Worst NFL Sunday for books

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
166
Tokens
NOVER'S NEWS AND NOTES 09/23/03 - Stephen Nover

Was this past NFL Sunday really as bad for bookmakers as some are saying?
"It was the worst NFL week by far," said one bookmaker.

The major problem for bookmakers was the morning favorites going 7-0. One of those games was Tampa Bay rolling over a gutless Atlanta squad, 31-10. The Bucs were steamed from minus 3 1/2 to 6 1/2. It was a rare instance of both 'wise' guys and public loving the same side.

"It's one of the biggest regular season moves you'll ever see in the NFL," one professional bettor said.

But couldn't the books get some money back when underdogs went 5-0 in the late afternoon games? Both Green Bay and San Francisco, two big public teams, fell as seven-point favorites.

Not according to one bookmaker, who does heavy parlay volume.

"The Packers would have killed a lot of parlays and teasers, but people didn't have enough time to bet them," he said. "People bet the early games, but by the time those results were in, the Packers were midway through the first quarter.

"Some of these bettors can't bet again until they cash their early game tickets, but the first games didn't finish in time for them to cash their tickets.

"Our single biggest game was Minnesota-Detroit. We had so many parlays keyed into that game. If Minnesota would have been up by 21 and bettors knew it was an absolute winner, then they would have bet Green Bay and San Francisco.

"When the other games kicked off Detroit had first and goal, so bettors didn't know if they were going to win on Minnesota. That game running late cost us a ton of money on the late games. It killed us because people didn't have time to re-bet on the late games."

The books did manage to win the Sunday night game - which is usually the house's second biggest decision next to the Monday night game - even though favorite Miami covered. It was a rare time when the public was on a Sunday night underdog, which was Buffalo.

Who would have thought after three weeks that Warren Sapp would have more touchdown receptions than Keyshawn Johnson, or that Kevin Faulk would have 48 more rushing yards on only two more attempts than Marshall Faulk?

Faulk's out now with a broken hand. Lamar Gordon is one of the better backup running backs, but the Rams' ground game is going to continue to be mediocre because Mike Martz failed to get a quality blocking fullback after losing 270-pound James Hodgins to Arizona in free agency.

I wonder if Bay Area fans still are down on Steve Mariucci after discovering first-hand why Dennis Erickson has never been a successful pro coach. Erickson can be faulted for the 49ers' last two defeats, games his team should have won.

First, wide receiver Cedric Wilson is in field goal territory against St. Louis two weeks ago, but doesn't go down in time to stop the final seconds from ticking off. The 49ers then lose in overtime. Wilson certainly is at fault for being a bonehead, but so is Erickson for not making his wideouts aware of the time element.

This past Sunday, Erickson failed to challenge Andre Davis' first touchdown catch after it looked like Davis stepped out of bounds before scoring. If this isn't enough, Erickson tells his defense - which had been blitzing effectively and playing aggressively the entire game - to go into a reactionary, prevent defense. This allows Browns quarterback Kelly Holcomb to dink his way downfield on a 17-play, 91-yard game-winning drive.

If there's a problem in the NFL because of the lack of black head coaches, blame 49ers management, not Matt Millen.

Marvin Lewis has many stumbling blocks in his quest to turn the Bengals around. The hardest challenges aren't improving a loser's attitude, upgrading the defense and improving special teams. He's doing all that. No, it's making the decision to switch quarterbacks. Jon Kitna is not, nor will he ever be, worthy of starting quarterback status in the NFL.

The Bengals aren't going anywhere this season. So what's the point in Lewis waiting? Get Carson Palmer in there and see what he can do (and no, Palmer isn't on my Rotisserie team).
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
So the books lose, or they don't - SO WHAT???

What the hell is this weekly obsession about whether the books win or not?

As I see it, let's say they lose so much they go out of business - so what?? Ya bet with locals or you spread your exposure across a number of books. The probability of this anyway is pretty small.

If they win, so what??? Business as usual.

I'm going out on a limb here and am stating, for the record, that I couldn't care less whether the books win or lose - I really don't. It all evens out in the end, and if it doesn't in the short run, too damn bad - there are a LOT of non-sportsbetting businesses that lose and go out of business.

Tough cookies. Oh well. So WHAT??? What is so unique about this business that I have to worry not only about my BR but THEIR BR???

The hell with it - I'm diversified, if one of my books fail, so be it - but I don't spend one fuc-king MINUTE of my existence here on Earth wringing my hands over whether one of my books is reaping enough profits from me or my fellow gamblers to stay in business.

Let me phrase it another way: when's the last fuc-king time ANY book gave a shit about whether YOU could afford your post-up loss to them?

Yeah, I thought so
icon_rolleyes.gif


[This message was edited by Jazz on September 23, 2003 at 01:54 AM.]

[This message was edited by Jazz on September 23, 2003 at 01:55 AM.]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
btw - no one OWES any sportsbook a living - period. I'm tired of seeing these kind of articles that imply that I should feel somewhat anxious that books are taking a beating.

LMAO - I am not against books, but I personally think this article by Stephen only makes me feel good. So the holy books didn't slaughter everyone - boo-fuc-king-hoo. And I don't for a second think ALL of these books are wearing their hearts on their sleeves - I think they are stand-up people, knowing the risks.

Nover, I seriously don't give a shit if they lose on one day, one weekend, one week, one month or the whole fuc-king YEAR - since it's so unlikely, you can discount it, but if not, that means I WIN and gee, that's such a horrible outcome.

p.s. Anyone seriously think ALL books would go out of business? Ever happen before in history? No? Then chill
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
No, in truth, I didn't - and I didn't lose SU either, since I don't bet that way. Seriously. I'm just sick to death of these articles that hand-wring over whether books won or lost - I'm not a book, so why the hell should I give a shit?
icon_confused.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
465
Tokens
PS i have never seen Jazz so worked up either. many points i would like to respond to from the 1st three posts but not enough time so >>

Let me phrase it another way: when's the last fuc-king time ANY book gave a shit about whether YOU could afford your post-up loss to them?

post-up maybe not; but was speaking to the head man at pinnacle a few days ago and out of nowhere he raised the subject of introducing s/ware to identify and protect the "problem gambler" who loses more than he can afford.

am sure Betfair would feel the same way, so not all BM's would be so greedy as to want all the money they could possibly win.

i also realise you did not suggest exactly that but you did imply they were all totally uncaring.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
166
Tokens
Jazz please calm down. Some of the points in the column were an unusual 3-point line movement in an NFL game, and places who do a big parlay card business not getting a chance to get their money back from the early games because of the afternoon games starting before some of the key early games are over.
This isn't a column saying time to panic and pull money out because the books had their worst Sunday of the year.
Also it was a chance to vent about Jon Kitna, Dennis Erickson and Mike Martz.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Tokens
Jazz,

I for one am interested in how the books did because it gives me information about which sides the public was on. For me, knowing the public's choice before the game is an important part of capping, ie. if the public likes the same team I do then it's time to double check my analysis. So this stuff about whether the bookies won or not is like a post-mortem to see if I was right or wrong about the public's preferences. And that is useful info. for me.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
10,363
Tokens
Books came out ok because of late activity again if some late games went the other way 15 books were going down.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,488
Members
100,871
Latest member
Legend813
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com