Tweet
Found this and thought some may want to read it.
Q:
Do sports books still strive to balance their action, and should they?
A:
The theory is that all books should try to deal a line that balances betting and earns a theoretical 4.54% by taking an equal amount of money on each side of a game. For example, if it gets $2,200 in action ($1,100 on each side of a contest), the book will win $100 no matter what happens, barring a push.
In the past, Las Vegas Sports Consultants would attempt to send out a line that wasn't what they felt was the "correct" number, but one that would balance the action from the sharps and the squares. In 2010, that model is long gone. If a bad line is put up, the money bet by recreational players will be dwarfed by pros pounding on the mistake. Thus, the correct approach today is for books to try to put up an opening line that is the correct one. This is the reason that spreads in the NFL have been shrinking over the past five years (favorites aren't as inflated).
So, given this current situation, how should a book react to finding itself with a sizable position on one side of a game? In general, if the bets have been made by known winning players, it's usually a good idea to move the number to try to get some action on the other side (and get balanced). If the bets have been made by lots of recreational players, it's not nearly as critical to move quickly, and typically A-OK to keep an unbalanced position on a game.
Here are three important points relative to this question:
1. The best books don't try to be completely balanced.
The square books want simply to earn with balanced action, while the sharp books actively look at the week's roster and try to build positions on games they like, often by shading their lines. Commentators on this topic are almost completely wrong when they suggest that books should try to be balanced on every game. This is unnecessary as long as they understand and employ proper risk management to ensure that they don't build too big a position in any one spot. And remember, an unbalanced book is often unbalanced with plus money, due to the fact that it's making its bets at +110 by booking.
2. It's dangerous to overreact and move lines too much.
A book doesn't want to take a huge bet on a game at -3, then wind up dealing +4.5 back, where you it can be "middled" and lose its shirt. The classic example of this was Black Sunday, when, in the Super Bowl, Pittsburgh beat Dallas by 4. Everyone (the wise guys, the squares, everyone) played the Steelers -3 and -3.5. Then the wise guys came back on Dallas at +4.5. Middlesville!
3. Some sports book directors have no math abilities or training, which leads to their employing embarrassing countermeasures.
One major Strip property won't move the line on NBA totals. Rather it moves the vig. So if it takes a bet on over 191, it moves the line to OV 191/-125, UN 191/+105. While this prevents the book from ever getting middled, it also upsets the square customers who don't understand why they have to pay more juice. Also, it really is unnecessary, as it's very unlikely a game will land precisely 192 and only small bets are involved, so the risk is negligible.
So while some books still strive to balance action, it's not the way of the best books, which are the ones that make the most money.
Q:
Do sports books still strive to balance their action, and should they?
A:
The theory is that all books should try to deal a line that balances betting and earns a theoretical 4.54% by taking an equal amount of money on each side of a game. For example, if it gets $2,200 in action ($1,100 on each side of a contest), the book will win $100 no matter what happens, barring a push.
In the past, Las Vegas Sports Consultants would attempt to send out a line that wasn't what they felt was the "correct" number, but one that would balance the action from the sharps and the squares. In 2010, that model is long gone. If a bad line is put up, the money bet by recreational players will be dwarfed by pros pounding on the mistake. Thus, the correct approach today is for books to try to put up an opening line that is the correct one. This is the reason that spreads in the NFL have been shrinking over the past five years (favorites aren't as inflated).
So, given this current situation, how should a book react to finding itself with a sizable position on one side of a game? In general, if the bets have been made by known winning players, it's usually a good idea to move the number to try to get some action on the other side (and get balanced). If the bets have been made by lots of recreational players, it's not nearly as critical to move quickly, and typically A-OK to keep an unbalanced position on a game.
Here are three important points relative to this question:
1. The best books don't try to be completely balanced.
The square books want simply to earn with balanced action, while the sharp books actively look at the week's roster and try to build positions on games they like, often by shading their lines. Commentators on this topic are almost completely wrong when they suggest that books should try to be balanced on every game. This is unnecessary as long as they understand and employ proper risk management to ensure that they don't build too big a position in any one spot. And remember, an unbalanced book is often unbalanced with plus money, due to the fact that it's making its bets at +110 by booking.
2. It's dangerous to overreact and move lines too much.
A book doesn't want to take a huge bet on a game at -3, then wind up dealing +4.5 back, where you it can be "middled" and lose its shirt. The classic example of this was Black Sunday, when, in the Super Bowl, Pittsburgh beat Dallas by 4. Everyone (the wise guys, the squares, everyone) played the Steelers -3 and -3.5. Then the wise guys came back on Dallas at +4.5. Middlesville!
3. Some sports book directors have no math abilities or training, which leads to their employing embarrassing countermeasures.
One major Strip property won't move the line on NBA totals. Rather it moves the vig. So if it takes a bet on over 191, it moves the line to OV 191/-125, UN 191/+105. While this prevents the book from ever getting middled, it also upsets the square customers who don't understand why they have to pay more juice. Also, it really is unnecessary, as it's very unlikely a game will land precisely 192 and only small bets are involved, so the risk is negligible.
So while some books still strive to balance action, it's not the way of the best books, which are the ones that make the most money.
Comment