Las Vegas Sportsbook

[accountinquestion]

I'm not one of these guys that gives you shit.
I don't agree with most of your political viewpoints but truth be told I don't really care about politics.
That's Washington's Racquet and nobody on this forum can influence any of what they are going to do that would make any difference or matter.

I only want to touch on two subjects that you bring up in your post.
First, yes, you can stiff bookies and get away with it in some circumstances.
That is certainly a positive play as long as you don't run into the wrong bookmaker on the street.
You would want to be the muscle though.
Not just some random working stiff.

Next, the worst part of your post.
You know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who is beating the book.
lol... come on.
Don't give me that bullshit and even if you do, is it benefiting you?
I doubt that it is and I usually don't listen to someone telling me about how they know a guy.
No offense to you though.
I have no beefs with you as you have already stated that your main purpose in posting is to troll.
Redietz made the same exact claim that his purpose in posting is to stir the pot or as you hip kids say... troll.

If someone is smart enough to beat the poker games I'm playing in and claims to bet sports with an edge, I tend to believe them. Not exactly the same demographic as the group of dudes sitting around sports books in Las Vegas or boasting on the internet. Very possible they also degen bet so much they're -EV but it isn't that hard to beat sportsbooks. Beating them enough to make a living is a whole different thing. I hope you realize that.

Actually, I made no such claim, monet. You're making that up, as per usual.

My purpose in posting is to correct egregious errors. And thus, directed at account:

The "If someone is smart enough to beat the poker games..." comment -- account, you may want to ask around about how Stu Ungar did betting sports. If arguably the most brilliant player in history lost his ass betting sports, you may want to rethink your premise. Add Phil Ivey in there, also, as a lesson in humility.

Second, it is technically incorrect to refer to sports betting as -EV in a math sense. if you want to apply that "-EV" specifically to the history of a particular individual after the fact of a sample of his betting, that is one thing -- that references his historical record and perhaps may be labeled -EV. But referencing sports betting in general with the "-EV" label is technically incorrect because sports betting is not primarily a game of math. It is a GAME OF OPINION. For example, if a particular bettor is also the spouse of an NBA official and knows how a game will be called in advance of the game, math has very little to do with whether that bettor wins or loses. His or her opinion is what matters, not the math.

The idea that beating sports books is routinely done by some population of "sharps" -- LOL -- versus "squares" is a myth. That's jargon popularized by sports books and people who want to label themselves as "not the general population." The idea that one can import the lingo and concepts from Wall Street and somehow apply them to sports betting is fine if your goal is to sound like some subcultural hipster. It doesn't help anyone actually win.

My best estimate, based on 50 years of sports handicapping in this country, is that there are, at the high end of the estimate, a couple hundred individuals or teams of people who win long-term. It may be fewer than a hundred. The formula is always the same. People who have the ability to win at a specific sport or two either fail to adjust and develop as years pass or they attempt to make more money by branching out and betting multiple sports other than the one or two at which they are expert. They either become dinosaurs or they crave more money/action, and they wind up losing.

The people I know who beat sports are neither drug addicts nor have they slept under a bridge. When I say beat sports, I don't really know what all they bet but I am 100% confident they understand enough to beat sports or one area if that is their goal. It really is not that hard if you are selective in your bets. This may mean you don't get to bet much.

I disagree about EV. Yes, it is not purely mathematical in sports betting and so EV can never be calculated in the same manner but it still exists. Just because we can't calculate it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Pretty sure pinnacle splits their bettors off into some version of sharps and squares and uses their action to adjust their lines accordingly. They do this by having a database of existing prices. If anyone takes prices that are better somewhere else, they're noted as a square (or whatever term is used internally). This type of data shows whether the bettor is sharp or not far faster than their historical win/loss record. If you want to use some different terminology for whatever reason, then that is your prerogative.

In fact, what you talk about - you seem somewhat guilty of yourself. There are people who bet to win and understand the biases/math involved - they are sharps. Whether you wish to find a different labeling for this group is largely irrelevant. You're playing some goofy game of one-upmanship. I'll paraphrase you 'These guys are who use the word squares/bettors are posers unlike myself.' Lol.

You are actually quite off in your 50 years of experience. A lot of people just bet bad lines and have no particular interest in a specific sport. Some smart people would say you're actually hurt by being an "expert" in your betting as it can possibly do little more than create biases.

I'd say you really don't know as much about sports betting as you'd like to play off because you seem to imply most who bet sports profitably are handicappers. There are other methodologies. Out of the people I suspect who beat sports - only one handicaps and it is a very small segment of the bets offered. These bets tend to have smaller limits and the issue is more of finding the right books.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I recall guys who have professionally bet sports. I don't know if any of them seriously handicapped outside of the one exception who specialized in a niche. The fact that you try and tell me how all these people end up failing is a bit of failure on your part. THey'll stop winning when lines become correct and there are no more bets to be had. (or books boot/limit them) They only bet when they see it as a +EV bet.