Professional Sportsbetting

[redietz]

Totals for two games are untake-able, in my opinion, so Grand Salami is a no go. Will debate further, but I think taking the profits from the short-term project and calling it a day is the proper call. I call this short-term stuff "bulk betting," by the way. Other people use other monikers.

The two totals I considered untake-able (from an Over perspective) were the Ranger/Colorado and St.Louis/Milwaukee totals. Just too high, regardless of pitching matchups. St. Louis/Milwaukee finished as an Under, and Texas/Colorado in progress.

Reasonable job steering clear today.

[kewlJ]

Totals for two games are untake-able, in my opinion, so Grand Salami is a no go. Will debate further, but I think taking the profits from the short-term project and calling it a day is the proper call. I call this short-term stuff "bulk betting," by the way. Other people use other monikers.

The two totals I considered untake-able (from an Over perspective) were the Ranger/Colorado and St.Louis/Milwaukee totals. Just too high, regardless of pitching matchups. St. Louis/Milwaukee finished as an Under, and Texas/Colorado in progress.

Reasonable job steering clear today.

Serious question Red. So you will only consider the Grand Salami, over or under if you like EVERY game to go that way? I frequently bet the over or under if the vast majority of games I think will either be over or under. There are always going to be a couple games you might think will be a struggle, but that bet is about the majority of games you think will go one way. Even if a couple games are 1-0 and 2-1 pitchers' duels, there are likely to be a 10-9 game like the Cubs-Pittsburgh the other day, or a game like that frequently involving Colorado that will make up for it.

BTW, regarding that 10-9 Cubs/Pittsburgh game the other day: Cubs scored 7 runs in one inning. 6 scoring on bases loaded walks and the 7th on a bases loaded infield single. THAT is just ridiculous. Shouldn't have 6 bases loaded walks in a year let alone a game, or even worse an inning.

[Don Perignom]

Cubs scored 7 runs in one inning. 6 scoring on bases loaded walks and the 7th on a bases loaded infield single. THAT is just ridiculous. Shouldn't have 6 bases loaded walks in a year let alone a game, or even worse an inning.

It's happened before. (Before I was born .)

I wish I had pursued fantasy sports betting back when people were printing,

I avoided it because it looked like it would require sports knowledge. And then iirc my state (Nevada) outlawed it.

[redietz]

Cubs scored 7 runs in one inning. 6 scoring on bases loaded walks and the 7th on a bases loaded infield single. THAT is just ridiculous. Shouldn't have 6 bases loaded walks in a year let alone a game, or even worse an inning.

It's happened before. (Before I was born .)

I wish I had pursued fantasy sports betting back when people were printing,

I avoided it because it looked like it would require sports knowledge. And then iirc my state (Nevada) outlawed it.

I very rarely bet any Grand Salami, so these were unusual for me.

I think that fantasy sports bonanza stuff is primarily myth unless you were privy to the insider aspects of Draft Kings and FanDuel. The "insider trading" that went on between people working for the two companies dominated the payouts. The top percentage sliver of people who worked for them were organized and hauling in the majority of the total money.

They were legally forced to enact "single entry" options as a result, and "insider trading" was allegedly banned. Although how you actually prevent it is beyond my pay grade.

[monet]

Only real professionals know how to handicap this sport.
I used to play a similar Baseball Game with a tennis ball, steps and the house wall.
But I was like 7 years old.
The steps were made out of brick and railroad ties.
You could get some long home runs if you hit them just right.

[mickeycrimm]

The trick with these books is to raise limits for losing bettors and lower limits for winning bettors. At least one state, Massachusetts, is looking into it. The books showed how chickenshit they are:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/551...books-opt-out/

Quote from the article:

"So what was the meeting about? The issue of player limits is one of transparency. Sportsbooks in Massachusetts are legally allowed to set limits on individual patrons. But the MGC (Massachusetts Gaming Commission) is concerned that there isn’t enough clarity or communication on when and why a player might be limited — and that sportsbooks are limiting players simply because they are winning.

In short: Are there patrons who are wagering honestly who are being limited? The MGC’s motivation behind the question is whether these betting limits will drive patrons to illegal markets. “If we have operators limiting patrons who are playing by the rules, that limitation will naturally incentivize those players to turn to the illegal market,” Maynard said.

The commission was aiming to have sportsbook operators answer five guiding questions on the issue of player limits:

Please detail how and why a patron may be limited on your platform, including how you may limit patrons on an individual basis.
Please explain the experience of a patron once they become limited.
What are the responsible gaming implications if patron limits are more heavily regulated?

“The MGC was made aware of reports from consumers and media coverage that some operators limit bettors who routinely win,” Maynard said. “Some claim they were not in violation of house rules, state laws or regulations, or other authorized acts when they were limited.”

What would be the impacts to the industry if allowing limits on individual patrons was prohibited or limited by law or regulation?
What are other jurisdictions and/or other sports books doing?

Jack Andrews, a professional gambler and part of sports betting company Unabated, gave the perspective of sports bettors. He shared how sportsbooks often don’t communicate to players that they have been limited, why they are being limited and how long the ban will last. Unlike at brick-and-mortar casinos, where a player might be limited at one table but not every game, sportsbooks set limits that are “pervasive across the board.”

“The house has the edge, this is gambling, but a lot of users feel that things don’t cut both ways,” Andrews said. “Limiting is just an example of that.”

The commission received dozens of stories from sportsbook users about similar experiences. In the words of Commissioner Skinner, the MGC sees it as an issue of “fundamental fairness.”

Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a consultant in the problem gambling space, shared a case from Washington, D.C., where a sportsbook claimed a betting limit was placed due to problem gambling, but that turned out to be untrue.

“This is the first time people who are being limited feel like they’re being heard,” said Dustin Gouker of Closing Line Consulting.

The commission ended with a promise to continue the conversation — with sportsbook operators involved.

“This is day one of this conversation for me,” said Commissioner Eileen O’Brien."

MGC has an incentive to clean it up because limiting bettors drives them to illegal markets.

[Half Smoke]

.

great post from Mickey - hopefully action will be taken - but I'm doubtful that it will - and this is only in the state of Mass. - of course the horrible conditions described are everywhere

.

[Don Perignom]

The books showed how chickenshit they are

Reminder. Your enemy is not capitalism or "corporate greed." Your enemy is the state.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1793620518425297059

[jdog]

51% my god! That's worse than getting shaken down for 'protection' by the mob.