My Knowledge Of A Bookie To Be Successful.
- Thread starter rainbow
- Start date
KingofTheHill
EOG Enthusiast
Thanks, General.
Semper Fi.
Semper Fi.
KingofTheHill
EOG Enthusiast
rainbow said:
Wow, way more than I thought at first glance, but after I thought about it, it is really only about 200bb.
I have seen people start with less. As they earn, they increase what they hold on a game. I have aslo seen people start with more, and go broke.
Ironlock
2
Welcome to EOG King ofthe Hill!
Your question is completely dependant on a million things, but in general.....
I would say something like 10 times Sunday's total volume's risk would be sufficient. So if you could potentially lose 30 dimes on Sunday, you'd need about 300,000 to guarantee survival.
Just guessing....If you were a lucky man, or a gambling man, just have enough to pay each wager if they all won (70% of day 1 action) and see if the first day is your lucky day...lol.
Your question is completely dependant on a million things, but in general.....
I would say something like 10 times Sunday's total volume's risk would be sufficient. So if you could potentially lose 30 dimes on Sunday, you'd need about 300,000 to guarantee survival.
Just guessing....If you were a lucky man, or a gambling man, just have enough to pay each wager if they all won (70% of day 1 action) and see if the first day is your lucky day...lol.
Time out for Gambling 101 Definitions...
COLD MONEY= money left in your jeans when it is snowing outside and you wake up hungover not realizing you had it or where it is...
HOT MONEY=money you always have a keen awareness of because it is always sunny, warm and en fuego for these people..
:+signs99-
COLD MONEY= money left in your jeans when it is snowing outside and you wake up hungover not realizing you had it or where it is...
HOT MONEY=money you always have a keen awareness of because it is always sunny, warm and en fuego for these people..
:+signs99-
LOL my computer crashed I was taking it so hard in this thread.
Iron I went back and reread what I wrote, and what you wrote.
We are basically saying the same things, But you are exaggerating yours, while I am trying to keep it as theoretically possible as I can.
Even IF a book has a 54.54% PROBABLE advantage/probability to "win" (the 50/50 and the 4.54 for the hold) Why RISK it at all by keeping so lopsided? You used 80000 and 10000 and 10000 and 80000. IF they BALANVED that actions BEFORE, there would be NO NEED to "win" one or the other. All letting those two best stay that lopsided does is give the book the POSSIBILITY to "win" both. To me that is gambling. If they make sure they cannot "lose" BEFORE the games go off that is BOOKMAKING.
We both agree that the end result is going to be the same if they "win" one and "lose" one. If the do it "right" to begin with it takes that risk out of it.
What if a book does this habitually, and that math doesn't come back to a 50% return as probability would state? What if they have 5-6 weeks of this and people finally have enough money in their accounts to actually make a withdrawal worth while?
So say 3000 customers ask for 1000 apiece,that is 3 million dollars they need to come up with. NOW theoretically they should have that money. But they obviously do not since they were toatally unbalanced in those games. So what if they do not have it even in escrow? Then what?
When there is ANY risk of an inability to pay ESPECIALLY post up bets, that is gambnling, no ifs ands or buts about it.
It may be circular logic, t may be a lot of things. but it is so much simpler to get the money balcned BEFORE than it does HOPING you hit both, but doing OK if you hit just one.
I know full well books do this, that is why I say books gamble. Most have gotten away with it. Many haven't. Sooner or later more are going to get caught or get a run on the ban kwiththeir pants down. I am sure a lot of the SLOW PAY issues are for the EXACT "bookmaking" practice that places employ, that you have described.
So does that make it right? Does it make it sfe? No and NO. Just because everyone does it, and because it is theoretically gong to "even out". The times that it doesn't is when there is a problem.
We can argue this all day, we are taking opposite sides of the same discussion. I am "the sky is falling" guy.You are the one that thinks eventually the suckers will lose enough to pay the winners off. You look at gambling as a gambler. Hoping that losers lose enough to pay the winners of. I look at gambling as hoping the books balance their action enough to make their cuts and stillhave enough money to stay in business and pay me when I want a withdrawal.
When there is ANY possibility of the books going broke it is gambling. No matter how much money people think they have. I am not sure how many books have 10 million dollars on hand to pay post up and credit guys, but I have to think it is a very small list. But any book with 500 or so decent sized players runs that possibilty everyday of having to pay that much out. That is only $2000 a piece per player.
I myself have booked more than my fair share of bets when I was in colege, and not small time bets either. But you can be damned sure I was always balanced and had my action laid off or bet at favorable odds. Even though my volume wasn't huge, I could make 1500-2500 a week with out gambling a bit, and in the late 80s early 90's that was pretty decent money for a 20 year old kid in college. Had I been in Vegas or had the interent I might have added 50% to that amount by betting reduced vigs.
So ultimately it may be greed that ruins bookmakers which gets back to the original post. But if they were running a legitimate book making action balancing system then greed doesn't factor in.
Iron I went back and reread what I wrote, and what you wrote.
We are basically saying the same things, But you are exaggerating yours, while I am trying to keep it as theoretically possible as I can.
Even IF a book has a 54.54% PROBABLE advantage/probability to "win" (the 50/50 and the 4.54 for the hold) Why RISK it at all by keeping so lopsided? You used 80000 and 10000 and 10000 and 80000. IF they BALANVED that actions BEFORE, there would be NO NEED to "win" one or the other. All letting those two best stay that lopsided does is give the book the POSSIBILITY to "win" both. To me that is gambling. If they make sure they cannot "lose" BEFORE the games go off that is BOOKMAKING.
We both agree that the end result is going to be the same if they "win" one and "lose" one. If the do it "right" to begin with it takes that risk out of it.
What if a book does this habitually, and that math doesn't come back to a 50% return as probability would state? What if they have 5-6 weeks of this and people finally have enough money in their accounts to actually make a withdrawal worth while?
So say 3000 customers ask for 1000 apiece,that is 3 million dollars they need to come up with. NOW theoretically they should have that money. But they obviously do not since they were toatally unbalanced in those games. So what if they do not have it even in escrow? Then what?
When there is ANY risk of an inability to pay ESPECIALLY post up bets, that is gambnling, no ifs ands or buts about it.
It may be circular logic, t may be a lot of things. but it is so much simpler to get the money balcned BEFORE than it does HOPING you hit both, but doing OK if you hit just one.
I know full well books do this, that is why I say books gamble. Most have gotten away with it. Many haven't. Sooner or later more are going to get caught or get a run on the ban kwiththeir pants down. I am sure a lot of the SLOW PAY issues are for the EXACT "bookmaking" practice that places employ, that you have described.
So does that make it right? Does it make it sfe? No and NO. Just because everyone does it, and because it is theoretically gong to "even out". The times that it doesn't is when there is a problem.
We can argue this all day, we are taking opposite sides of the same discussion. I am "the sky is falling" guy.You are the one that thinks eventually the suckers will lose enough to pay the winners off. You look at gambling as a gambler. Hoping that losers lose enough to pay the winners of. I look at gambling as hoping the books balance their action enough to make their cuts and stillhave enough money to stay in business and pay me when I want a withdrawal.
When there is ANY possibility of the books going broke it is gambling. No matter how much money people think they have. I am not sure how many books have 10 million dollars on hand to pay post up and credit guys, but I have to think it is a very small list. But any book with 500 or so decent sized players runs that possibilty everyday of having to pay that much out. That is only $2000 a piece per player.
I myself have booked more than my fair share of bets when I was in colege, and not small time bets either. But you can be damned sure I was always balanced and had my action laid off or bet at favorable odds. Even though my volume wasn't huge, I could make 1500-2500 a week with out gambling a bit, and in the late 80s early 90's that was pretty decent money for a 20 year old kid in college. Had I been in Vegas or had the interent I might have added 50% to that amount by betting reduced vigs.
So ultimately it may be greed that ruins bookmakers which gets back to the original post. But if they were running a legitimate book making action balancing system then greed doesn't factor in.
KingofTheHill
EOG Enthusiast
Basically rainbow, you are hinging you not moving the line, on the fact that the first line given, makes the bet 50/50, and as long as its a bunch of squares taking -110, write as much and as fast as possible. But how are you garuanteed the line given makes the game 50/50?
KingofTheHill
EOG Enthusiast
I think rainbow has said several times, that books have to have a large enough bankroll to sustain itself. He shows the most profit, long term, as long as you avhe hte bank, you show the way to build a bank w/o risk.
Rainbow I did answer that question but my computer crashed. Shrink mentioned books going broke, so I was commenting to him. I had 3 guys coming at me at once so it was hard to keep up even when I can type 60 wpm.:wow1
Books should never go brokwe, nor should they ever have to slow pay, as long as they balance action before hand that is.
As far as cold money and dry money. Again we agree to disgree on those points. You have your theories I have mine. Somewhere in themiddle is probably the true answer.
The bottomline is that a spread is only right or wrong after a game is over.
Books could post -3 for 75% of the NFL games and have better balance than they do now. While we have our opinions beofre or after how good or bad that number is, the final score is what determines it.
I am sure everyone thought Balt was a good number yesterday, even after it moved a couple times. In the long run the good lines and bad lines are going to run together.
Books should never go brokwe, nor should they ever have to slow pay, as long as they balance action before hand that is.
As far as cold money and dry money. Again we agree to disgree on those points. You have your theories I have mine. Somewhere in themiddle is probably the true answer.
The bottomline is that a spread is only right or wrong after a game is over.
Books could post -3 for 75% of the NFL games and have better balance than they do now. While we have our opinions beofre or after how good or bad that number is, the final score is what determines it.
I am sure everyone thought Balt was a good number yesterday, even after it moved a couple times. In the long run the good lines and bad lines are going to run together.
Ironlock
2
Obviously you don't get it.
Last word:
More bookmakers have WENT BROKE doing what you advise (balancing action) than have gone broke keeping it all.
What happens is they end up owing the guy they laid off too, and they're credit players stiff them for a portion of the debt owed to him. FACT...JACK!
Your bookmaking arguments, virtually all of them, in regards to this, steam, pinnacle's leans, etc....are better suited to fantasy land.
If you stick to what you know, NO RISK SCALPING and grinding it out, your "voice of reason" tag will be much more meaningful. Your tune has changed so many times in this thread it should be "voice of seasons"...
Good luck to you my friend.
IRON>
Last word:
More bookmakers have WENT BROKE doing what you advise (balancing action) than have gone broke keeping it all.
What happens is they end up owing the guy they laid off too, and they're credit players stiff them for a portion of the debt owed to him. FACT...JACK!
Your bookmaking arguments, virtually all of them, in regards to this, steam, pinnacle's leans, etc....are better suited to fantasy land.
If you stick to what you know, NO RISK SCALPING and grinding it out, your "voice of reason" tag will be much more meaningful. Your tune has changed so many times in this thread it should be "voice of seasons"...
Good luck to you my friend.
IRON>
And BTW Ironlock...books with reduced vigs make the practice you have described exponetially more dangerous.
VERY few books are -110 (4.5%)these days.
At -107 they are 3.3%
At -105 they are 2.4%
At -104 they are 1.9% (Pinnies curent hold)
SO they have basically given up a 2.5% (58% of the total they had originally) "advantage" according to your model. I don't know about you, but that is a scarey though if they are indeed gambling.
IMHO thevery best have just about a 4% adavantage in going better than 50/50 on average and that is only because they understand where to get the advetageous holds, and not necessarilly that much of a better ability to pick winners, just better SPOTS.
VERY few books are -110 (4.5%)these days.
At -107 they are 3.3%
At -105 they are 2.4%
At -104 they are 1.9% (Pinnies curent hold)
SO they have basically given up a 2.5% (58% of the total they had originally) "advantage" according to your model. I don't know about you, but that is a scarey though if they are indeed gambling.
IMHO thevery best have just about a 4% adavantage in going better than 50/50 on average and that is only because they understand where to get the advetageous holds, and not necessarilly that much of a better ability to pick winners, just better SPOTS.
Ironlock, you don't get it. That is why I said if books actually adhered to book making they wouldn't be offering reduced vigs,they couldnt afford to. Nor would they be offering credit to players who they couldn't make pay. You think Vegas gives credit to guys that they don't have collateral or paperwork on? Something they can take into a court and use as a default? Not hardly. I mentioned Vegas in here somewhere.
Your arguments make my points for me. I said it more than once. Books cannot afford to have these reduced holds without gambling. I just said it in my previous post.
They can't make enough money with balanced action, with a 4.54% hold, they surely won't make it with a <2% hold, even with a huge volume. Tey make it by doing what you say, staying lopsided praying they win more than they lose, and hope they do not have a run on their bank.
If you call that bookmaking then God Bless You, I surely wouldn't define it as that.
Your arguments make my points for me. I said it more than once. Books cannot afford to have these reduced holds without gambling. I just said it in my previous post.
They can't make enough money with balanced action, with a 4.54% hold, they surely won't make it with a <2% hold, even with a huge volume. Tey make it by doing what you say, staying lopsided praying they win more than they lose, and hope they do not have a run on their bank.
If you call that bookmaking then God Bless You, I surely wouldn't define it as that.
Not many BMs concern themselves with writing balanced action. Pretty much a thing of the past. However you do need to know exactly how much you are willing to hold on any one descion. Than when you hit the #, move the line.
Moi, I agree there is only so low the vig can go and the book remain profitable. Unless you are only booking faces. And that would still be difficult at no juice.
Valid point.
Pancho Sanza
EOG Addicted
Want your posts give me a headache.:doh1
Pancho Sanza said:
LOL as soon as I saw your name I figured you would have something to say about me. That was a little nicer than I thought.
I am sure if we were discussing this rather than debating in written form, it would make a lot more sense and points could be made a little easier.
We all know what is up. I am just more of a realist than guys that think books can continue to have losers line up constantly over and over again to keep them in business.
I do not disagre with anything anyone said in this thread for the most part. I just do not think it is the "correct" way of doing it.
The General
Another Day, Another Dollar
I knew there was a reason I had this Ironlock kid around other than the fact when I met him in vegas I could tell he was a stud and Maybe someday he could get me hooked up with a hot & clean cook.
:smoke
:smoke
Losebet
EOG Enthusiast
If Lockhorns is right, why all the movement in games.:+clueless everyone wants to be a book because its so easy to make money, just put in the right price, get a load of squares, sit back and keep banking:+signs11- why does a question on bookmaking bring out so many guessers:doh1 closet layers.:+textinbu
the smilies are up the swannee again
the smilies are up the swannee again
First off I'm not a bookmaker or linesman but here are my opinions.
Wantitall is bookmaking like a square book as SIA would book. They have small limits and will move off of cold money. The others are talking about sharp books that will not move off of cold money.
I've always felt, which is the opposite of most, that televised games such as the Super Bowl offer great value. The higher the percentage and volume of square money being bet compared to a normal event has a direct affect on line movement off of cold money.
Shrink- 50% with a red is nice unless you have a bunch of McIrish's.
Wantitall is bookmaking like a square book as SIA would book. They have small limits and will move off of cold money. The others are talking about sharp books that will not move off of cold money.
I've always felt, which is the opposite of most, that televised games such as the Super Bowl offer great value. The higher the percentage and volume of square money being bet compared to a normal event has a direct affect on line movement off of cold money.
Shrink- 50% with a red is nice unless you have a bunch of McIrish's.
I just have one question, that I have asked about half a dozen times in here...
How many books could pay out every outstanding debt they have? Outstanding debt being every balance to the penny that is on their books, and every credit player that has a balance also. How many could pay that and not only have enough money, but continue to pay advertisers and employees?
Like everyone is say the amount of money they have is important. Post up books shouldn't need any money if they were bookmakig properly. Call it "square" book making or whatever you want. But books that keep unbalanced holds on games are relying on players to lose more than they win. If players start winning more than they lose there is a problem.
Everytimethere is a close up, or a slow pay, or a "problem" with a book, you guys are THE FIRST to cry foul and claim they are shady and have a problem. But in this thread you are basically condoning what they do. If they had a little more moeney they would be an A+ book in most guys eyes. They could be losing their asses every week, but because they have "deep pockets" it makes them safe.
THAT is the major porblem. Because this is common practice these days it is acceptable. With "smarter" players, and easier ways to move money around, it makes those "bookmaking" practices extremely volatile.
MY whole point is that if the books balanced before the games it would be a lot smarter, and truer bookmaking. That actually takes some math skills to do, so I understand why some places don't do it. But as the list of shady books and close ups continue, just remember that most of the guys here see nothing wrong with what these places are doing, they simply needed more money to do it "properly". These places keep "booking and booking" all the time getting deeper and deeper in the hole. Sooner or later they go beyond their available resources. So basically yhey are now "booking" with money they do not have. They ares till taking postups and using that money to pay winners. They still take unbalanced action (because according to all you THAT is actually bookmaking), and they are hoping and praying they don't have a run on their bank. They are barely staying afloat, so everyone says they are solid and nothing to worry about. But sooner or later the bottom falls out. How many times have we heard this story?
But ANYONE answer me how many books right now could pay every balance they have in their accounts and still afford to book bets the way they do(this incorrect unbalanced way) every week and still pay their expences (employees, advertising, taxes, etc)? And I don't want guesses, or wishful thinking.
I also don't want to go into forums and see anyone that has said that these places are "sharp" bookmakers when they go tits up from lack of funds. When you accept these practices then you definately have to face the consequences when they lose too many games and can't pay anyone off.
How many books could pay out every outstanding debt they have? Outstanding debt being every balance to the penny that is on their books, and every credit player that has a balance also. How many could pay that and not only have enough money, but continue to pay advertisers and employees?
Like everyone is say the amount of money they have is important. Post up books shouldn't need any money if they were bookmakig properly. Call it "square" book making or whatever you want. But books that keep unbalanced holds on games are relying on players to lose more than they win. If players start winning more than they lose there is a problem.
Everytimethere is a close up, or a slow pay, or a "problem" with a book, you guys are THE FIRST to cry foul and claim they are shady and have a problem. But in this thread you are basically condoning what they do. If they had a little more moeney they would be an A+ book in most guys eyes. They could be losing their asses every week, but because they have "deep pockets" it makes them safe.
THAT is the major porblem. Because this is common practice these days it is acceptable. With "smarter" players, and easier ways to move money around, it makes those "bookmaking" practices extremely volatile.
MY whole point is that if the books balanced before the games it would be a lot smarter, and truer bookmaking. That actually takes some math skills to do, so I understand why some places don't do it. But as the list of shady books and close ups continue, just remember that most of the guys here see nothing wrong with what these places are doing, they simply needed more money to do it "properly". These places keep "booking and booking" all the time getting deeper and deeper in the hole. Sooner or later they go beyond their available resources. So basically yhey are now "booking" with money they do not have. They ares till taking postups and using that money to pay winners. They still take unbalanced action (because according to all you THAT is actually bookmaking), and they are hoping and praying they don't have a run on their bank. They are barely staying afloat, so everyone says they are solid and nothing to worry about. But sooner or later the bottom falls out. How many times have we heard this story?
But ANYONE answer me how many books right now could pay every balance they have in their accounts and still afford to book bets the way they do(this incorrect unbalanced way) every week and still pay their expences (employees, advertising, taxes, etc)? And I don't want guesses, or wishful thinking.
I also don't want to go into forums and see anyone that has said that these places are "sharp" bookmakers when they go tits up from lack of funds. When you accept these practices then you definately have to face the consequences when they lose too many games and can't pay anyone off.
Ironlock
2
Wantitallformoi-
I have a question for you? As a percentage, how much San Francisco action was there, WORLD WIDE, versus STL action?
Also, Please inform the bookmakers of the world how to call off all their unbalanced teaser and parlay action?
YOU LIVE IN A DREAMLAND! FANTASY LAND! LA LA LAND!
If you think that these games are "balanced enough", to balance them all, pay for all the expenses offshore, phones, broadband, clerks, ads, licenses, etc....and then you think they can remain profitable "calling off at least 50% of their volume"....you are NUTS!
You ask a question that cannot be answered by anyone, continually. Yet, you refuse to ask the many questins I've posed to you in this thead that demolish, your shortsided, mathematically incorrect, no-risk approach.
Like I said, if a bookmaker was stupid enough to book your way, they would be broke in a few weeks, for a number of reasons.
IRON>
I have a question for you? As a percentage, how much San Francisco action was there, WORLD WIDE, versus STL action?
Also, Please inform the bookmakers of the world how to call off all their unbalanced teaser and parlay action?
YOU LIVE IN A DREAMLAND! FANTASY LAND! LA LA LAND!
If you think that these games are "balanced enough", to balance them all, pay for all the expenses offshore, phones, broadband, clerks, ads, licenses, etc....and then you think they can remain profitable "calling off at least 50% of their volume"....you are NUTS!
You ask a question that cannot be answered by anyone, continually. Yet, you refuse to ask the many questins I've posed to you in this thead that demolish, your shortsided, mathematically incorrect, no-risk approach.
Like I said, if a bookmaker was stupid enough to book your way, they would be broke in a few weeks, for a number of reasons.
IRON>
The General
Another Day, Another Dollar
The General said:
Anyone?
rainbow
EOG Master
JC said:
Well I'm going to have to dissagree with you 100%, it all depends who is sitting behind the COMPUTER, take my word it defintely can be done, the KEY is to know your CUSTOMERS, if you dont know them , you have no chance to win doing it, so many people in this INDUSTRY cannot SEPARATE REAL MONEY FROM COLD MONEY, if you can do that, you want have no problem doing it. this might really get interesting.
Ok Rainbow,
I'll bite...
Please define COLD MONEY as I thought it was meant to be perceived as SQUARE MONEY...
THE SHRINK
I'll bite...
Please define COLD MONEY as I thought it was meant to be perceived as SQUARE MONEY...
THE SHRINK
When I used too work in Ny we would just put are heads down and write. We had the few sharps we were friendly with betting into us but the rest were squares. You didn't have too worry, you knew who too shade the line on, you knew the guys who were shopping, it was easy. I refer too it as the mom and pop shop days. And we were by no means small for a local. These days when you open up post up your going too get every sharp and there mothers posting if your solid, so you have too be on the ball 24/7. With the internet guys can sneak in user the radar, in the old days they couldn't cause you were talking directly too them all the time. Plus we would get rid of any nasty sharps, and believe me there are plenty of guys who think they shouldn't be put on hold LOL. I wish we could go back too the old days.:+thumbs-2
DRUNK,
I wish we could go back to those days for a different reason...
Back in the mid nineties, there were LOTS of sports books not hooked up to the DON BEST feed or for that matter, they weren't even aware of the INTERNET...
I was NEVER put on HOLD back then too often, but when they did, I'd hang up!
OH, those were the days of EASY :+money-8+
P.S.
If that's what COLD money means, then that SHEDS a WHOLE NEW MEANING and LIGHT to some of his...
Bot being a bookie, I had to GUESS...
I need to :+clueless some more now...
THE SHRINK
I wish we could go back to those days for a different reason...
Back in the mid nineties, there were LOTS of sports books not hooked up to the DON BEST feed or for that matter, they weren't even aware of the INTERNET...
I was NEVER put on HOLD back then too often, but when they did, I'd hang up!
OH, those were the days of EASY :+money-8+
P.S.
If that's what COLD money means, then that SHEDS a WHOLE NEW MEANING and LIGHT to some of his...
Bot being a bookie, I had to GUESS...
I need to :+clueless some more now...
THE SHRINK
Well getting back to the original post, and from what I have read. According to 90% of the people that have responded in this thread the ONLY thing a person needs to be a successful bookie is lots, and lots, and lots of money. Then secondarilly he needs enough loseers betting into him to keep him afloat.
But as long as he has enough money to make it appear he is succesful then everything is OK.
Also from some of the stuff I have read in this thread. It makes me wonder just how LOPSIDED a place has to be to move the line.
On any given Saturday there are 100-150 options to bet in NCAA football alone. What if a book is lopsided in 80 of them and they "lose" 60 of those 80. It doesn't take a jump to think that at that moment, they are totally and completely BURIED, in terms of REAL capital. Meaning that if people started asking for money they probably wouldn't have anywhere near enough.
So as I say, all anyone needs I guess is a lot of money, and they would be considered successful. As long as enough people lose at their shop they would be considered geniuses I guess.
I am done commenting, as it is clear I am in the minority. But I also want to be the only one that is commenting when some books starts slow paying people after a bad weekend.
But as long as he has enough money to make it appear he is succesful then everything is OK.
Also from some of the stuff I have read in this thread. It makes me wonder just how LOPSIDED a place has to be to move the line.
On any given Saturday there are 100-150 options to bet in NCAA football alone. What if a book is lopsided in 80 of them and they "lose" 60 of those 80. It doesn't take a jump to think that at that moment, they are totally and completely BURIED, in terms of REAL capital. Meaning that if people started asking for money they probably wouldn't have anywhere near enough.
So as I say, all anyone needs I guess is a lot of money, and they would be considered successful. As long as enough people lose at their shop they would be considered geniuses I guess.
I am done commenting, as it is clear I am in the minority. But I also want to be the only one that is commenting when some books starts slow paying people after a bad weekend.
JC
EOG Veteran
Ironlock has got it right.
Any book that can't pay out all of its players and still have a few bucks left is insolvent, whether it is after one bad weekend several bad weekends, or even worse after a good weekend.
You want to many how many places are solvent and can pay out all of their customer deposits (and credit customers) without a hiccup. I am guessing only 15% could. You say you don't want guesses but what else can I offer without seeing everyone's books, but that's my educated guess and I think I am being generous.
Too many of these dumps start out with zero to little capital and plan from the get go on funding operations out of post up money. They are nothing more than glorified pyramid/ponzi schemes.
I am not sure what you are talking about re: "cold money." I thought you were referring to squares, Ken told me you are talking about credit bettors that won't pay. Booking stiffs is a whole different model.
As far as booking squares, it's not that you don't move off of square money, you do. You need to set ahead of time what your limits are and when you are going to move. That being said there are sharps that will make you move sooner. There are a handful of originators and there many followers that need to be respected.
Books never balance all the games, that's a myth. What makes it work is volume, not just the volume of the action, but the volume of the number of different contests.
When I was trading options on the exchange floor as a market maker, I was nothing more than a bookie on future stock prices. I bought and sold calls and puts which are bets on stocks. I used a well known theoretical model to price the options. Did the model give me the right value for every trade? No, but over time and with a huge amount of volume the theoretical edge worked out.
And I'll say it again, you can not make money booking no juice. You would not be booking, you would be gambling.
Any book that can't pay out all of its players and still have a few bucks left is insolvent, whether it is after one bad weekend several bad weekends, or even worse after a good weekend.
You want to many how many places are solvent and can pay out all of their customer deposits (and credit customers) without a hiccup. I am guessing only 15% could. You say you don't want guesses but what else can I offer without seeing everyone's books, but that's my educated guess and I think I am being generous.
Too many of these dumps start out with zero to little capital and plan from the get go on funding operations out of post up money. They are nothing more than glorified pyramid/ponzi schemes.
I am not sure what you are talking about re: "cold money." I thought you were referring to squares, Ken told me you are talking about credit bettors that won't pay. Booking stiffs is a whole different model.
As far as booking squares, it's not that you don't move off of square money, you do. You need to set ahead of time what your limits are and when you are going to move. That being said there are sharps that will make you move sooner. There are a handful of originators and there many followers that need to be respected.
Books never balance all the games, that's a myth. What makes it work is volume, not just the volume of the action, but the volume of the number of different contests.
When I was trading options on the exchange floor as a market maker, I was nothing more than a bookie on future stock prices. I bought and sold calls and puts which are bets on stocks. I used a well known theoretical model to price the options. Did the model give me the right value for every trade? No, but over time and with a huge amount of volume the theoretical edge worked out.
And I'll say it again, you can not make money booking no juice. You would not be booking, you would be gambling.
one of the best threads I have EVER read
made me get a headache it was so informative
wish REALITY and doggystyle were in it that would have been great
made me get a headache it was so informative
wish REALITY and doggystyle were in it that would have been great
JC-
I think that every shop that has existed and employed the type of "booking" style described in this thread are glorified ponzi schemes. While they might not be relying on the "investments"(post ups) now, the ones that have FAR too big lopsided holds are still on the level of a pnzi, since they are relying on losing bets to fund their books.
I also think 15% is high. If there are 1000 books (the general estimate) I would think the more realistic number is 7-8% Maybe even less than that considering some of the ones that CAN do it are under the same umbrella. So shouldn't be counted as 8 or 10 seperate books, but as a single book.
I know I wasn't going to coment anymore but I lied I guess.
But overall most of the stuff in this thread is more or less correct. Some of it definately isn't "right", and definately shows the reasons why even the most stable places have to be watched. Because they are not 100% solvent a run on the bank can hurt themgreatly.
I only know one book that has ever sustained a major run on their bank. That was about 3 years ago, but they also didn't have a single slow pay or no pay incident. I personaly took a low end 5 figures out of them. I also know a few guys that took similar amounts. But they survived it and came back pretty strong.
I am not 100% sure they could do it now. But I know I have never had a problem with them. I KNOW for a fact they are not truly book making as I describe, as said it is nearly impossible. But they surely have a model that will help them balance their action a lot better than most. And they will certainly give odds to entice action another way to get money that way as well, despite the "consensus" opinions.
I think that every shop that has existed and employed the type of "booking" style described in this thread are glorified ponzi schemes. While they might not be relying on the "investments"(post ups) now, the ones that have FAR too big lopsided holds are still on the level of a pnzi, since they are relying on losing bets to fund their books.
I also think 15% is high. If there are 1000 books (the general estimate) I would think the more realistic number is 7-8% Maybe even less than that considering some of the ones that CAN do it are under the same umbrella. So shouldn't be counted as 8 or 10 seperate books, but as a single book.
I know I wasn't going to coment anymore but I lied I guess.
But overall most of the stuff in this thread is more or less correct. Some of it definately isn't "right", and definately shows the reasons why even the most stable places have to be watched. Because they are not 100% solvent a run on the bank can hurt themgreatly.
I only know one book that has ever sustained a major run on their bank. That was about 3 years ago, but they also didn't have a single slow pay or no pay incident. I personaly took a low end 5 figures out of them. I also know a few guys that took similar amounts. But they survived it and came back pretty strong.
I am not 100% sure they could do it now. But I know I have never had a problem with them. I KNOW for a fact they are not truly book making as I describe, as said it is nearly impossible. But they surely have a model that will help them balance their action a lot better than most. And they will certainly give odds to entice action another way to get money that way as well, despite the "consensus" opinions.