- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t do sportsbooks, so maybe I am confused here, but hear me out…
You say that the sportsbook can’t be in the hole overall because they balance the action on both sides of the line. However, don’t they pay you a commission on what your players lose, not just their vig on the bets?
Let’s say I have one player and you have another player under our respective 20% commission accounts. Each bets $1000+$100 on opposite sides of a game.
If my player wins, I’m at negative $220, but you get paid $220 in commissions.If they cancel my negative, then yes, the sportsbook is in the hole. Right? They made $100 on this bet, yet they paid out $220 in commissions.
BlackjackInfo wrote:I don’t do sportsbooks, so maybe I am confused here, but hear me out…You say that the sportsbook can’t be in the hole overall because they balance the action on both sides of the line. However, don’t they pay you a commission on what your players lose, not just their vig on the bets?
Let’s say I have one player and you have another player under our respective 20% commission accounts. Each bets $1000+$100 on opposite sides of a game.
If my player wins, I’m at negative $220, but you get paid $220 in commissions.If they cancel my negative, then yes, the sportsbook is in the hole. Right? They made $100 on this bet, yet they paid out $220 in commissions.
You’re right, but that’s not what i want, i want a % of the action, that is how they make money, and since we are partners, i expect to make money the same way, i hope that makes sense
I encourage my players to win and offer tips on how to do just that, if i wanted them to lose, i’d tell them to bet the Buffalo Bills, but then nobody would use my site
It’s a tough situation, unlike poker, where i get a % of the rake, or casinos, where the odds are stacked against the player
The sports affiliates dont want to give you a % of the action, as they should be doing, because they know it is money out of their pocket
If you look at it this way, using your example, and employing the negative carryover
Your player loses the $1100, and you make $220 commission
My player wins the $1000, and i am -$200What that comes out to is a load of free traffic to the sportsbooks, by using this scheme, since they cover us, ie, your player loses this time but wins next time, and vice versa for me, so the commission is reversed, which is typically the case anyway
Now we have a situation where the sportsbook is paying us nothing, and they do pay us nothing in the long run this way, yet get tons of free traffic from us
We are getting 0% of the juice, which in reality is the only source of money, do you get that part, 0%
Now that is a cleverly disguised scam
Assume your player loses $1000 this month, and mine wins $1000, we have a $200 and a -$200 commission, then the next month is the opposite, so over the course of 2 months, you and i have earned $0 combined, but the sportsbook has made $200 on the juice
So the money we are getting, we are taking from eachother, the sportsbook is not giving us anything
Now assume we get $20 of the juice, as we should be getting, or a % of total action, then we would get $20 each, while the sportsbook keeps $160 for themselves, so we have a $200 profit between the 3 of us, $160 for the book, $20 for me, $20 for you, and nobody gives a damn what team wins what game, and that is proper, what they have set up now is an all out scam
I hope that wasn’t too confusing
nick777 wrote:What do i do herei have a negative balance of a few thousand, which has been carried over every month now for around a year
for a sportsbook, that negative balance is outrageous, since they balance the lines and make money from the juice, they are not out $5k+ as a result of my players winning, so if they are not out any cash, why should i be out cash
…
your thoughts on the matter are appreciated, also it would be great to hear from somebody who has dealt with them
thanks
Hi Nick,
My thoughts are that you were NOT thinking clearly when you posted this one – as I know that you’re well in tune with how things work on the sports gambling side.
There is NO side pot for juice, your thinking on this is flawed. The books do not take a portion out of every bet and keep it – rather they offer slightly less than even money (usually around 1.90 to 1.96 on handicaps) .. and people refer to it as “juice”.
Sportsbooks TRY to balance the lines on games – but for most games Sportsbooks DO end up carrying a liability on one side or the other just due to a heavy weight of cash on one side.
But if the side that is more heavily backed does win – then they will be in the hole for the balance of the cash. Of course overb the course of a season it sohuld balance out … although I know that last season favourites won 55% of NFL game spreads – and punters like favourites – so most books took a 5%-7% bath.
I promote about a dozen sports books – and my biggest one turns over a significant amount of cash from my clients (over $500K per month). I get detailed reports from these guys on a daily basis … and I know that if favourites have won then punters have won and the bookmaker is in the hole.
Your assumption that they’re in profit and showing you an incorrect negative balance is FALSE. (in my opinion).
Best Regards,
Interesting points from both nick and TheGooner.
TheGooner wrote:I promote about a dozen sports books – and my biggest one turns over a significant amount of cash from my clients (over $500K per month).Respect. Much respect.
One thing is always a certainty, Gooner, the backwards New Zealander, will always take the opposite side, which is fine, but i hardly think you have a leg to stand on here mate
Your assumption is that the books are leaning to one side ?
Who gives a damn, thats not my problem, if that is the case, they are gambling with their own money, and are not bet takers, but bet makers instead
Are you trying to tell me the books make money when a player loses, how do you figure, a properly run outfit has no interest in a game result whatsoever
There might be slight leans due to last minute action, but over the long run everything is balanced out
The books do make money from the juice ONLY, assuming they are properly run, so by giving affiliates 0% of that money, they are in reality paying their affiliates nothing
If you get my point
Of course affiliate schemes do vary from book to book, and i would be very interested to have you send me a PM or list it here if you want, of sportsbooks that do offer a % of total turnover, because they are very rare indeed
The sportsbooks do not depend on players to lose their bets to survive, that is guaranteed, you should know that, i assume you do but are just trying to be difficult
If $10 million is bet on Chelsea
and $1 million is bet on Bolton
The line will adjust accordingly, and the payout on Chelsea will be 1.09-1 odds, or something along those lines, the sportsbook will not take a hit if Chelsea win, and vice versa if Bolton winNow i know you know what i’m saying
The book takes a % for booking your action, that is what they do, their purpose for existing, i dont mind paying the small service charge as a gambler, but as an affiliate, where is my money coming from if not this same source of income, in truth, my money is coming out of the pocket of other affiliates, guys like you, assuming we are getting a % of player losses
That makes the whole scheme a scam
Do send me a list of sportsbooks you think have a fair affiliate scheme, i would love to see it
Take care buddy, i know we’ll argue about this more, but it’s ok because i’m right, so lets get it on
Tell me from what source of money does my affiliate pay come from…meaning how does the sportsbook get the money to pay me my share…and dont tell me from player losses, because we all know thats not true
casinoreports wrote:Respect. Much respect.With all due respect Gooner, i turned over nearly that amount by myself betting on the World Cup
Lets make sure we get are definitions correct here
Turnover is total action, regardless of win/loss
Assuming a player bets $100 a day in a 30 day month, the total turnover for that player would be $3000 a month
Now that is good, what sportsbooks offer this type of deal to affiliates, do share
Nick,
It’s always a pleasure to discuss things with you – but always a challenge to not be put off by your attitude when I disagree.
:huh2:Whether you are a big punter or not – your understanding of how the bookmakers profits come about is flawed.
Let’s get straight to the matter.
1) There is no secret juice slush account.
A bookmakers profit line on an event is simply calculated as :
Profits = stakes received – ( winnings paid + costs + bonuses involved )Bookmakers DO need money to be lost by players OVERALL to make money – where else do you think it comes from ?
:tooconfus2) Punters back favourites
Bookmakers have varying degrees of exposure on all events – because no matter how attractively they try to price up underdogs (either with points start or with big money odds) – the underdogs are usually poorly supported.At any big event there will frequently be plenty of bookmaker spokepeople who shout out that they’ll be taking a loss if a certain results happens. Bookmakers make most profits when upsets occur.
3) Bookmaker Liabilities Are a FACT
In the case of American football results – there are (usually) only two results – and on any given Sunday you can be certain that at least 4-5 matches have a liability result for a bookie.In the case of the World game of football – 3 results are possible – and thew draw is nearly always a great result for the bookies.
While horseracing is a doddle and there is up to 50% “overorund” on the odds meaning that usually only 1 or 2 horse will cause a liability. Though you may remember an occaision when Vettori rode 7/7 winners on a race day and cost the bookmakers of GBP 120 million on accumulators and speculators.
:notify:Balancing a book to within about 8% is ideal, as due to the odds that they offer, they’ll BE GREEN ACROSS THE BOARD, meaning that they’ll make a profit no matter what result occurs – but it only happens about half the time.
I have worked with over half a dozen bookies directly when promoting their offers – visited on site – and got a pretty good feeling for their ranges – and I’m sure I’d be giving away no secrets if I said that they actually allow themselves to have a percentage threshold as a liability on an event.
You can rant, rave and insult me – but you’re living in a conspiracy theory of your own on this one.
:satisfiedGooner, its easy to disagree with you when you’re wrong buddy
One thing you said made sense, the bookies always win more when a soccer game results in a tie
But as for anyone thinking that bookies would put themselves at risk by leaning on a particular outcome is just a fool, that is just Hollywood brand garbage that makes for good entertainment, and nothing more than that
And it was Frankie Dettori, get his name right, he won every race on the card that he rode in that day, and if a bookie wants to give out 1000-1 odds on a jockey winning 7 races from 7 starts thats fine, because something like that happens once every thousand years…so i’ll discard whatever you were trying to say with that example
I’m really starting to think you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about…punters back favourites, underdogs are poorly supported, wtf…no s#%t buddy, when more people bet one team to win over another, that makes them the favourite, therefore more support is on them…what point were you possibly trying to make there
Just tell me you’re liquored up and i’ll forget this whole conversation took place
You really think Mr Bookie guy is sitting there watching some football game and cheering some team to make a last second score to cover the spread, and doing this every day on every single game he took action on…c’mon be serious, he’d lose his mind in a week
I’m telling you the bookies make money from the juice, and you can dispute that all you want
Now please tell me who is offering turnover %, why you holding out on me
Nick: I’m sorry. You’re wrong.
You’ve got one thing right: bookmakers would PREFER that they have even action on both games, with everyone on both sides laying 11 to win 10. However, this doesn’t always happen. And when that happens, books have liabilities on games that they otherwise wouldn’t have. So books can lose money on a given season, and so you MAY have negative rollover.
And indeed, some sharp books will take leans on games. Take the Carolina @ Chicago game last year. You know what the percentage of bets and money were on that game? 70% to 30%, Carolina. And Pinnacle, the sharpest of the sharp, moved the line TO ENCOURAGE action on Carolina before the game started (line was -3.5 on Carolina, line was moved to -3, which we both know is HUGE)
And your examples always assume that everyone loses in the long run. This is not true. Everyone does NOT always lose in the long run. Some people can actually pick games to beat the vig. So the players that you refer are important. Are they sharps, that can pick enough winners over losers so that they win money, and thus make the sportsbook lose money? If so, that’s why you are experiencing negative rollover.
And not every bet is geared towards even action: parlays and teasers, for example are always a player vs. the book. So books do have other sources of income rather than the vig in straight bets. With parlays and teasers, the book just tries to use simple math in order to beat the player, but this doesn’t ALWAYS work. Think correlated parlays and such.
So stop berating Gooner. Because in this instance, he is correct.
nick777 wrote:I’m really starting to think you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about…punters back favourites, underdogs are poorly supported, wtf…no s#%t buddy, when more people bet one team to win over another, that makes them the favourite, therefore more support is on them…what point were you possibly trying to make thereThat is not what makes favorites and underdogs what they are. Favorites and underdogs are created by pulic perception of the talent between two teams.
What Gooner was trying to say is that the casual bettor often backs the favorite, and because there are a lot more casual bettors than there are handicappers, underdogs are often bet on less (poorly supported). So when Favorites covered at an unbelievable clip last year, many books that catered to the casual bettor took it on the chin.
Actually i’m not wrong, so do me a favour and take a hike
Now Gooner, get your wanker ass up here and tell me who is dealing out the turnover share, and keep your buddies out of my thread
And another thing Mr Lee, you are completely out to lunch my friend, you have no idea what you’re talking about, and as a friendly piece of advice, don’t make statements like that and embarass yourself in the future
First of all, Indianapolis was the overwhelming favourite from start to finish, last season, and the empire of money was on them, and as for an overwhelming amount of favourites hitting last year…well that is just the stupidest thing i’ve ever heard in my life, it was quite the opposite…
World Cup-Brazil
NBA-Detroit
NHL-Ottawa
NFL-Indianapolis
MLB-NY Yankees
NCAA-UCONNAll favourites, all losers, so do me a favour and go screw your head back around, and please don’t talk to me anymore, unless you’re trying to make me laugh, i’m not in the mood
If you guys need an explanation of how sportsbooks operate, get one of these guys here from vip or nine to explain it to you…i seriously doubt they will tell you they make money from betting against their players
I must say i’m shocked, Gooner’s response was anticipated, since he is just that kind of guy, but i really didnt expect anyone else to be in the dark as to how sportsbooks make money
No offense Gooner buddy, you know i like workin on you, so lets get it on, you and me, mano e mano, take your best shot, i am 100% right here, so anything you come up with to dispute my statement earlier, i will easily disprove
I think it’s important, since there are obviously people here who don’t know how things work, we need to clarify the situation
nick777 wrote:Now please tell me who is offering turnover %, why you holding out on meNick,
The rake model (or juice) that you think bookies operate on is correct for betting exchanges such as BetFair, BetDaq, Betsson and Mansion where they match bettors up against other bettors and only charge a fee to the winner.
All THESE exchanges openly offer affiliates a share of the rake (much like poker houses).
I also have deals with two bookmakers who prefer to deal this way – which is OK for me. Bookies will deal – but on case by case basis – and unfortunately both deals are strictly confidential – but they are European outfits.
As for the rest of your diatribe … you’re just off the track mate.
:tooconfusTheGooner wrote:Nick,The rake model (or juice) that you think bookies operate on is correct for betting exchanges such as BetFair, BetDaq, Betsson and Mansion where they match bettors up against other bettors and only charge a fee to the winner.
All THESE exchanges openly offer affiliates a share of the rake (much like poker houses).
I also have deals with two bookmakers who prefer to deal this way – which is OK for me. Bookies will deal – but on case by case basis – and unfortunately both deals are strictly confidential – but they are European outfits.
As for the rest of your diatribe … you’re just off the track mate.
:tooconfus“Confidential”, what is that bs, don’t make me put the squeeze on you, i dont believe you, if a book was offering this they wouldnt want to keep it confidential, its good for their business to advertise it, with all due respect, youre not fifa.com buddy, you may get perks and bonuses from whoever, but i doubt a sportsbook is gonna design an entire affiliate program just catered to you
And all sportsbooks that take action operate that way, not just the exchanges
You think if Man Utd is playing against Liverpool, and you bet on Man Utd, you think the bookie goes and unloads money on Liverpool…man that is just rediculous, snap out of it
nick777 wrote:First of all, Indianapolis was the overwhelming favourite from start to finish, last season, and the empire of money was on them, and as for an overwhelming amount of favourites hitting last year…well that is just the stupidest thing i’ve ever heard in my life, it was quite the opposite…World Cup-Brazil
NBA-Detroit
NHL-Ottawa
NFL-Indianapolis
MLB-NY Yankees
NCAA-UCONNAll favourites, all losers, so do me a favour and go screw your head back around, and please don’t talk to me anymore, unless you’re trying to make me laugh, i’m not in the mood
Firstly, if you could tone down the belittling nature of your posts, it would make it much easier to have a discussion on this topic.
Now, do you understand what a favorite is? You say Indianapolis was the overwhelming favorite last year. Yes, they were, if you were thinking about the odds to win the superbowl, but we’re talking about each individual game.
For each game (straight betting) in the NFL last year, the team that was laying points (the favorite) won and covered the spread more than 56% of the time last year. Now, you should know that many handicappers would give their left nut to pick 56%. So the fact that this many favorites covered is quite an aberration. Now, it is will known that the casual bettor likes to bet on favorites. So the fact that this many favorites covered the spread means that the bookmakers who catered only to “square bettors” (the casual bettor) either A) lost money or
earned significantly less money.Yes: there are sportsbooks that cater to squares. The first ones that come to mind are the (now defuct) BoS family, Bodog, Nine, Bet365. These are the books that will either kick you out or severely limit your bets if they believe you to be “sharp.”
For clarification to those reading, “sharps” are those bettors considered to be professional handicappers or good at handicapping, whereas “squares” are those 95% of bettors who are long term losers in sportsbetting
And your assertion for the other sports does not come into play here. I was referring to the NFL season of 2005-2006. And you know as well as I that the bulk of a sportsbook’s volume comes from football. The NFL is THAT big.
You are correct that many sportsbooks would like to have even action on each side. You are also correct that if they achieve this while at the same time only catering to those bettors that neither lose massively nor win massively, the affiliate gets screwed. But the fact of the matter is that the sportsbook world does not work this way.
Everyone is not going to go 50-50 against the spread every 100 games and piss away the vig, thereby screwing the affiliate. There are going to be players who go 30-70 ATS (who lose money) and there are going to be players who go 62-38 ATS (who win money). And this is why many sportsbooks are not going to pay you on a percentage of bets made basis. They want you to bring in people who go 30-70, 35-65, ANYTHING that is less than 52-48 (breakeven at -110 pricing), because they earn money this way.
And this is before we even start talking about parlays, teasers, and all the rest of the stuff where true “even action” isn’t even possible.
As far as your situation with Bowman’s, unless your site targets those big bettors that lose their ass (and there are PLENTY of them), I’d go ahead and dump them if you have a negative rollover in the thousands. There are plenty of other sportsbooks out there that function in much the same way as Bowmans (clone lines, moving on air, etc), so you may as well direct your customers to a place where you don’t start in the hole.
