<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STRUT888/FISHHEAD:
dead on- I would presume it is much easier for a book to get multiple-popped for the limit on the same number via the online route. A book can stop a bettor dead in his tracks on the phone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thus decreasing business.
dead on- I would presume it is much easier for a book to get multiple-popped for the limit on the same number via the online route. A book can stop a bettor dead in his tracks on the phone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thus decreasing business.
You're right, Jay, but it's the kind of business they don't want. 97% or more, (a guess) of a large book's clientele are the kind of bettors who don't watch lines all week and swoop in at just the right time to get the best one, so they're usually calling in anyway to place the larger bets. The limits are there to limit their overall exposure to the 3% of bettors, at least IMHO. Also keeps a book from taking a huge hit on a bad line IF that book will honor it, like a Canbet.
This is something that I always thought was foolish. They should offer the same limits online as they do over the phone to get more people to play online which means less money spent on clerks and phone bills. If a player is double hitting them then yes they should lower his limits. But for all the other players who aren't double hitting them, they should be able to play the store's limits. IMO
How do the books see the bets coming in over the Net? Always was curious about that. I know though that it must be true because if you bet the limit at Pinnacle the line will move right away. I thought books might have it computer generated to automatically change the line but one time at another book, forget which one, I went to place a bet and the bet timed out and then went back 10 seconds later to bet it and the line changed. Screw em, the bet would've lost.
1) Bet Tickers aren't fast enough to stop a coordinated hit by a player with multiple accounts as all the bets can go in faster than clerks can react.
2) The hold percentage for the small limit players is A LOT higher than for the big limit players. At some books, the big limit players are net winners over the house and it's the losses by the small squares that put the book back in the black.
3) If a player is going to bet 5 dimes, it's worth it to have a human being there to make a damn decision or check Don Best one more time. You can't do that online.
4) For bets less than $50, it it hardly worth it to pay a clerk and tie up a phone line. One of the most important reasons for the internet was to expand the business and get those $5, $10 and $25 players. It's like a casino with slots. You don't tie up a human operator for each bet. But for bigger money games like blackjack and craps, you have one or more human operators.
5) Here is an experiment for an interested book to run: compute the hold percentage for all straight bets under $500 and then for bets over $500. Do this for the past one year. You will probably see a 4-7% difference (better hold for small bets).
2) The hold percentage for the small limit players is A LOT higher than for the big limit players. At some books, the big limit players are net winners over the house and it's the losses by the small squares that put the book back in the black.
3) If a player is going to bet 5 dimes, it's worth it to have a human being there to make a damn decision or check Don Best one more time. You can't do that online.
4) For bets less than $50, it it hardly worth it to pay a clerk and tie up a phone line. One of the most important reasons for the internet was to expand the business and get those $5, $10 and $25 players. It's like a casino with slots. You don't tie up a human operator for each bet. But for bigger money games like blackjack and craps, you have one or more human operators.
5) Here is an experiment for an interested book to run: compute the hold percentage for all straight bets under $500 and then for bets over $500. Do this for the past one year. You will probably see a 4-7% difference (better hold for small bets).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Java:
1) Bet Tickers aren't fast enough to stop a coordinated hit by a player with multiple accounts as all the bets can go in faster than clerks can react.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 5) Here is an experiment for an interested book to run: compute the hold percentage for all straight bets under $500 and then for bets over $500. Do this for the past one year. You will probably see a 4-7% difference (better hold for small bets).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see this.
1) Bet Tickers aren't fast enough to stop a coordinated hit by a player with multiple accounts as all the bets can go in faster than clerks can react.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 5) Here is an experiment for an interested book to run: compute the hold percentage for all straight bets under $500 and then for bets over $500. Do this for the past one year. You will probably see a 4-7% difference (better hold for small bets).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see this.
While the hold percentage may be lower for bigger bets, the VOLUME is so much higher that it balances itself out.
5% of $10 is a $.50 theoretical win.
2% of $10k is a $200 theoretical win.
Also having lots of $10 bettors may be better on the book from a risk perspective than 1 guy betting $10k/game, but think about all the other costs the book has to incur to service those customers. They need more labor to handle customer service, withdrawals, deposits, etc. whereas with fewer customers it is simpler.
Revere14
5% of $10 is a $.50 theoretical win.
2% of $10k is a $200 theoretical win.
Also having lots of $10 bettors may be better on the book from a risk perspective than 1 guy betting $10k/game, but think about all the other costs the book has to incur to service those customers. They need more labor to handle customer service, withdrawals, deposits, etc. whereas with fewer customers it is simpler.
Revere14
Java - good post. Like WildBill it seems all of your posts are very informative.
Now having said that I find it hard to believe you will see a 4%-7% hold increase between those betting over $500 versus those betting under $500. That's a huge differential. I'd like to see a book pipe in on this.
Now having said that I find it hard to believe you will see a 4%-7% hold increase between those betting over $500 versus those betting under $500. That's a huge differential. I'd like to see a book pipe in on this.
Well, guys, here are some stats I ran last Feb for Sep2002 through Jan2003 (for a former employer). "Big" bet is defined as having a LAY(risk) > $500.
Source Size Hold%
------ ---- -----
Net Big -0.4 (yep, book lost these)
Net Small +6.2
Phone Big +3.1
Phone Small +9.7
In both cases, phone and internet, the difference between big and small was 6.6%. You can look at it as 3.1% to 9.7% is a 6.6% difference or as winning three times as much.
Revere, despite the size of the big bets, the book actually won more from the smaller wagers. (This does not take bonuses and stuff into account. To be honest, it was so long ago, I don't remember if these number included parlays or were just straight bets. It was a preliminary experiment for a debate on wager limits that never got further analyzed.)
Now, the book did have a tendency to allow in sharp players so they could lay twice as much at the same number at other books, before the sharp players caused DonBest to move. So, the book was willing to take a loss on those bets, in order to make even larger bets themselves with the sharp information. As a result, the hold % for large bets may be slightly lower than a normal book might accept.
My personal opinion is to keep the limits low and stick with DonBest. For a really sharp player with good information, it isn't worth the trouble to bet a place with $500 and $1000 limits. A book can always make a case-by-case exception for known squares with deep pockets, but this should be a rarity. So, by keeping the limits low, you keep out the really top players, that are going to beat you in the long run.
My other opinion on this is: NO BONUSES FOR THE BIG WISEGUY PLAYERS. That may sound harsh, but these guys want to play because they have better handicapping, inside info, or need an out. Why give them a bonus for the privilege of coming in to take advantage of you?
Source Size Hold%
------ ---- -----
Net Big -0.4 (yep, book lost these)
Net Small +6.2
Phone Big +3.1
Phone Small +9.7
In both cases, phone and internet, the difference between big and small was 6.6%. You can look at it as 3.1% to 9.7% is a 6.6% difference or as winning three times as much.
Revere, despite the size of the big bets, the book actually won more from the smaller wagers. (This does not take bonuses and stuff into account. To be honest, it was so long ago, I don't remember if these number included parlays or were just straight bets. It was a preliminary experiment for a debate on wager limits that never got further analyzed.)
Now, the book did have a tendency to allow in sharp players so they could lay twice as much at the same number at other books, before the sharp players caused DonBest to move. So, the book was willing to take a loss on those bets, in order to make even larger bets themselves with the sharp information. As a result, the hold % for large bets may be slightly lower than a normal book might accept.
My personal opinion is to keep the limits low and stick with DonBest. For a really sharp player with good information, it isn't worth the trouble to bet a place with $500 and $1000 limits. A book can always make a case-by-case exception for known squares with deep pockets, but this should be a rarity. So, by keeping the limits low, you keep out the really top players, that are going to beat you in the long run.
My other opinion on this is: NO BONUSES FOR THE BIG WISEGUY PLAYERS. That may sound harsh, but these guys want to play because they have better handicapping, inside info, or need an out. Why give them a bonus for the privilege of coming in to take advantage of you?
