you had to get all 4 games correct. For example, winning 4 of 4 won you $9 for every $1 bet. I think 5 of 5 won you $15 for every $1 bet, and so on.

At that time, if the spread was 3 and the favorite won by exactly 3 (i.e. a tie), that was considered a loss for gambler. So it was always my understanding that the oddsmakers did the best when they picked the spread exactly (in other words, a tie always went to the house). Apparently that's not the case anymore, maybe it never has been except in the type of gambling I described above. What am I missing?

Does anyone know why in the world the oddsmakers wouldn't ALWAYS have spreads with 1/2 point increments so that there can never be a tie? I guess I don't understand that.

Carew29 · February 6, 2006 12:08PM

For a game that everybody talked down about for two weeks, sure gave everyone alot to talk about today, didn't it?!! I blame the media

theczar · February 6, 2006 12:57PM

Actually, it did change. It moved to Pittsburgh -4.5 and the o/u dropped to 47 at the Las Vegas Hilton (where most of the betting happened). A half point may not sound like much, but that's a few million dollars one way to move those lines. Late in the week all the big/smart money went to Pittsburgh and the under which

Actually Sportsbooks in Big Casinos are not what they used to be. Offshore with less than 10% juice and much higher limits is killing Las Vegas. Try to bet $3000 on a hockey game at a Las Vegas casino and you get four 25 year olds scratching their heads until their boss tells them $500 max. Bet $10000 on a baseball game and you end up filling out tax forms if you win.
Sure there are a few high rollers but most of the big players have offshore accounts and some have several to line shop from their den. Las Vegas is becoming Aunt Sally coming in from Oshkosh to bet a $10 parlay on Wisconsin and Green Bay that weekend. If a lot of casinos could have their way they would take every square inch of a sportsbook and install slot machines.

The call that no one is talking about happened with about 5 minutes left in the game. 3rd and 7 and Big Ben is awarded a timeout with the play clock at :00. He gets a first down and takes another 3 minutes off of the clock. Who knows how 3rd and 12 would have ended up.

iamthegreatcornholio · February 6, 2006 1:09PM

<< <<< Actually the worst thing that can happen to Vegas and all the Sportsbooks is for the game to hit the spread. >>>

Nope, not necessarily. The books don't always get even action on a game, in fact individual books rarely get even action per game, but overall they always grind out all the players over a period of time over a certain amount of games. The more games you play, the sooner your bankroll gets completely crushed. Sports betting in reality is simply playing random numbers with the bookie's house edge, called the vig, always beating you. >>

I disagree with you Steve - I think the books would have gotten KILLED if Pitt won by 4. The best case for the books is that people pushed with either -4 or +4, and if you shopped around for the SB line, you could have Pitt -3 for -125, and Seattle +4.5 for around -115. Everyone wants the best line, albeit paying higher juice.

If you follow what the public is betting on (websites like sportsinsights.com and the wagerline.com consensus give you a good estimate), most of the time the public is on the favorite, and true to form, more money was on the Steelers.

rbdjr1 · February 6, 2006 8:58PM

I made a mind bet!

I think I won?

Good show Steelers!

rbd

I think I gave 10 points and took Steeltown? LOL! (Its so funny how I always seem to win those mind bets! ....But I'm sure if I'd "bookie bet" that game, I would have changed my mind in the last second, and took Seattle plus 4 1/2, and the over!)

edit: I thought it would be Pittsburgh in a "cake walk"! If not for some sloppy play making at the end of the periods, some close calls by the refs, some passes to "the corners" that were just "off a little" and caught out of bounds, etc., etc., etc. ...What am I saying here? ...A win is a win, right? Just ask George Bush! As I remember, there were some questionable calls in that game also! (Even instant replay by the "Supreme Court Refs", said, "...we can't change the call!", ..."inconclusive, to close to call!")

stevek · February 7, 2006 12:21AM

<< 

<< <<< Actually the worst thing that can happen to Vegas and all the Sportsbooks is for the game to hit the spread. >>>

Nope, not necessarily. The books don't always get even action on a game, in fact individual books rarely get even action per game, but overall they always grind out all the players over a period of time over a certain amount of games. The more games you play, the sooner your bankroll gets completely crushed. Sports betting in reality is simply playing random numbers with the bookie's house edge, called the vig, always beating you. >>

I disagree with you Steve - I think the books would have gotten KILLED if Pitt won by 4. The best case for the books is that people pushed with either -4 or +4, and if you shopped around for the SB line, you could have Pitt -3 for -125, and Seattle +4.5 for around -115. Everyone wants the best line, albeit paying higher juice.

If you follow what the public is betting on (websites like sportsinsights.com and the wagerline.com consensus give you a good estimate), most of the time the public is on the favorite, and true to form, more money was on the Steelers. >>

Point understood Brian and as usual you are correct (Aren't you ever wrong? - LOL). Of course as you know this is known as "middling" a bet whereby the bettor bets on both teams in a game with a varied point spread or odds, and if the game score ends up a certain way, then both bets are won. As you know - this is very, VERY tough to do. And although gamblers often get "close" to middling bets, they rarely hit them - close doesn't win.

Bookies of course always pretend they're getting killed. This one big time bookie I used to know, according to him when totaling a week's receipts he never ever won any money - LOL. Of course I was losing, and everyone I knew was losing, and everyone they knew was losing but this bookie always had "someone else" who killed him that week. So even though you are correct, my point is that the bookies in reality, in the long-run don't get killed - overall they never lose. When it comes to bookies versus bettors; the bettors will win some of the money some of the time, and all of the money some of the time, but the bookies will eventually win all of the money all of the time.

Steve

Fabfrank · February 7, 2006 12:33AM

but the bookies will eventually win all of the money all of the time.

The best quote I've ever read on this board.

Tabe · February 7, 2006 5:16AM

<< No way all wrong.

I live in seattle. The problem was SHaun Alexander was not used. How many times did mike holmgren call pass plays on 1st down. Almost exclusevly. IT is a disgusting feeling to be at 2nd and 10 over and over. Also I just am shocked as a seattle fan Shaun Alexander was not used enough. >>

FYI, Seattle threw 65% of the time this year on 1st down. The Super Bowl was simply a continuation of that trend.

Tabe

iamthegreatcornholio · February 7, 2006 7:16AM

<< Of course as you know this is known as "middling" a bet whereby the bettor bets on both teams in a game with a varied point spread or odds, and if the game score ends up a certain way, then both bets are won. As you know - this is very, VERY tough to do. And although gamblers often get "close" to middling bets, they rarely hit them - close doesn't win. >>

I agree middling is very tough to do, but I meant to imply that most people on the Steelers had worst case -4, but also -3.5 and -3, and Seahawks backers +4 worst case, but probably +4.5 if they looked around. I don't think many people had both Pitt -3 and Seattle +4.5. Since it didn't hit the spread, the books made a lot of juice since many of those "bought" lines were -120ish.

<< Bookies of course always pretend they're getting killed. This one big time bookie I used to know, according to him when totaling a week's receipts he never ever won any money - LOL. Of course I was losing, and everyone I knew was losing, and everyone they knew was losing but this bookie always had "someone else" who killed him that week. So even though you are correct, my point is that the bookies in reality, in the long-run don't get killed - overall they never lose. >>

If they weren't making money, they wouldn't be in business.

Funny story about a sportsbook losing. A well known online sportsbook started taking wagers for survivor - particularly the "immunity challenges". As you may know, that show is taped well before it airs on TV. A guy I knew had a friend of a friend who worked for CBS and watched the tapes before they aired on TV and would let him know who would win that evening. After two episodes, the book got so creamed they stopped taking survivor bets.

<< Aren't you ever wrong? >>

I messed up my calculation of a gamma-ray attenuation coefficient today

Brian

fsjeter · February 8, 2006 12:14AM

<<Las Vegas is becoming Aunt Sally coming in from Oshkosh to bet a $10 parlay on Wisconsin and Green Bay that weekend. If a lot of casinos could have their way they would take every square inch of a sportsbook and install slot machines.>>

It was reported that a record 94 Million Dollars was wagered on the Super Bowl in Nevada Casinos and they won 8.8 Million. It goes without saying that slots and table games make more than the Race & Sportsbook but they won't be going away anytime soon. I don't know how much the offshore books took in but it would be interesting to see how they compare.

iamthegreatcornholio · February 8, 2006 6:04AM

<< <<Las Vegas is becoming Aunt Sally coming in from Oshkosh to bet a $10 parlay on Wisconsin and Green Bay that weekend. If a lot of casinos could have their way they would take every square inch of a sportsbook and install slot machines.>>

It was reported that a record 94 Million Dollars was wagered on the Super Bowl in Nevada Casinos and they won 8.8 Million. It goes without saying that slots and table games make more than the Race & Sportsbook but they won't be going away anytime soon. I don't know how much the offshore books took in but it would be interesting to see how they compare.

>>

Interesting stuff, if even money was on both sides (assume -110), then for every $220 they take in, they make $10; thus the "score" (their profit margin) would be 4.5% Although teasers do have a much higher margin, it sure seems like the books have been on the right sides lately. I think it's easy to see why they made so much in '04 and '05 - Pats winning but not covering, and all the NY money was wrong in '01.

I have no clue how much offshore books did, but I do know that the biggest offshore book allowed up to 100K side bets and 70K total bets on the SB. That's no chump change.

Year Wagers Win Win Pct. Score
2006 $94,534,372 $8,828,431 9.3 Steelers 21, Seahawks 10
2005 $90,759,236 $15,430,138 17.0 Patriots 24, Eagles 21
2004 $81,242,191 $12,440,698 15.3 Patriots 32, Panthers 29
2003 $71,693,032 $5,264,963 7.3 Buccaneers 48, Raiders 21
2002 $71,513,304 $2,331,607 3.3 Patriots 20, Rams 17
2001 $67,661,425 $11,002,636 16.3 Ravens 34, Giants 7
2000 $71,046,751 $4,237,978 6.0 Rams 23, Titans 16
1999 $75,986,520 $2,906,601 3.8 Broncos 34, Falcons 19
1998 $77,253,246 $472,033 0.6 Broncos 31, Packers 24
1997 $70,853,211 $2,265,701 3.2 Packers 35, Patriots 21
1996 $70,907,801 $7,126,145 10.1 Cowboys 27, Steelers 17

stevek · February 8, 2006 9:23AM

Sports betting in Vegas going away? Not as long as there are casinos there. Some sports bettors may mainly or strictly bet sports, but for sure most sports bettors gamble on other Vegas table and machine games while they are there. Remember, you can wire money to any casino in Vegas from out of state, but you cannot place a bet unless you are physically at the casino. So the bottom line is that at least $94,000,000 in cash came to Vegas for the Super Bowl and certainly a whole lot extra more.

Even if Vegas casinos were breaking even on sports betting, they would still offer it anyway because of the influx of money and players. But the casinos ain't breaking even on sports betting - they are making a killing on it as they do on EVERY other gambling game they offer, including blackjack. As Steve Wynn himself has stated, to paraphrase, "Las Vegas is all about players with bad math."

theczar · February 8, 2006 10:13AM

I still contend that off shore is the place big bettors go. I have not found the off shore numbers for this season, but according to this article by Buzz Daly who has been around the gaming world for years, the 2005 Super Bowl had conseveratively six times the amount wagered in off shore sportsbooks than in Las Vegas.

Offshore article

Race and Sportsbooks are a courtesy for the casinos to offer. They have no control over the odds unless they move a line. Most of them pool their money with the tracks on horse racing, or have limits on exactas and trifectas. They were all crying uncle until Thanksgiving as favorites were crushing them. It was giving the sports book managers a lot of Maalox moments. You tell me what the suits want. A nice steady 98% payback in the slots and someone recycles it over and over, ($100 becomes $98 which becomes $96 which becomes $94 etc.) or a bunch of squares hitting them with teasers. I think there was one week where every favorite but one covered a teaser. Not good for the bottom line. Road favorites were hitting at 65% clip for over a month.

The betting line in the NFL starts with CRIS in Costa Rica, the Stardust used to have the first lines but not any more. It is not that important to them.

Las Vegas is not making a killing on sportsbooks and they are taking 100K wagers. If they were making a killing they would take that kind of action. Benny Binion is not around anymore.

They are making a killing on expensive restaraunts, clothing shops, spas, shows and whatever else they can find in the non gaming world. If you think Las Vegas is the gambling Mecca you are 15 years too late. When it takes you ten minutes to walk into a hotel to find a casino and another five to find the sportsbook that should tell you everything. The fact that the sportsbook is in the back and a hassle to get there means that they would rather have you somewhere else in the place.

stevek · February 8, 2006 1:08PM

<< I still contend that off shore is the place big bettors go. I have not found the off shore numbers for this season, but according to this article by Buzz Daly who has been around the gaming world for years, the 2005 Super Bowl had conseveratively six times the amount wagered in off shore sportsbooks than in Las Vegas.

Offshore article

Race and Sportsbooks are a courtesy for the casinos to offer. They have no control over the odds unless they move a line. Most of them pool their money with the tracks on horse racing, or have limits on exactas and trifectas. They were all crying uncle until Thanksgiving as favorites were crushing them. It was giving the sports book managers a lot of Maalox moments. You tell me what the suits want. A nice steady 98% payback in the slots and someone recycles it over and over, ($100 becomes $98 which becomes $96 which becomes $94 etc.) or a bunch of squares hitting them with teasers. I think there was one week where every favorite but one covered a teaser. Not good for the bottom line. Road favorites were hitting at 65% clip for over a month.

The betting line in the NFL starts with CRIS in Costa Rica, the Stardust used to have the first lines but not any more. It is not that important to them.

Las Vegas is not making a killing on sportsbooks and they are taking 100K wagers. If they were making a killing they would take that kind of action. Benny Binion is not around anymore.

They are making a killing on expensive restaraunts, clothing shops, spas, shows and whatever else they can find in the non gaming world. If you think Las Vegas is the gambling Mecca you are 15 years too late. When it takes you ten minutes to walk into a hotel to find a casino and another five to find the sportsbook that should tell you everything. The fact that the sportsbook is in the back and a hassle to get there means that they would rather have you somewhere else in the place. >>

Would Vegas prefer to be all slots? Of course. But just like any other business that offers a variety of products, whereby some products are more profitable than others, some Vegas games are more profitable to casinos. Vegas makes a killing on sports betting...they just make a bigger killing on slots and other games.

Some information in that article is quite disingenuous for example about the teasers. Bottom line is nobody can consistantly predict trends like that ahead of time and trends like that do even out in the long-run. But trying to find these trends ahead of time and make money betting them is impossible to do in the long-run. Bookies know and sports bettors should know that betting sports against a bookie winds up being the exact same thing as betting on random numbers, with usually a minimum 4.45% house edge on games against the spread...the house edge is always bigger on teasers usually around 8% to 12% - those are the facts.

The bookies there don't take these very large bets for a few different reasons. For basically though the same reason that virtually all, if not all casinos worldwide don't take more than a maximum bet equal to six or seven consecutive doublings up from a minimum bet. For instance at a $25 minimum bet blackjack or craps table in a casino, you will never see a maximum bet greater than $5,000. At a $5 minimum table the maximum bet allowed would be $1,000. It was the same rules at Binions - Benny allowed a huge opening bet but you were not allowed to bet more than that opening bet. It would be too long of a post to fully explain this concept and this isn't a gambling forum, but suffice to say that the article is correct in that Vegas does prefer to grind gamblers out with smaller bets. There are a lot of expenses in running a casino-hotel and the owners couldn't afford for one gambler to possibly get too hot and keep doubling up. Gamblers used to once in a while "break the bank" at Monte Carlo many years ago - not anymore.

Steve Wynn recently stated, to paraphrase, that when building his new casino-hotel, gambling was about 5th on the most important reasons for building the hotel. I'd like to have had a polygraph machine hooked up to Wynn when he stated that...I imagine the polygraph needle would have starting zigzagging like crazy - LOL. Vegas is all about the gambling...yes they make money on other things as well but everything offered is centered aroung luring people in to gamble.

Steve

Stone193 · February 8, 2006 1:16PM

My uncle was a bookie for the NY syndicate up to the 1970s when he died. The "syndicate" took care of the family until everyone was of age.

Now doesn't that just warm your heart?

And BTW, he used to take me on his runs to pick up "book" from candy stores around Queens as a kid.
He used to buy me packs of Topps also! Now the story is getting better! LOL

stevek · February 8, 2006 2:02PM

Mike - I happen to be right now doing a crossword puzzle. What's a five letter word for "the syndicate" ? - LOL

theczar · February 8, 2006 11:09PM

Steve Wynn recently stated, to paraphrase, that when building his new casino-hotel, gambling was about 5th on the most important reasons for building the hotel. I'd like to have had a polygraph machine hooked up to Wynn when he stated that...I imagine the polygraph needle would have starting zigzagging like crazy - LOL. Vegas is all about the gambling...yes they make money on other things as well but everything offered is centered aroung luring people in to gamble.

Steve Wynn is one of my idols. A self-made man who worked his way up through the industry. Sadly he would trade his fortunes for his eye sight.

Stevek-I would definitely agree with Mr. Wynn. Why is it that you have to walk past everything else in a new hotel in Las Vegas to find a casino. I would much rather mix it up with the riff-raff in downtown casinos or at the Barbary Coast than to navigate my way through the Bellagio to get some action.
It is just like a supermarket where they don't put their sale items near the front door. You have to walk to back past everything else to find them. Are sportsbooks losing money? No. Are they as profitable as nearly everything else per square foot in the hotel? ABSOLUTELY NOT?

The system you are speaking about is called the Martingale system. Essentially you are betting a lumber yard to win a tooth pick. I knew a bookie who settled up each week. In 1992 the Oakland A's still had Eck, Rickey. the bash bros and Stewart. They were a force. Some guy called him and bet Oakland six straight games (one off day that week) doubling up after each loss believing that they could not lose six in a row. Oakland being who they were was laying more than -110 each game and that only compounded the problem. It was a costly lesson that young man will never forget as the A's went winless that week.

stevek · February 9, 2006 12:45AM

<<< The system you are speaking about is called the Martingale system. Essentially you are betting a lumber yard to win a tooth pick. I knew a bookie who settled up each week. In 1992 the Oakland A's still had Eck, Rickey. the bash bros and Stewart. They were a force. Some guy called him and bet Oakland six straight games (one off day that week) doubling up after each loss believing that they could not lose six in a row. Oakland being who they were was laying more than -110 each game and that only compounded the problem. It was a costly lesson that young man will never forget as the A's went winless that week. >>>

That's a good story to learn by about how even with that outstanding team, Oakland still lost six in a row. Bottom line - sports betting really is a sucker's game.

Yes, I'm very familiar with Martingale. The interesting thing about Martingale, which I alluded to in my previous post as to why casinos only allow a certain number of doubleups, is that despite the obvious flaw in using Martingale, the time element involved works against the casinos. Inotherwords if everyone was using Martingale, everyone would still eventually lose their money at the casinos, but simply not fast enough for the casinos to cover expenses. With payroll, electricity, maintenance and everything else involved, it is very expensive to operate even a small casino, let alone a large one. A gambler with say a $5,000 bankroll betting a buck with Martingale, it could take a very long time to eventually get a losing streak to lose that $5,000. Yes, eventually the casino would win that $5,000...but the casinos can't afford to wait that long, so years ago they put the minimum/maximum bets in place so that the customers lose their money faster. This has worked brilliantly for the casinos with the capability now of building those mega-billion dollar hotels - compliments of lost money from gamblers everywhere.

But Steve Wynn isn't ever going to get any more of my money - I figure he's got enough already. I respect Steve Wynn but in no way do I idolize him or any other gambling business owner. It's not even about the money with Wynn, it's about the ego and power, and that can be quite dangerous to the public having an individual such as this owning a business which measures much of it's success on how well they destroy people financially.

Steve

Fishy Super Bowl??

Comments