ONLINE SPORTSBOOKS

Go Back   MajorWager Forums > MW - Online Sportsbooks > Handicapping "Think Tank"
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Handicapping "Think Tank" technical handicapping and statistics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 10-21-2002, 07:26 PM
buckeye buckeye is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,612
Default

PATTON,
I admit there is a grey area that we are talking about. For instance, I have said that I support Augusta's RIGHT to pick any members they want. My belief is they are a PRIVATE CLUB and they can choose to discriminate by race, color, sex, etc. being PRIVATE. Their members fund the club and can vote anyone in, or exclude anyone, as they see fit as it is their money and work and sweat that goes into it! The problem is that they also HOST The Masters Tournament. Thus some of their club's funding is from the public that attends that event and eats the food and watches the TV that gives them $ for the event. So many think they should give up their ability to deny membership to those patrons, or a representative cross section of them. That might be a good debate, though I side with the fact that 51 weeks a year they are completely private and I don't think you have to wave your privacy to host an event, but I understand both sides of the debate.

But a public business, even one involving gambling, is not a private club. Can a landlord discriminate against who he rents to? If the grounds are their financial track record or credit rating I think so. If he just doesn't like their TYPE, or LOOK, or sirname or whatever, that is governed by fair housing laws etc. If you own a grocery store you can't LEGALLY kick out customers for only buying food on special or loss leaders or because you don't like what they are wearing ( unless it is unsanitary or publicly indecent ). Sure, business owners do it every day, but then they open themselves up to get sued for it and lose. Getting back to what's right, is saying they are a smart shopper "legal" grounds for kicking them out?

So the grey area, that I am very unsure of, is where the line is drawn on when a business can deny service to the public ( or any member of the public ) and under what grounds/circumstances that denial is legally ALLOWED. As said before, if the grounds are to protect against fraud or scamming or theft or denial of payment, I think most would agree that they should be able to protect themselves on those grounds. But if you have the green then when is it okay to deny service? As long as dress codes and rules are followed, what can be used as a measuring stick to deny? Should they be able to protect from a smart shopper or be forced to live with that as part of doing business and taking the smart shoppers along with the impulse buyers ( squares ) as opening up a business to the public comes with? Now if they limit the loss leaders to 2/customer, then maybe they are protected from the smart shopper cleaning the shelf out on a loss leader. But if they just ban her or say she can't buy any more specials that just doesn't seem okay to me!

JMHO
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 10-21-2002, 07:48 PM
buckeye buckeye is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,612
Default

PATTON,
You said:

"I feel the same way about dealing two lines. A book is free to offer whatever lines it wants to any of its customers. Again, I think it is better for a book to be up-front about this practice, and if not then it is wrong. But legally and morally there is nothing wrong with essentially charging two different customers two very different prices for essentially the same thing - the airlines have been doing it for years."

I think some may misunderstand what is going on. They do withhold what they are doing from customers and lie about it when confronted ( most of them ). Would it be okay if gas stations had a detector and as you drove by in a Mercedes with a nearly empty tank they flashed a higher gas price on their sign for you than the half full VW beetle behind you sees? We are talking simultaneous different prices based on profiling not based on volume or supply and demand.

If you and I each independently signed on to American Airlines website and we don't enter a "Frequent Flyer" code, shouldn't we get the same simultaneous price for the same flight and seat? If they charge more for the seat later that's akin to a line change or supply and demand argument. But simultaneously charging more for the same seat on the same website via profiling is what I am talking about. If you enter your CC and they see you have a history of paying anything and I only take cheap fares and they charge us based on profiling then that is a cheat, IMO! If I enter a frequent flyer code and am entitled to better rates based on my volume that is a different story entirely! Or even if I want 10 seats on the flight and you only want one ( volume discount ). Or if I buy from a re-seller on another site ( line shop ).

I'm sorry but offering lines based on profiling with the intent to cheat and rob some customers is vile!

JMHO
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 10-21-2002, 11:00 PM
The Actuary The Actuary is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 20,122
Default



<< If one is going to make his living this way, what socio-economic benefit does he provide to society in exchange? >>



Anyone that spends money creates commerce.
__________________
In 1998 the Department of Justice brought charges under the Wire Act against 22 American citizens involved in managing foreign-based sites. "You canít hide online," Janet Reno, the attorney-general, warned Internet betting operators, "and you canít hide offshore."
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 03:28 AM
PATTON PATTON is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,377
Default

Buckeye:

Yes, if books hide what they're doing vis-a-vis double lines, it is wrong. However, if a business is upfront that it is offering differing prices, and the driver of the Mercedes is aware his price for gas is higher because he drives a Mercedes. If he is desperate, he is free to stop and get only one gallon to get him to a gas station that offers a better deal, or take his chances. If a book gives me a line and tells me, this is *your* line, it could differ from Buckeye's, take it or leave it, well, I'll decide what to do based on the line they give me. There are other books out there. Right now, I'm on the under for the World Series Game tomorrow night. Geez, no one would offer me a number higher than 9. Can you believe it? Why can't they offer 10 or 11? 9 happens to be good enough for me, but if it wasn't, I'd bide my time for another opportunity.

As for discrimination, I think in general it is wrong. But if I own a business and don't want to do business with a certain class of people, why should the government tell me to do otherwise? I'd have to agree with you personally if you told me it was because it was the moral thing to do, but laws don't necessarily achieve that.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 03:59 AM
buckeye buckeye is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,612
Default

PATTON,
IF the book were forthright and said "Dear Mr Square, we are offering you an inflated line that is 1 pt higher than most others have at present, we do this because you have shown a propensity to only play favorites and have been willing to play these inflated lines before. So we are assuming you will either play the inflated favorite or pass. If we were you we'd play the dog in this case." Then I might say fine, deal away! But when you call them on why their "guest line" differs from the line you get signed on they LIE about it. Or why your buddy gets a different line than you do. If confronted they lie and may give you the better line to shut you up or hope to pacify you. The cheat and lie ONLY WORKS if they keep the victims in the dark. If they were up front about it I'd still say it is cheating but it would be less sleazy if the square just decides to play the fav anyway because he doesn't care a bout a point. But that just IS NOT THE CASE! No books that deal a square line will broadcast or notify those affected of it, NONE! They have to figure it out on their own!

The Mercedes question goes back to something Devil said. Get a friend and beard in ( have your VW drivin buddy buy the gas for you ). I just don't agree that profiling and charging more due to a "sucker" or "filthy rich" profile is a ethical way to conduct business. It's the hooker/carny way, but that isn't ethical,IMO.

As for discriminating against a certain class of customers. I'm not sure that it is any different than not doing business with Jews or Catholics or Indians or Cowboys. Isn't opening up a public business an invite to the public? I keep saying if they are buying on credit then the risk of fraud or non-payment lets you discern their financial viability, but if they pass muster there then shouldn't you have to sell to them or let them shop or do business with them in your public arena? I am really not 100% sure myself, but I believe most think you shouldn't discriminate by color, sex, race, etc. and I'm just saying that I'd add "brains" to that as in a smart shopping coupon clipping woman or a card counter or sharp.

JMHO
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 02:26 PM
PATTON PATTON is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,377
Default

Buckeye:

Good points I need to consider. I will get back you.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 03:30 PM
Rookies Rookies is offline
Two Star General
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,943
Default

TA:

I just did ! Fairly good discussion. Maybe I missed it Buckeye, but you DIDN'T have an opinion on middlers/ scalpers, correct ? Some, in this and other Fora devote 100% of their time to that type of gambling.

How can a book make a decision on those persons when their Winning % may range from 0 -100 % on a given day ? And should they be booted ?
__________________
" A life is not important, except in the impact it has on other lives. " JRR
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 07:42 PM
buckeye buckeye is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,612
Default

Rookies,
My opinion is that only scammers and bonus whores and "bad line shot takers" and those trying to rip off or de-fraud the book should be booted ( for sure ). I also have said that I can see their disgust with steam chasers as their beating the book to the line change does nothing but create a liability for the book. I still think there are other ways that many books deal with that other than booting, but I could buy a good argument either way. So if the middler or scalper were really a steam player then I'm a bit ambivalent.

If they middle or scalp like I do, where it is off of a book's opinion ( primarily ) and they are offering a line devoid of steam worries, then I OBVIOUSLY SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. Two outs with differing opinon or differing buyback needs or differing clientele base that drives their lines, are not being abused by having someone middle or scalp those lines. Even those who take leads to create buyback middles aren't doing anything but playing the legitimate lines presented.

GL
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2002, 12:14 PM
sal sal is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 114
Default

i think that booting for winning isnt wrong....... it sucks for the player, but they can play somewhere else.....they are trying to run a profitable business...... et on the other hand if they are making ridiculous amounts of cash, one or 2 winniers wouldnt hurt.......for me , on the street side of things, if profits are down and the business in jeopardy, who must do what needs to be done to survive. pay up and ask them to leave
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:40 AM.

Please be advised that if you are wagering over the internet, this is illegal in many jurisdictions. A wagering site may be operating legally at their location but it may still be illegal for you to wager from your location. We suggest you check on the legal situation from any jurisdiction in which you may wager.
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6