Wagers, bettor losses set record

[goalmouth]

Nevada sports bettors wagered more -- and lost more -- than ever in 2014.

ESPN: "The state's 187 sportsbooks won $227.04 million off of the $3.9 billion wagered on sports in 2014. Both amounts are all-time records, according to Nevada Gaming Control."

Embarrassingly devoid of context or analysis for an article with a byline, but anyway. Can any of the gamblers here explain why books remain in business when they win far less than they lose? Aren't they supposed to be the wise guys who rig the game to fleece degenerate wage earners of their mortgage and kids college money?

 

[LongTimeListener]

Can any of the gamblers here explain why books remain in business when they win far less than they lose?

Say what, Troll Boy?

 

[goalmouth]

Seems like a painfully small take for the books. Less than 10% gross and probably closer to 3% net after expenses and taxes.

 

[LongTimeListener]

And how exactly is that winning far less than they lose?

 

[User 11148]

Divide the $3.9 billion wagered in two. Generally, there'd be $1.95 billion on one side of the line and there'd be $1.95 billion on the other side of the line. Out of the half (on a given wager) that should have gone to the winners, the books took $227 million. That's close to a 12% commission (in gambling parlance, "the vig").

 

[JackReacher]

I also saw this on Twitter today...

Nevada casinos December winnings:
Blackjack: 89.85M
Craps: 30.76M
Roulette: 34.82M
Baccarat: 15.023M
Sports: 26.05M
Penny slots: 216.23M

 

[Michael_ Gee]

That's just the time element. Ball games take three hours, table games take no time at all.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I also saw this on Twitter today...

Nevada casinos December winnings:
Blackjack: 89.85M
Craps: 30.76M
Roulette: 34.82M
Baccarat: 15.023M
Sports: 26.05M
Penny slots: 216.23M

They're lucky I didn't go.

 

[JackReacher]

That's just the time element. Ball games take three hours, table games take no time at all.

What are you talking about?

 

[SnarkShark]

Divide the $3.9 billion wagered in two. Generally, there'd be $1.95 billion on one side of the line and there'd be $1.95 billion on the other side of the line. Out of the half (on a given wager) that should have gone to the winners, the books took $227 million. That's close to a 12% commission (in gambling parlance, "the vig").

Not how sportsbooks operate. I feel like I've said this 100 times on this site.

Sportsbooks don't make their nut on the vig, although it helps. They take advantage of less informed bettors and the public bettor at large. If they think they have an advantage, they'll shade the line to get as much money on the losing side as possible.

Betting Against the Public | Sports Insights

"Sportsbooks do not look to balance their books. They look to exploit sports bettors’ tendencies by shading favorites and overs."

 

[goalmouth]

OK, I guess I expected closer to a 50%-plus take for the books on the total wager, isn't that how a business stays in business? Or do the casino games subsidize the sports betting? They books have to pay off the winner, at odds.

 

[SnarkShark]

OK, I guess I expected closer to a 50%-plus take for the books on the total wager, isn't that how a business stays in business? Or do the casino games subsidize the sports betting? They books have to pay off the winner, at odds.

They PROFITED $227 million. That's a very good thing. A lot of the function for sportsbook in casinos is not only to make money, but to keep people entertained, which keeps them in the casino. The longer they're in the casino, of course, the more likely they are to spend and lose money.

 

[JackReacher]

"Sportsbooks do not look to balance their books. They look to exploit sports bettors’ tendencies by shading favorites and overs."

Xan and Chef are nodding in agreement.

 

[goalmouth]

Thanks. Based on that link you posted, the margins, like most commodity businesses, are razor-thin. $227M among 30-add books ain't much in a multi-billion dollar industry. Sounds like the books are a loss leader primarily. Too bad journos don't get a cut, we are so central to the books' business plan.

 

[User 11148]

Not how sportsbooks operate. I feel like I've said this 100 times on this site.

Sportsbooks don't make their nut on the vig, although it helps. They take advantage of less informed bettors and the public bettor at large. If they think they have an advantage, they'll shade the line to get as much money on the losing side as possible.

Betting Against the Public | Sports Insights

"Sportsbooks do not look to balance their books. They look to exploit sports bettors’ tendencies by shading favorites and overs."

Sorry, you're being sold something. That is far too transparent and easily entered a market for such an approach to work.

Sports books earn their money via the vig, whether you've said so a hundred or a thousand times.

 

[SnarkShark]

Sorry, you're being sold something. That is far too transparent and easily entered a market for such an approach to work.

Sports books earn their money via the vig, whether you've said so a hundred or a thousand times.

So, with 75 percent of the public money on the Patriots for the Super Bowl, why hasn't the line shifted dramatically in recent days in an attempt to get the number closer to 50-50?

 

[goalmouth]

There is a .25% tax on the Nevada books, that's the official vig. So that number is larger because of the vig from the point spreads?

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Dear Jack Reacher: What I mean is, any gambler can bet on blackjack every 20 seconds, whereas one NFL bet takes three hours to win or lose. The gambler doesn't lose all the bets in blackjack, probably, so if he loses say $500 in three hours at a table, he's bet much more than that in total, as opposed to the NFL bettor who lost $500 on the Packers or whoever. The handle is higher.

 

[JackReacher]

Did anyone question that? I was just posting the numbers. I found them interesting. But thanks for explaining that, I guess.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

I read somewhere long ago that craps had the smallest house edge of any casino game, and it was very low indeed, like less than two percent. Don't know if that's true, but of course the churn in craps is very high.