People love to see how the lines move when they first come out.  Those who are ready to bet at the opener are usually pretty informed guys who understand the marketplace.  Certain sports books are willing to take their action, in essence paying for the information of who these sharps like.  The books will then use this knowledge as part of their recipe to determine the “right side” as they try to shade their lines to attract action on from other bettors.   So it makes sense to follow those early moves, right?

In theory, yes.  But here’s the problem.  Some of the moves are false ones.  In recent years a few large bettors have gotten more sophisticated in how they attack the market, and will play a game in the opposite direction of what they like in an effort to get a better number.   A respected group of bettors can play a game at just a few influential sports books at -6 can create a line move in the entire marketplace to -7.  They then bet the underdog much heavier at +7,  getting the number they originally desired via this market manipulation.

There’s an additional reason to take early season line moves with a grain of salt. Opening week in college football (this week) and the NFL (next week) provides a unique circumstance in that a few books have had lines up on these games for a month, while others just post lines six days in advance.  So the moves early in opening week are not on fresh numbers, but on numbers that have been hammered out in the marketplace throughout the month of August.

Trying to determine what sides are the “right sides” based on line moves can be a wise use of a handicapper’s time, but make sure you are aware of the potential of false moves and the unique circumstance of the month-long availability of Week 1 lines.

Comments(0)

When an item in the company’s local paper, the Vancouver Sun, leads with “The Bodog online gambling empire continues to crumble,” it is certainly a good time to keep your balances low and avoid further deposits.

This time it is a marketing support company critical to Bodog’s operations laying off 200 staff members.   Last month it was a Forbes report that $24 million had been confiscated from Bodog controlled American accounts by U.S. government.

I’m told that the withdrawal process from Bodog is currently taking some people over a month.  While much of the online wagering world continues to prosper out of the limelight, the spotlight that marketer extraordinaire Calvin Ayre drew to the company over the past few years continues to bring Bodog attention that they don’t desire today.

Comments(0)

While much of the online gaming world continues to thrive quietly, without the publicity and advertising storm of a few years ago, the same can’t be said for the industry’s premier publicity hounds.

Calvin Ayre’s penchant for thumbing his nose at the US Government has, as most expected, come back to haunt online gaming leader Bodog. Forbes reports tonight that the heat is on Bodog, with $24 million confiscated from accounts kept by the company and their payment processors. Further action would be no surprise.

Bodog founder Ayre supposedly left the company this summer, though there’s a surprising lack of information in his Wikipedia entry on the controversy that has surrounded the mercurial gaming entrepreneur. You get the sense that Wikipedia Sanitizer was a full time position in Vancouver.

Comments(0)

The state of Delaware is considering the addition of a sports wagering component to their state lottery. It would probably be a hideously unfavorable parlay card offering of some sort. Despite the fact that it would only be available in 1954 of the nearly 3,600,000 square miles in the United States, the NFL is coming after this thing guns blazing, with a full page ad in a Delaware newspaper against the proposal.

The Preakness seems a walkover after the performance of Big Brown in the Kentucky Derby, but there are a couple of things that might make it worth checking out the past performances on Saturday.

Steve Crist of the Daily Racing Form pointed out earlier in the week that only 6 of the 14 odds-on Preakness favorites in the last 50 years have won the second jewel of the Triple Crown.

Additionally, the seeming overconfidence of Big Brown’s trainer Richard Dutrow before the Derby is gone, and Dutrow seems pretty realistic heading in this race. One of the horse’s owners expects him to bounce off the huge Derby effort. Dutrow admits that Big Brown won’t run as well on two weeks rest, though he does consider him to be the likely winner based on the lack of competition.

It is still tough to see Big Brown getting much of a challenge, but anything could happen, and that’s why they run around the track.

Comments(0)

This is the story about an obscure baseball betting rule, Congress, the resurgence of local bookies, and why it is more important than ever before to understand the betting rules of the sports that you wager on.

I have a guy who handicaps baseball for my customers (totals only, no sides) and he does an excellent job, winning every week this season so far with just about 15 net winners after juice at this point. He called me one night last week to chat. As I wasn’t following the scores, I asked him how we were doing that night.

He was worried about our under in the Twins/ChiSox game, which had gone into extras after being 2-2 in regulation. The game was in the 12th inning with the score 3-3, but was in a rain delay. While we chatted, the game was suspended. “What happens now?” I asked.

He was pretty sure that the ruling would be that the total would stand, but not 100% certain, as it was such a rare situation for a game to rained out while tied in extra innings. Sure enough, a check of the rules and regulations for baseball betting confirmed that we would be credited with a winner.

Here’s the rule. “The following applies for over/under and run line wagering. If a game is called or suspended in extra innings, the score will be determined after the last full inning unless the home team scores to tie, or takes the lead in the bottom half of the inning, in which case the score is determined at the point of the game being called.”

So in this instance, since the score had been 3-3 at the end of the 11th, the winner was the under (as well as +1.5 for run line players). Those who played either the Twins or White Sox would have their wager refunded as “no action”.

But with so many bettors once again playing with local bookies, would bettors playing with Jimmy or Tony (those first names combine to make up over 40% of all local bookes) be properly credited with the win?

Being aware of the rules is more important than ever. Congressional legislation getting in the way of banking relationships between offshore wagering entities and American banks has led to a resurgence of local bookies to fill the void. Bookmakers coast-to-coast who had left the business, or were on the verge of leaving the business, are now serving their local bettors in large numbers once again.

While a legit, reputable, offshore sports book will know how to grade something in unique circumstances, some locals are ignorant of when a game is official for betting purposes and when it a bet is to be “no action”. Other local bookies may understand the rules, but are simply not predisposed to giving the bettor a fair shake unless he asserts himself.

So bettors should always be on top of their daily results, and that is doubly true if they are back to dealing with local bookies, as so many are these days.

Getting back to my baseball guy, after winning his only Thursday play we are now 46-28 (62%+) on the season with our Strategic Sports Publishing over/unders (as documented by The Sports Monitor). The record is even a little better than that for some of us. Why? The plays are released by 9AM EDT every morning, and playing early has many of us with a slightly better record than the current documented mark.

If you’re interested in following these powerful over/under selections you can take advantage of a tremendous offer. Get the rest of May at no charge when you sign up for our month-to-month All Sports VIP service. Call 1-770-649-1078 for details.

Comments(0)

When it comes to international trade disputes, the US is usually on the free market side while Europe is more likely to be protectionist. The European edition of The Wall Street Journal points out that the roles are reversed when it comes to US interference with the operations of foreign online wagering services. The European Union is not pleased that the US has exceptions for domestic operators like horse betting sites, state lotteries, and the like while it looks to snuff out the opportunity that Americans have to wager with similar services overseas.

The EU has a winning case here, and the trading partnership and diplomatic relations with Europe is infinitely more important to the US than America’s relationship with Antigua, who prevailed with the World Trade Organization against the US last summer in a similar case, the results of which have largely been shrugged off by the US. The hundreds of millions of dollars in value erased from overseas stock markets when publicly-held foreign firms left the US wagering market leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of the European business community, giving the Europeans some resolve in the matter.

With the banks clearly not pleased to be playing “gambling transaction cop” as required by the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, Congressman Barney Frank’s proposal to exempt licensed operators from US regulations may be the long term solution. While it is unlikely that ads for online poker rooms and sports books will be flooding the airwaves anytime soon, things may be on the upswing for bettors in the US.

Comments(0)

The New York Stock Exchange erupted in cheers upon hearing of the demise of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who’s dalliance with a high-priced hooker is now part of the public record. Sports bettors with long memories likely share Wall Street’s sentiments.

Until Bill Frist snuck UEIGA through in the final 20 minutes of the 2006 Congressional session, attaching anti-gambling legislation that couldn’t get passed on it’s merits, Spitzer was the most effective regulatory opponent of online sports bettors and poker players. It was Spitzer who pressured the banking industry to the point where it became very difficult to fund wagering accounts with credit cards.

No love for the bullying Spitzer from this corner, but it is tough to celebrate when you think of his three lovely daughters and the ordeal that their hypocritical and self-righteous father is putting them through.

Comments(0)

Turning A Toothpick into a Lumberyard: A British fertilizer salesman collected 2,000,000-1 on a 50 pence (about a buck) wager. The natural odds on Freddie Crags’ 8-horse parlay were actually about 2,800,000-1, but William Hill has a million-pound cap on payouts.

Funding Crags’ Hit: Don’t Cry for William Hill, as greyhound trainer Graham Calvert lost over 2,000,000 pounds (yep, about $4 million bucks) to the bookmaking firm. Calvert is suing the company for allowing him to continue to wager on the phone after they agreed to ban him.

World’s Dumbest Industry? Andrew Beyer gives the latest rundown on the fratricide within the horse racing industry that keeps many bettors from being able to wager on the high-profile tracks they favor. Alienating the public with these turf wars will only escalate the descent of this rapidly declining sport.

Comments(0)

Heavy with Giants money line action, Nevada sports books decided to gamble instead of lowering the money line to even out their action, and the Giants outright victory in the Super Bowl cost them.

Las Vegas sports books not only failed to crack their hoped-for $100,000,000 handle on the Super Bowl, but actually lost over $2.5 million on the game, which attracted $92,000,000 in wagers at sports books in Nevada. Ken White suggests that had the Patriots held on for the outright win, sports books would have cleaned up on those money line bets, winning about $15,000,000 on the game.

Clearly props were a big winner for the house, as they always are. It is surprising that every sports book in town held the line on the money line. You would have thought that one group or property would have looked to offset some of their risk. I know some sharps would have been heavy on the Patriots money line had they been offered the incentive of a low price.

Comments(0)

In the last 17 years in Las Vegas, the only losing Super Bowl for the books was the 49ers blowout over the Chargers following the 1994 season. Matt Youmans of the Las Vegas Review-Journal offers the Nevada wagering totals on the Super Bowl since the state began tracking sports wagering handle. The preponderance of proposition wagering seems to make it unlikely that the books would lose another Super Bowl. It is worth noting that the three largest hold percentages have occurred in the last four years, showing how healthy the prop betting boom is for the house.

Update: Now after the game, the bookies are howling, claiming substantial losses. While Giants and under, as well as Giants outright, was surely a good result for a lot of small players, the big players were largely on the Patriots, with many professional bettors finding the Pats money line particularly attractive.

It will be interesting to see the results released by the State of Nevada on the sports books Super Bowl balance sheets. Is it the second losing year in the past 18? I predict a small winner for the books, with the proposition wagers offsetting side/total losses.

Comments(0)