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
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 11:48 AM
alysheba88 alysheba88 is offline
Three Star General
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 13,822
Default How do Books identify "Sharp Players"

Have always wondered this.

I know there must be a variety of factors. Assume that size of the bet, timing of the bet, always seeming to get the best lines, focusing on dog value, winning more than losing, etc are some basic things. But what else?

When does the book conclude a player is "sharp"? After how long?

Also this whole "booting winners" discussion always confuses me too. I dont think thats the right phrase is it? I mean books dont boot everyone who wins at their book. They may boot sharp/pro players or reduce their action. Or is that what is meant by "winners"?

Thanks in advance!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 02:44 PM
neilm neilm is offline
Two Star General
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,663
Default

Aly,

I think you did a great job answering most of your questions!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 03:05 PM
buckeye buckeye is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,612
Default

aly,
I don't think winning is necessarily one of the key benchmarks to a book tabbing you for the "sharp/vanilla/consensus" line. It is more your propensity to play dogs and mostly dogs that are off the sharp line by the most. Bet size and steam considerations are also very important. I'm just speaking from my experiences with being switched from the square line to the sharp one and I'm sure many places have their own criteria. This is obviously in regard to profiling you as sharp to stop or not deal you the square line. As for other reasons to peg your acct as sharp, I'd have no idea other than for booting or limit reduction status.

As for your other question some books reportedly have a "limit" for which if your lifetime winnings reach it you are 86-ed. Others reportedly have limits for a week or month or some duration. We are saying some books boot winners, it is just what degree of "winning" constitutes that threshold. Obviously being up a little isn't enough as it may be luck and they don't want to boot you before you go on your bad run and lose it all to them. It seems like the best books don't try to discriminate about who is winning and losing as long as they profit off the action, but the poorly run or greedy books want to play the role of "wiseguy" all by themselves and be the only competition for their square players - not feed the sharps off their squares backs - they want to be the only FEEDERS! Some say that is their right, I don't like to have the deck stacked against all players.

Some players get booted for losing. But its because their patterns are dangerous or unwelcome to the book. They play steam or only props or some other "egregious" betting pattern or style that makes them persona non grata. The book reasons they may be down now but they are betting sharp and pose a threat long term. I obviously think the whole thing BLOWS. I think limits and BOOKMAKING should be their ally and defense, not laziness like booting. Many, particularly bookies, disagree with my takes.

GL
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 03:28 PM
KingOfTheSquares KingOfTheSquares is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,480
Default

include "square" in your name or password...that throws 'em off
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 03:33 PM
Rookies Rookies is offline
Two Star General
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,943
Default

Buckeye:

Just asked a similar question in the other thread regarding the status of middlers vis a vis " sharps ". Your response in either would be appreciated...
__________________
" A life is not important, except in the impact it has on other lives. " JRR
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 04:24 PM
Comp Fan Comp Fan is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,144
Default

Great discussion - Aly, you asked and answered the question at the same time I believe. BE - as always, you are right on.

Although I do not really fault books for lowering limits and/or barring players, I believe that if they were properly managed - ie: had bookmakers/management that really knew what they were doing, there would very seldom be need to take measures against the players....only in extreme circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 04:34 PM
alysheba88 alysheba88 is offline
Three Star General
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 13,822
Default

Thanks guys. As far as answering my own question I was just throwing out some quick common sense things. Appreciate all the responses
Buckeye's response was kind of what I was looking for. That was great..

Good to see you back Comp Fan
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 04:35 PM
alysheba88 alysheba88 is offline
Three Star General
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 13,822
Default

KOAS,

Thats very funny. I guess the reverse is true. If my password is "sharp" or "mover" they will know I am a square...
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 05:14 PM
Machiavelli Machiavelli is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,188
Default

In my experience, I have never gotten any hassles until or unless I start winning with a book.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 07:17 PM
The Philosopher The Philosopher is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 774
Default

This thread seems to include discussion both of “When a book uses two or more lines, how do they decide whom to switch to the ‘sharp’ line?” and “How does a book decide which players are sharp enough to warrant booting them, cutting their limits, or taking other countermeasures against them?” I’ll address the latter question.

Admittedly based not on personal experience in the industry but just reading the forums and talking to a few more experienced people, I believe by far the single biggest factor in getting people kicked out of books (“name” books anyway) is bearding in for a successful betting syndicate. “As soon as he bets, the screen turns black” as they say, meaning that the bookie monitoring the Don Best screen of live lines infers from the way lines are shaded to indicate recent movement that at the very same time this player was making his bet, a massive amount of bets on the same side of the same game were being bet at other shops, which tells him that in all likelihood, Billy Walters or some such syndicate head has sent out the word to his people to all get bets down for him on this game at whatever books they can get the desired number, and that therefore this player is likely such a beard, especially if the pattern is recurring.

My guess is when someone comes into the forums to bash a book because they booted him (or cut his limits or revoked a bonus, or confiscated his account, etc.) “for winning,” over half of the time it is more specifically for bearding in for Billy Walters or another syndicate player. But they don’t say that because of the public relations factor. Depending on your philosophy about such matters, kicking someone out for placing bets for a syndicate might be just as wrong as kicking them out for winning any other way, but such players know that opinions on this subject vary, so they don’t give you those details. “They kicked me out for winning” makes it sound like this could happen to anyone who is a skilled handicapper or even anyone who happens to have a sustained run of good luck, and thus will hit close to home for almost all readers and make them feel like they could be next. “They kicked me out when they found out Billy Walters was using me to circumvent his limits” isn’t likely to generate as much sympathy.

Related to this, players who aren’t literally placing bets for the syndicates but are instead monitoring the screen and trying to jump on precisely those plays at places that are “slow to move the line” can piss off some books as well. Some books don’t want to play the game of having to choose between making split second changes to keep up with Don Best versus getting massively one-sided action from the legions of “followers” or “steam” players. So they take countermeasures against bettors of that style.

I’m not saying by any means that being an employee or follower of organized betting syndicates is the only reason people get booted or otherwise hassled. I’m just saying I think it is the most common reason. No doubt there are chickenshit books who will boot people just for winning consistently. For that matter, even good books might feel they need to take countermeasures in extreme cases. For instance, Machiavelli has taken so much money from WSEX on their interactives that he has just recently surpassed Oprah in net worth. One assumes WSEX will have to eventually hire him or do something before he owns the company.

By the way, one of my more detailed essays in “Basic Training” is on precisely this issue of what behaviors run the risk of getting you booted from sportsbooks. You might want to check that out if you are interested in this subject.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 08:24 PM
Machiavelli Machiavelli is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,188
Default



<< Machiavelli has taken so much money from WSEX on their interactives that he has just recently surpassed Oprah in net worth. One assumes WSEX will have to eventually hire him or do something before he owns the company >>

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]
Like I mentioned in the other thread, I plan to go out the Rocky Marciano way, retiring as champion sometime before the end of the year.

Oprah. LOL
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 09:19 PM
alysheba88 alysheba88 is offline
Three Star General
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 13,822
Default

"My guess is when someone comes into the forums to bash a book because they booted him (or cut his limits or revoked a bonus, or confiscated his account, etc.) “for winning,” over half of the time it is more specifically for bearding in for Billy Walters or another syndicate player. But they don’t say that because of the public relations factor. Depending on your philosophy about such matters, kicking someone out for placing bets for a syndicate might be just as wrong as kicking them out for winning any other way, but such players know that opinions on this subject vary, so they don’t give you those details. “They kicked me out for winning” makes it sound like this could happen to anyone who is a skilled handicapper or even anyone who happens to have a sustained run of good luck, and thus will hit close to home for almost all readers and make them feel like they could be next. “They kicked me out when they found out Billy Walters was using me to circumvent his limits” isn’t likely to generate as much sympathy"

I have long suspected this myself. Thanks Philo and everyone!

Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 10-22-2002, 09:31 PM
tor-evans tor-evans is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,121
Default

Easy answer, "sharp" a player that is hurting the bottom line!

If you get put on hold, you know you are sharp!

If they reduce your limits, your sharp!

If they ask you to please play somewhere else, your sharp!

If they start slow paying you, your sharp!

If they ask you if you want a job, your sharp!

If they ask you if you would accept the shop in lieu of payment, your sharp!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 10-23-2002, 02:58 AM
XXGameXX XXGameXX is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,801
Default

Tor-evans

I would disagree with one point you made

If you are sharp they SLOW PAY YOU
This is false

Also
to add
Many books CUT YOUR LIMITS when you get on a HOT STREAK betting big $$$
This has nothing to do with being sharp
This shows some books are scared shit
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 10-27-2002, 09:57 AM
Shawn Shawn is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,782
Default

I think what number the player gets compared to what the line closes at is the number one indicator. I'm less fussed about whether he backs dogs or favourites and not fussed at all about bet size.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 10-28-2002, 02:19 PM
lakerfan lakerfan is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,477
Default

In my own limited experience, outside of moving money for a syndicate (which I don't know much about), books limit and/or boot those who win from them at very high percentages in a certain area of betting (whether it is a certain sport or a prop area).
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2002, 03:03 AM
jayhawk jayhawk is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,561
Default

I believe who you bet and the timing of your bet is the thing that books use to determine a sharp.
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 01:11 PM.

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