Sportsbook loss!
"aceking@b...@btigate.com
If any one hears some figures on the Sportsbook's losses from the Super
Bowl game, please post here. I figure the books must have taken it in
the shorts on this game. When the line game out at -13 1/2, everyone
jumped on Green Bay, then when it moved to -14, and or - 14 1/2, people
were jumping on New England, the books had to have been middled, what do
you think. Fletch.
BobbyChoq
As some of you know, I work in a Nevada sportsbook. You may not know
that's its the most unique sportsbook in the state. We offered more
proposition bets on Superbowl XXXI than anyone else. For the second year
in a row, our handle on the "props" was higher than our handle on the game
(did I mention our handle went up about 50% this year? I think the word
is getting out about our props. If you'd like a list of this year's
Superbowl props, e-mail me and it's yours. But beware, it's eight pages
long!).
So did the bookies in the state get killed? For most of them, the answer
is no. Most didn't go to 14 1/2,
and didn't get hurt too badly at 13 1/2, because they would be inclined to
move the number quicker early in the week. That leaves a lot of refunds
at 14, but you can only call that a disaster if you were expecting to make
$5 million and only made $500,000.
Most books needed the "over" more than anything else, and they got it. My
boss was quoted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal as saying (I'm
paraphrasing), "It's the first time we ever needed the favorite-and-over
in a Superbowl." Our total opened at 52 and closed at 49.
I do know of one property that crossed the boundary of a key number; they
opened at 13 or 13 1/2 and went to 14 1/2. I'm sure someone is trying to
explain to his boss right now why he should be allowed to keep his job.
Us? We did OK with the props, which more than made up for anything else
that might have happened.
<<<<<>>>>>
My two favorite props:
Total rushing yards by Favre --- 13.
Total rushing yards by Bledsoe--- 2.
Most often-heard question:
"Are sacks deducted from a qb's rushing yards?" (No. Sacks come off
the passing yards, unless the official scorer rules the qb's scramble was
a rushing attempt and not a sack.)
Most often-heard loudmouth-drunk-talking-loudly-to-nobody/everybody lines:
"The over is a LOCK! All you need is ONE GOOD RUN!!"
"The over is a LOCK! How can you bet UNDER 2?"
Most ironic moments in Superbowl XXXI:
Drew Bledsoe finished the game with a total of one yard rushing.
Brett Favre had 14 rushing yards with less than a minute to play, and
went back into the game to run out the clock. He accomplished this by
taking the snap, and taking a knee. He had to do this exactly twice.
And each time, he was credited with a rushing attempt of minus-1 yard,
bringing his total on the day to 12.
Sports betting can be cruel, can't it?
<<<<<>>>>>
Oh yeah, back to the original question....
A small weekly paper ("Gaming Today", which focuses mostly on sports
betting and casino stocks) is due out Tuesday, and they interview most of
the sportsbook bosses to see how they did. When I see this, I'll post it
here.
Also, the state will be releasing numbers like handle and win sometime
this month.
Grant R. Denn
ace...@btigate.com@btigate.com wrote:
>
> If any one hears some figures on the Sportsbook's losses from the Super
> Bowl game, please post here. I figure the books must have taken it in
> the shorts on this game. When the line game out at -13 1/2, everyone
> jumped on Green Bay, then when it moved to -14, and or - 14 1/2, people
> were jumping on New England, the books had to have been middled, what do
> you think. Fletch.
--
Fletch, I think that you've posted to the wrong newsgroup.
Grant 'R' Denn Dept. Physics/Astronomy University of Iowa
http://inferno.physics.uiowa.edu/~grd/
"Click here for a running log of my incarnations" -WWWeb author
R.J.Lundy
[This followup was posted to rec.gambling.poker and a copy was sent to
the cited author.]
In article <5cjc1g$p...@tofu.alt.net>, "ace...@btigate.com"@btigate.com
says...
> If any one hears some figures on the Sportsbook's losses from the Super
> Bowl game, please post here. I figure the books must have taken it in
> the shorts on this game. When the line game out at -13 1/2, everyone
> jumped on Green Bay, then when it moved to -14, and or - 14 1/2, people
> were jumping on New England, the books had to have been middled, what do
> you think. Fletch.
>
In my experience middling is actually pretty good for the casino. I agree
that at 14 points the Casino's lost their 10% losers vig. But I am sure
that they made most of it back on all the parlay cards(that happened to
have "Ties Lose").:-)"Damn, I knew that T-shirt wasn't worth it".
--
Randy Lundy
coke...@pe.net
rober...@mail.snet.net
On 1997-01-27 "ace...@btigate.com"@btigate.com said:
>Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
>If any one hears some figures on the Sportsbook's losses from the
>Super Bowl game, please post here. I figure the books must have
>taken it in the shorts on this game.
>When the line game out at -13 1/2, everyone jumped on Green Bay
The question here is, if everybody jumped on the Packs, who was left
to bet the Pats?
Everybody didn't jump on Packs.
The first line was just to get a sample of what the public will bet.
They discovered that this line was a gamble.
The majority of the bets were placed within 1 day of the bowl, at a line
that figured to give the books minimax profits regardless of outcome.
They may have taken the shorts on a small percentage of their bets, but
as usual.. the line was just about perfect. The books didn't gamble.
They made close to 5% on the dollar invested.
(in my opinion, of course)
--: actions on the edge
Net-Tamer V 1.08 Beta - Test Drive
jayj...@aol.com
> They made close to 5% on the dollar invested.
>
> (in my opinion, of course)
The books reported their Super Bowl bets in the paper (Las Vegas
Review-Journal) today. The total handle in the state was $70.8 million,
down a pinch from last year's 70.9 million, which was blamed on the bad
weather isolating Lake Tahoe / Reno before the game. The books cleared
$5.5 million. The vast majority of the handle was bet at the +/- 14 line,
which was all refunded. Not a loss, but the lost opportunity will show up
on the first quarter "compared with last year" results for many of the
casinos.
Jay J
I don't need no steenkin' signature