| |
Main
Date: 01 Feb 2009 15:10:09
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
NOTE: doggystyle is not welcome to post in this thread.
--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
---
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 11:53:10
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 1 2009 6:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
Man you are a dumb shit aren't you?
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
Boooooooong iiiiing!
John
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:29:39
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 12:53 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> On Feb 1 2009 6:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> Man you are a dumb shit aren't you?
>
Oh man, this is great.
Tell me John, why do you say that?
Please respond ASAP so I can ridicule you. Thanks.
--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 18:31:47
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
> Oh man, this is great.
>
> Tell me John, why do you say that?
>
> Please respond ASAP so I can ridicule you. Thanks.
You'd prolly just read the response backwards and reply like you always do
with a backwards ass answer.
lol
==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK
______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 07:14:52
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
The books did OK. The biggest action was on the line, and they probably
made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced towards
Pit. They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. Next biggest
action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. Teasers they
lost.
On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. Depends on how
much teaser action they had.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2009 21:35:59
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
Hey MORON, do you think I called the Los Angeles Times and gave them
the story that read Professional Cheaters Preying on Los Angeles
Casinos? The expose that named me as one of the Kingpins? The expose
that was the front page headlines for three straight days on December
5th, 6th. 7th 1982. Do you think I would kill the average 20K daily
win we made for years? It was split many ways, but I averaged at least
3k a day.
It was the Vegas boys MORON. I and 200 other cheats were put on a list
and barred from the LA casinos for a short period. The minute it went
to court, we were all unbarred since they had ZERO PROOF.
The problem was a simple one. Los Angeles areas were voting in new
casinos, such as Commerce, Bicycle,and others. The Vegas boy, with the
Bay area guys wanted Los Angeles. Quite a coincidence that the Bicycle
was almost all Vegas people in management. The Los Angeles cheats were
killed off by this move, while the Vegas guys moved right in.
And you're stupid enough to think I did this to myself? I was just
getting even with the Vegas guys in 2001, from the move they put on us
in 1982. They snitched us off. Until I found rec.gambling.poker, it
was basically impossible to let the world know.
YOU KNOW SHIT about what was done and who did it. Stick to your kiddie
pool.
On Feb 6, 9:21=EF=BF=BDpm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 4 2009 2:10 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > First, I'm no longer booking. I'm no longer betting. I don't even
> > watch sporting events unless I have a bet down. When I wasn't booking,
> > my normal bet would be a $1,000 on a TV game for entertainment.
>
> > I haven't been paying attention to sports at all for about 6 years
> > now. I'm not sentimental, I'm moneymental. For decades I was glued to
> > the TV watching scores to see how we were doing when booking. Now, I
> > don't care.
>
> > The only reason I even knew anything about this years Superbowl was a
> > friend wanted to bet it and asked me to get a bet down for him. When
> > the raid on Commerce nailed the Bookies with their safe boxes, The
> > California Gambling Commision or whatever it's called flew me down to
> > Sacramento in a pretense to clean the Poker games up. What they wanted
> > from me was information on the bookies. Obviously, I knew all the
> > bookies (most anyway) as I was one myself. I gave them ZERO info on
> > the bookies, since I didn't have anything against booking. I met with
> > former agent Elijah Zuniga when I was down in Sacramento. Last I
> > heard, he was working as a consultant for the Bicycle and Hustler.
>
> > All I stated in my post, was all the books I know lost this year and I
> > saw it as being very hard for books to turn a profit.
>
> SO YOU DIDNT RAT OUT THE BOOKIES BUT YOU HAVE PAINTED YOURSELF INTO A
> CORNER RATTING OUT THOSE WHO CHEATED ?
>
> SO THIS GESTURE OF HUMANITY MAKES YOU ONLY A "HALF RAT"?
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 10:50 am, phlash74 <phlas...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 3, 7:21 pm, "RussGeorg...@aol.com" <RussGeorg...@aol.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Again you're talking up your ass. I never said any of what you stat=
e,
> > > > especially last year. Here is what the person posted. All I stated =
is
> > > > from what I observed from this years betting is that it was not
> > > > possible for the books to have won.
>
> > > > Here is the article from the LA Times that was posted. Please show =
me
> > > > where I stated any of what you said I did? You are a F--ing MORON
>
> > > > From TJ Simers' column in Sunday's LA Times:
>
> > > > "I've been doing this for 17 years," said Jay Rood, recently promot=
ed
> > > > to sports book manager for the 12 MGM Mirage properties, "and last
> > > > year was the first year the books in Las Vegas lost on the Super
> > > > Bowl."
>
> > > > Two years ago, folks wagered a little more than a record $96 millio=
n
> > > > here. "This year we hope we hit $90 million," Rood said, for the
> > > > first
> > > > time in history maybe, a wager on the Super Bowl a safer gamble tha=
n
> > > > anyone sitting on their 401(k).
>
> > > > The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the city is expecting 280,000
> > > > visitors -- a 1% drop from last year's big weekend, which still
> > > > doesn't sound as if the casinos are in danger of going into
> > > > foreclosure.
>
> > > > "We took a $500,000 bet on the Cardinals last week," Rood said --
> > > > from
> > > > someone who presumably knows they don't have to worry about the Bus=
.
>
> > > > The economy is a wreck and someone is betting half a million bucks =
on
> > > > the worst sports franchise in history to win it all.
>
> > > > As a rule, the public likes to bet on favorites or the team that al=
l
> > > > the experts on TV are picking. But instead of going with Pittsburgh=
,
> > > > "all the money is coming in on Arizona."
>
> > > > "In the next few hours," Rood said, "I've got a big decision to mak=
e.
> > > > Right now Pittsburgh is favored by seven; do I drop it to 6 1/2 to
> > > > lure in more money from Pittsburgh? The way it goes now, if Arizona
> > > > wins or covers the seven-point spread, we lose big."
>
> > > > On Feb 3, 6:30 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > On Feb 3 2009 7:29 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > I can't read? This is what you wrote, so please explain it?
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> > > > > > The books did OK. The biggest action was on the line, and they
> > > > > > probably
> > > > > > made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanc=
ed
> > > > > > towards
> > > > > > Pit. They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. Next
> > > > > > biggest
> > > > > > action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. Tease=
rs
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > lost.
>
> > > > > > On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. Depend=
s on
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > much teaser action they had.
>
> > > > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > > > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> _____________________________________________________________________----=
--=EF=BF=BD
> -----------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > An above poster pasted an article from the LA Times where a maj=
or
> > > > > > sportsbook in Vegas stated this was the first time in the 17 ye=
ars he
> > > > > > had worked in Vegas Sportsbooks that they had lost on a Superbo=
wl. I
> > > > > > stated earlier on another post that I called numerous books and=
none
> > > > > > of them won. However, by your post, the sportsbooks did fine, m=
eaning
> > > > > > making money. I stated, it was almost impossible for them to ha=
ve won
> > > > > > and knew none that had. You told me I knew nothing. As it norma=
l, I
> > > > > > was right, WINO was wrong.
>
> > > > > You are dead wrong, as usual, Russ. The books took a total bath l=
ast
> > > > > year, losing millions.
>
> > > > > This year, Wayne is probably close.
>
> > > > > Fell
> > > > > --
> > > > > "Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."
> > > > > - Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Nobody can read. What the article said was that the books took a bath
> > > on last year's Giants-Pats Super Bowl, presumably because of all the
> > > money line action on the Giants. Had the Patriots won a close game,
> > > the books probably would have done OK. The other thing Mr. Rood said
> > > was that most of this year's money was coming in on Arizona +7, so a
> > > Cardinals cover would cause the books to lose big UNLESS they got lat=
e
> > > money on Pittsburgh by dropping the line to 6.5, and the line was
> > > dropped to 6.5 on Sunday morning. They probably lost small, although
> > > if the Cardinals had held on to win it probably would have been a big
> > > loss.
>
> > > You're right that all the teasers came in; however, the more likely
> > > play for the casual gamblers who make up a large percentage of the
> > > action on the Super Bowl would be parlays with side and total which
> > > the books probably did OK on since the score only went over at the
> > > last minute and I'm pretty sure the total was dropping during the
> > > week, indicating most people were going "under".
>
> > > Michael
> > > U.S. American- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities=
.
> Voltaire
>
> ________________________________________________________________________=
=EF=BF=BD
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Feb 2009 06:56:33
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 6 2009 11:35 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> Hey MORON, do you think I called the Los Angeles Times and gave them
> the story that read Professional Cheaters Preying on Los Angeles
> Casinos? The expose that named me as one of the Kingpins? The expose
> that was the front page headlines for three straight days on December
> 5th, 6th. 7th 1982.
700 murders a year and Russ made the front page 3 consecutive days for
"hitting the crimp"
i call bullshit !!
Do you think I would kill the average 20K daily
> win we made for years? It was split many ways, but I averaged at least
> 3k a day.
>
> It was the Vegas boys MORON. I and 200 other cheats were put on a list
> and barred from the LA casinos for a short period. The minute it went
> to court, we were all unbarred since they had ZERO PROOF.
>
> The problem was a simple one. Los Angeles areas were voting in new
> casinos, such as Commerce, Bicycle,and others. The Vegas boy, with the
> Bay area guys wanted Los Angeles. Quite a coincidence that the Bicycle
> was almost all Vegas people in management. The Los Angeles cheats were
> killed off by this move, while the Vegas guys moved right in.
>
> And you're stupid enough to think I did this to myself? I was just
> getting even with the Vegas guys in 2001, from the move they put on us
> in 1982. They snitched us off. Until I found rec.gambling.poker, it
> was basically impossible to let the world know.
And since you came out the only people you ruined were the most honest
ones . All the big names went right on cheating , and the people you
recruited , were sullied for life . And now you are left to twist people
deaths , and manipulate untruths to make yourself feel important
NICE WORK !!
>
> YOU KNOW SHIT about what was done and who did it. Stick to your kiddie
> pool.
Kiddie pool ? You are the one standing in the middle of the Kiddie pool
screaming "I am important", and even the people in the shallow end of the
main pool are LAUGHING AT YOU!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 6, 9:21�pm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Feb 4 2009 2:10 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > First, I'm no longer booking. I'm no longer betting. I don't even
> > > watch sporting events unless I have a bet down. When I wasn't booking,
> > > my normal bet would be a $1,000 on a TV game for entertainment.
> >
> > > I haven't been paying attention to sports at all for about 6 years
> > > now. I'm not sentimental, I'm moneymental. For decades I was glued to
> > > the TV watching scores to see how we were doing when booking. Now, I
> > > don't care.
> >
> > > The only reason I even knew anything about this years Superbowl was a
> > > friend wanted to bet it and asked me to get a bet down for him. When
> > > the raid on Commerce nailed the Bookies with their safe boxes, The
> > > California Gambling Commision or whatever it's called flew me down to
> > > Sacramento in a pretense to clean the Poker games up. What they wanted
> > > from me was information on the bookies. Obviously, I knew all the
> > > bookies (most anyway) as I was one myself. I gave them ZERO info on
> > > the bookies, since I didn't have anything against booking. I met with
> > > former agent Elijah Zuniga when I was down in Sacramento. Last I
> > > heard, he was working as a consultant for the Bicycle and Hustler.
> >
> > > All I stated in my post, was all the books I know lost this year and I
> > > saw it as being very hard for books to turn a profit.
> >
> > SO YOU DIDNT RAT OUT THE BOOKIES BUT YOU HAVE PAINTED YOURSELF INTO A
> > CORNER RATTING OUT THOSE WHO CHEATED ?
> >
> > SO THIS GESTURE OF HUMANITY MAKES YOU ONLY A "HALF RAT"?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 4, 10:50 am, phlash74 <phlas...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 3, 7:21 pm, "RussGeorg...@aol.com" <RussGeorg...@aol.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Again you're talking up your ass. I never said any of what you state,
> > > > > especially last year. Here is what the person posted. All I stated is
> > > > > from what I observed from this years betting is that it was not
> > > > > possible for the books to have won.
> >
> > > > > Here is the article from the LA Times that was posted. Please show me
> > > > > where I stated any of what you said I did? You are a F--ing MORON
> >
> > > > > From TJ Simers' column in Sunday's LA Times:
> >
> > > > > "I've been doing this for 17 years," said Jay Rood, recently promoted
> > > > > to sports book manager for the 12 MGM Mirage properties, "and last
> > > > > year was the first year the books in Las Vegas lost on the Super
> > > > > Bowl."
> >
> > > > > Two years ago, folks wagered a little more than a record $96 million
> > > > > here. "This year we hope we hit $90 million," Rood said, for the
> > > > > first
> > > > > time in history maybe, a wager on the Super Bowl a safer gamble than
> > > > > anyone sitting on their 401(k).
> >
> > > > > The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the city is expecting 280,000
> > > > > visitors -- a 1% drop from last year's big weekend, which still
> > > > > doesn't sound as if the casinos are in danger of going into
> > > > > foreclosure.
> >
> > > > > "We took a $500,000 bet on the Cardinals last week," Rood said --
> > > > > from
> > > > > someone who presumably knows they don't have to worry about the Bus..
> >
> > > > > The economy is a wreck and someone is betting half a million bucks on
> > > > > the worst sports franchise in history to win it all.
> >
> > > > > As a rule, the public likes to bet on favorites or the team that all
> > > > > the experts on TV are picking. But instead of going with Pittsburgh,
> > > > > "all the money is coming in on Arizona."
> >
> > > > > "In the next few hours," Rood said, "I've got a big decision to make.
> > > > > Right now Pittsburgh is favored by seven; do I drop it to 6 1/2 to
> > > > > lure in more money from Pittsburgh? The way it goes now, if Arizona
> > > > > wins or covers the seven-point spread, we lose big."
> >
> > > > > On Feb 3, 6:30 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Feb 3 2009 7:29 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > I can't read? This is what you wrote, so please explain it?
> >
> > > > > > > On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
> >
> > > > > > > The books did OK. The biggest action was on the line, and they
> > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced
> > > > > > > towards
> > > > > > > Pit. They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. Next
> > > > > > > biggest
> > > > > > > action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. Teasers
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > lost.
> >
> > > > > > > On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. Depends
on
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > much teaser action they had.
> >
> > > > > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > > > > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> >
> >
_____________________________________________________________________------�
> > -----------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > An above poster pasted an article from the LA Times where a major
> > > > > > > sportsbook in Vegas stated this was the first time in the 17
years he
> > > > > > > had worked in Vegas Sportsbooks that they had lost on a
Superbowl. I
> > > > > > > stated earlier on another post that I called numerous books and
none
> > > > > > > of them won. However, by your post, the sportsbooks did fine,
meaning
> > > > > > > making money. I stated, it was almost impossible for them to
have won
> > > > > > > and knew none that had. You told me I knew nothing. As it
normal, I
> > > > > > > was right, WINO was wrong.
> >
> > > > > > You are dead wrong, as usual, Russ. The books took a total bath
last
> > > > > > year, losing millions.
> >
> > > > > > This year, Wayne is probably close.
> >
> > > > > > Fell
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > "Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."
> > > > > > - Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > Nobody can read. What the article said was that the books took a bath
> > > > on last year's Giants-Pats Super Bowl, presumably because of all the
> > > > money line action on the Giants. Had the Patriots won a close game,
> > > > the books probably would have done OK. The other thing Mr. Rood said
> > > > was that most of this year's money was coming in on Arizona +7, so a
> > > > Cardinals cover would cause the books to lose big UNLESS they got late
> > > > money on Pittsburgh by dropping the line to 6.5, and the line was
> > > > dropped to 6.5 on Sunday morning. They probably lost small, although
> > > > if the Cardinals had held on to win it probably would have been a big
> > > > loss.
> >
> > > > You're right that all the teasers came in; however, the more likely
> > > > play for the casual gamblers who make up a large percentage of the
> > > > action on the Super Bowl would be parlays with side and total which
> > > > the books probably did OK on since the score only went over at the
> > > > last minute and I'm pretty sure the total was dropping during the
> > > > week, indicating most people were going "under".
> >
> > > > Michael
> > > > U.S. American- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..
> > Voltaire
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________�
> > : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com- Hide
quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Feb 2009 06:49:37
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 6 2009 11:35 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> Hey MORON, do you think I called the Los Angeles Times and gave them
> the story that read Professional Cheaters Preying on Los Angeles
> Casinos? The expose that named me as one of the Kingpins? The expose
> that was the front page headlines for three straight days on December
> 5th, 6th. 7th 1982. Do you think I would kill the average 20K daily
> win we made for years? It was split many ways, but I averaged at least
> 3k a day.
So you didnt ruin it for yourself in the 80's , but you did ruin it for
yourself , in the early 2000's
clever move.. i guess you wouldnt have made any money during the poker
boom
>
> It was the Vegas boys MORON. I and 200 other cheats were put on a list
> and barred from the LA casinos for a short period. The minute it went
> to court, we were all unbarred since they had ZERO PROOF.
>
> The problem was a simple one. Los Angeles areas were voting in new
> casinos, such as Commerce, Bicycle,and others. The Vegas boy, with the
> Bay area guys wanted Los Angeles. Quite a coincidence that the Bicycle
> was almost all Vegas people in management. The Los Angeles cheats were
> killed off by this move, while the Vegas guys moved right in.
>
> And you're stupid enough to think I did this to myself? I was just
> getting even with the Vegas guys in 2001, from the move they put on us
> in 1982. They snitched us off. Until I found rec.gambling.poker, it
> was basically impossible to let the world know.
>
> YOU KNOW SHIT about what was done and who did it. Stick to your kiddie
> pool.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 6, 9:21�pm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Feb 4 2009 2:10 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > First, I'm no longer booking. I'm no longer betting. I don't even
> > > watch sporting events unless I have a bet down. When I wasn't booking,
> > > my normal bet would be a $1,000 on a TV game for entertainment.
> >
> > > I haven't been paying attention to sports at all for about 6 years
> > > now. I'm not sentimental, I'm moneymental. For decades I was glued to
> > > the TV watching scores to see how we were doing when booking. Now, I
> > > don't care.
> >
> > > The only reason I even knew anything about this years Superbowl was a
> > > friend wanted to bet it and asked me to get a bet down for him. When
> > > the raid on Commerce nailed the Bookies with their safe boxes, The
> > > California Gambling Commision or whatever it's called flew me down to
> > > Sacramento in a pretense to clean the Poker games up. What they wanted
> > > from me was information on the bookies. Obviously, I knew all the
> > > bookies (most anyway) as I was one myself. I gave them ZERO info on
> > > the bookies, since I didn't have anything against booking. I met with
> > > former agent Elijah Zuniga when I was down in Sacramento. Last I
> > > heard, he was working as a consultant for the Bicycle and Hustler.
> >
> > > All I stated in my post, was all the books I know lost this year and I
> > > saw it as being very hard for books to turn a profit.
> >
> > SO YOU DIDNT RAT OUT THE BOOKIES BUT YOU HAVE PAINTED YOURSELF INTO A
> > CORNER RATTING OUT THOSE WHO CHEATED ?
> >
> > SO THIS GESTURE OF HUMANITY MAKES YOU ONLY A "HALF RAT"?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 4, 10:50 am, phlash74 <phlas...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 3, 7:21 pm, "RussGeorg...@aol.com" <RussGeorg...@aol.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Again you're talking up your ass. I never said any of what you state,
> > > > > especially last year. Here is what the person posted. All I stated is
> > > > > from what I observed from this years betting is that it was not
> > > > > possible for the books to have won.
> >
> > > > > Here is the article from the LA Times that was posted. Please show me
> > > > > where I stated any of what you said I did? You are a F--ing MORON
> >
> > > > > From TJ Simers' column in Sunday's LA Times:
> >
> > > > > "I've been doing this for 17 years," said Jay Rood, recently promoted
> > > > > to sports book manager for the 12 MGM Mirage properties, "and last
> > > > > year was the first year the books in Las Vegas lost on the Super
> > > > > Bowl."
> >
> > > > > Two years ago, folks wagered a little more than a record $96 million
> > > > > here. "This year we hope we hit $90 million," Rood said, for the
> > > > > first
> > > > > time in history maybe, a wager on the Super Bowl a safer gamble than
> > > > > anyone sitting on their 401(k).
> >
> > > > > The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the city is expecting 280,000
> > > > > visitors -- a 1% drop from last year's big weekend, which still
> > > > > doesn't sound as if the casinos are in danger of going into
> > > > > foreclosure.
> >
> > > > > "We took a $500,000 bet on the Cardinals last week," Rood said --
> > > > > from
> > > > > someone who presumably knows they don't have to worry about the Bus..
> >
> > > > > The economy is a wreck and someone is betting half a million bucks on
> > > > > the worst sports franchise in history to win it all.
> >
> > > > > As a rule, the public likes to bet on favorites or the team that all
> > > > > the experts on TV are picking. But instead of going with Pittsburgh,
> > > > > "all the money is coming in on Arizona."
> >
> > > > > "In the next few hours," Rood said, "I've got a big decision to make.
> > > > > Right now Pittsburgh is favored by seven; do I drop it to 6 1/2 to
> > > > > lure in more money from Pittsburgh? The way it goes now, if Arizona
> > > > > wins or covers the seven-point spread, we lose big."
> >
> > > > > On Feb 3, 6:30 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Feb 3 2009 7:29 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > I can't read? This is what you wrote, so please explain it?
> >
> > > > > > > On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
> >
> > > > > > > The books did OK. The biggest action was on the line, and they
> > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced
> > > > > > > towards
> > > > > > > Pit. They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. Next
> > > > > > > biggest
> > > > > > > action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. Teasers
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > lost.
> >
> > > > > > > On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. Depends
on
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > much teaser action they had.
> >
> > > > > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > > > > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> >
> >
_____________________________________________________________________------�
> > -----------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > An above poster pasted an article from the LA Times where a major
> > > > > > > sportsbook in Vegas stated this was the first time in the 17
years he
> > > > > > > had worked in Vegas Sportsbooks that they had lost on a
Superbowl. I
> > > > > > > stated earlier on another post that I called numerous books and
none
> > > > > > > of them won. However, by your post, the sportsbooks did fine,
meaning
> > > > > > > making money. I stated, it was almost impossible for them to
have won
> > > > > > > and knew none that had. You told me I knew nothing. As it
normal, I
> > > > > > > was right, WINO was wrong.
> >
> > > > > > You are dead wrong, as usual, Russ. The books took a total bath
last
> > > > > > year, losing millions.
> >
> > > > > > This year, Wayne is probably close.
> >
> > > > > > Fell
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > "Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."
> > > > > > - Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > Nobody can read. What the article said was that the books took a bath
> > > > on last year's Giants-Pats Super Bowl, presumably because of all the
> > > > money line action on the Giants. Had the Patriots won a close game,
> > > > the books probably would have done OK. The other thing Mr. Rood said
> > > > was that most of this year's money was coming in on Arizona +7, so a
> > > > Cardinals cover would cause the books to lose big UNLESS they got late
> > > > money on Pittsburgh by dropping the line to 6.5, and the line was
> > > > dropped to 6.5 on Sunday morning. They probably lost small, although
> > > > if the Cardinals had held on to win it probably would have been a big
> > > > loss.
> >
> > > > You're right that all the teasers came in; however, the more likely
> > > > play for the casual gamblers who make up a large percentage of the
> > > > action on the Super Bowl would be parlays with side and total which
> > > > the books probably did OK on since the score only went over at the
> > > > last minute and I'm pretty sure the total was dropping during the
> > > > week, indicating most people were going "under".
> >
> > > > Michael
> > > > U.S. American- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..
> > Voltaire
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________�
> > : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com- Hide
quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 12:10:40
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
First, I'm no longer booking. I'm no longer betting. I don't even
watch sporting events unless I have a bet down. When I wasn't booking,
my normal bet would be a $1,000 on a TV game for entertainment.
I haven't been paying attention to sports at all for about 6 years
now. I'm not sentimental, I'm moneymental. For decades I was glued to
the TV watching scores to see how we were doing when booking. Now, I
don't care.
The only reason I even knew anything about this years Superbowl was a
friend wanted to bet it and asked me to get a bet down for him. When
the raid on Commerce nailed the Bookies with their safe boxes, The
California Gambling Commision or whatever it's called flew me down to
Sacramento in a pretense to clean the Poker games up. What they wanted
from me was information on the bookies. Obviously, I knew all the
bookies (most anyway) as I was one myself. I gave them ZERO info on
the bookies, since I didn't have anything against booking. I met with
former agent Elijah Zuniga when I was down in Sacramento. Last I
heard, he was working as a consultant for the Bicycle and Hustler.
All I stated in my post, was all the books I know lost this year and I
saw it as being very hard for books to turn a profit.
On Feb 4, 10:50=EF=BF=BDam, phlash74 <phlas...@msn.com > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 7:21=EF=BF=BDpm, "RussGeorg...@aol.com" <RussGeorg...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Again you're talking up your ass. I never said any of what you state,
> > especially last year. Here is what the person posted. All I stated is
> > from what I observed from this years betting is that it was not
> > possible for the books to have won.
>
> > Here is the article from the LA Times that was posted. Please show me
> > where I stated any of what you said I did? You are a F--ing MORON
>
> > From TJ Simers' column in Sunday's LA Times:
>
> > "I've been doing this for 17 years," said Jay Rood, recently promoted
> > to sports book manager for the 12 MGM Mirage properties, "and last
> > year was the first year the books in Las Vegas lost on the Super
> > Bowl."
>
> > Two years ago, folks wagered a little more than a record $96 million
> > here. "This year we hope we hit $90 million," Rood said, for the
> > first
> > time in history maybe, a wager on the Super Bowl a safer gamble than
> > anyone sitting on their 401(k).
>
> > The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the city is expecting 280,000
> > visitors -- a 1% drop from last year's big weekend, which still
> > doesn't sound as if the casinos are in danger of going into
> > foreclosure.
>
> > "We took a $500,000 bet on the Cardinals last week," Rood said --
> > from
> > someone who presumably knows they don't have to worry about the Bus.
>
> > The economy is a wreck and someone is betting half a million bucks on
> > the worst sports franchise in history to win it all.
>
> > As a rule, the public likes to bet on favorites or the team that all
> > the experts on TV are picking. But instead of going with Pittsburgh,
> > "all the money is coming in on Arizona."
>
> > "In the next few hours," Rood said, "I've got a big decision to make.
> > Right now Pittsburgh is favored by seven; do I drop it to 6 1/2 to
> > lure in more money from Pittsburgh? The way it goes now, if Arizona
> > wins or covers the seven-point spread, we lose big."
>
> > On Feb 3, 6:30 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3 2009 7:29 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > I can't read? This is what you wrote, so please explain it?
>
> > > > On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> > > > The books did OK. The biggest action was on the line, and they
> > > > probably
> > > > made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced
> > > > towards
> > > > Pit. They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. Next
> > > > biggest
> > > > action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. Teasers
> > > > they
> > > > lost.
>
> > > > On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. Depends on
> > > > how
> > > > much teaser action they had.
>
> > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> > > _____________________________________________________________________=
------=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD -----------
>
> > > > An above poster pasted an article from the LA Times where a major
> > > > sportsbook in Vegas stated this was the first time in the 17 years =
he
> > > > had worked in Vegas Sportsbooks that they had lost on a Superbowl. =
I
> > > > stated earlier on another post that I called numerous books and non=
e
> > > > of them won. However, by your post, the sportsbooks did fine, meani=
ng
> > > > making money. I stated, it was almost impossible for them to have w=
on
> > > > and knew none that had. You told me I knew nothing. As it normal, I
> > > > was right, WINO was wrong.
>
> > > You are dead wrong, as usual, Russ. The books took a total bath last
> > > year, losing millions.
>
> > > This year, Wayne is probably close.
>
> > > Fell
> > > --
> > > "Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."
> > > - Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
>
> > > _____________________________________________________________________=
_
> > > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com-Hid=
equoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Nobody can read. =EF=BF=BDWhat the article said was that the books took a=
bath
> on last year's Giants-Pats Super Bowl, presumably because of all the
> money line action on the Giants. =EF=BF=BDHad the Patriots won a close ga=
me,
> the books probably would have done OK. =EF=BF=BDThe other thing Mr. Rood =
said
> was that most of this year's money was coming in on Arizona +7, so a
> Cardinals cover would cause the books to lose big UNLESS they got late
> money on Pittsburgh by dropping the line to 6.5, and the line was
> dropped to 6.5 on Sunday morning. =EF=BF=BDThey probably lost small, alth=
ough
> if the Cardinals had held on to win it probably would have been a big
> loss.
>
> You're right that all the teasers came in; however, the more likely
> play for the casual gamblers who make up a large percentage of the
> action on the Super Bowl would be parlays with side and total which
> the books probably did OK on since the score only went over at the
> last minute and I'm pretty sure the total was dropping during the
> week, indicating most people were going "under".
>
> Michael
> U.S. American- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2009 21:21:40
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 4 2009 2:10 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> First, I'm no longer booking. I'm no longer betting. I don't even
> watch sporting events unless I have a bet down. When I wasn't booking,
> my normal bet would be a $1,000 on a TV game for entertainment.
>
> I haven't been paying attention to sports at all for about 6 years
> now. I'm not sentimental, I'm moneymental. For decades I was glued to
> the TV watching scores to see how we were doing when booking. Now, I
> don't care.
>
> The only reason I even knew anything about this years Superbowl was a
> friend wanted to bet it and asked me to get a bet down for him. When
> the raid on Commerce nailed the Bookies with their safe boxes, The
> California Gambling Commision or whatever it's called flew me down to
> Sacramento in a pretense to clean the Poker games up. What they wanted
> from me was information on the bookies. Obviously, I knew all the
> bookies (most anyway) as I was one myself. I gave them ZERO info on
> the bookies, since I didn't have anything against booking. I met with
> former agent Elijah Zuniga when I was down in Sacramento. Last I
> heard, he was working as a consultant for the Bicycle and Hustler.
>
> All I stated in my post, was all the books I know lost this year and I
> saw it as being very hard for books to turn a profit.
SO YOU DIDNT RAT OUT THE BOOKIES BUT YOU HAVE PAINTED YOURSELF INTO A
CORNER RATTING OUT THOSE WHO CHEATED ?
SO THIS GESTURE OF HUMANITY MAKES YOU ONLY A "HALF RAT"?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 4, 10:50�am, phlash74 <phlas...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 7:21�pm, "RussGeorg...@aol.com" <RussGeorg...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Again you're talking up your ass. I never said any of what you state,
> > > especially last year. Here is what the person posted. All I stated is
> > > from what I observed from this years betting is that it was not
> > > possible for the books to have won.
> >
> > > Here is the article from the LA Times that was posted. Please show me
> > > where I stated any of what you said I did? You are a F--ing MORON
> >
> > > From TJ Simers' column in Sunday's LA Times:
> >
> > > "I've been doing this for 17 years," said Jay Rood, recently promoted
> > > to sports book manager for the 12 MGM Mirage properties, "and last
> > > year was the first year the books in Las Vegas lost on the Super
> > > Bowl."
> >
> > > Two years ago, folks wagered a little more than a record $96 million
> > > here. "This year we hope we hit $90 million," Rood said, for the
> > > first
> > > time in history maybe, a wager on the Super Bowl a safer gamble than
> > > anyone sitting on their 401(k).
> >
> > > The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the city is expecting 280,000
> > > visitors -- a 1% drop from last year's big weekend, which still
> > > doesn't sound as if the casinos are in danger of going into
> > > foreclosure.
> >
> > > "We took a $500,000 bet on the Cardinals last week," Rood said --
> > > from
> > > someone who presumably knows they don't have to worry about the Bus.
> >
> > > The economy is a wreck and someone is betting half a million bucks on
> > > the worst sports franchise in history to win it all.
> >
> > > As a rule, the public likes to bet on favorites or the team that all
> > > the experts on TV are picking. But instead of going with Pittsburgh,
> > > "all the money is coming in on Arizona."
> >
> > > "In the next few hours," Rood said, "I've got a big decision to make.
> > > Right now Pittsburgh is favored by seven; do I drop it to 6 1/2 to
> > > lure in more money from Pittsburgh? The way it goes now, if Arizona
> > > wins or covers the seven-point spread, we lose big."
> >
> > > On Feb 3, 6:30 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Feb 3 2009 7:29 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > I can't read? This is what you wrote, so please explain it?
> >
> > > > > On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
> >
> > > > > The books did OK. The biggest action was on the line, and they
> > > > > probably
> > > > > made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced
> > > > > towards
> > > > > Pit. They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. Next
> > > > > biggest
> > > > > action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. Teasers
> > > > > they
> > > > > lost.
> >
> > > > > On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. Depends on
> > > > > how
> > > > > much teaser action they had.
> >
> > > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> >
> > > >
_____________________________________________________________________------��
-----------
> >
> > > > > An above poster pasted an article from the LA Times where a major
> > > > > sportsbook in Vegas stated this was the first time in the 17 years he
> > > > > had worked in Vegas Sportsbooks that they had lost on a Superbowl. I
> > > > > stated earlier on another post that I called numerous books and none
> > > > > of them won. However, by your post, the sportsbooks did fine, meaning
> > > > > making money. I stated, it was almost impossible for them to have won
> > > > > and knew none that had. You told me I knew nothing. As it normal, I
> > > > > was right, WINO was wrong.
> >
> > > > You are dead wrong, as usual, Russ. The books took a total bath last
> > > > year, losing millions.
> >
> > > > This year, Wayne is probably close.
> >
> > > > Fell
> > > > --
> > > > "Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."
> > > > - Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
> >
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Nobody can read. �What the article said was that the books took a bath
> > on last year's Giants-Pats Super Bowl, presumably because of all the
> > money line action on the Giants. �Had the Patriots won a close game,
> > the books probably would have done OK. �The other thing Mr. Rood said
> > was that most of this year's money was coming in on Arizona +7, so a
> > Cardinals cover would cause the books to lose big UNLESS they got late
> > money on Pittsburgh by dropping the line to 6.5, and the line was
> > dropped to 6.5 on Sunday morning. �They probably lost small, although
> > if the Cardinals had held on to win it probably would have been a big
> > loss.
> >
> > You're right that all the teasers came in; however, the more likely
> > play for the casual gamblers who make up a large percentage of the
> > action on the Super Bowl would be parlays with side and total which
> > the books probably did OK on since the score only went over at the
> > last minute and I'm pretty sure the total was dropping during the
> > week, indicating most people were going "under".
> >
> > Michael
> > U.S. American- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2009 10:50:13
From: phlash74
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 3, 7:21=A0pm, "RussGeorg...@aol.com" <RussGeorg...@aol.com >
wrote:
> Again you're talking up your ass. I never said any of what you state,
> especially last year. Here is what the person posted. All I stated is
> from what I observed from this years betting is that it was not
> possible for the books to have won.
>
> Here is the article from the LA Times that was posted. Please show me
> where I stated any of what you said I did? You are a F--ing MORON
>
> From TJ Simers' column in Sunday's LA Times:
>
> "I've been doing this for 17 years," said Jay Rood, recently promoted
> to sports book manager for the 12 MGM Mirage properties, "and last
> year was the first year the books in Las Vegas lost on the Super
> Bowl."
>
> Two years ago, folks wagered a little more than a record $96 million
> here. "This year we hope we hit $90 million," Rood said, for the
> first
> time in history maybe, a wager on the Super Bowl a safer gamble than
> anyone sitting on their 401(k).
>
> The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the city is expecting 280,000
> visitors -- a 1% drop from last year's big weekend, which still
> doesn't sound as if the casinos are in danger of going into
> foreclosure.
>
> "We took a $500,000 bet on the Cardinals last week," Rood said --
> from
> someone who presumably knows they don't have to worry about the Bus.
>
> The economy is a wreck and someone is betting half a million bucks on
> the worst sports franchise in history to win it all.
>
> As a rule, the public likes to bet on favorites or the team that all
> the experts on TV are picking. But instead of going with Pittsburgh,
> "all the money is coming in on Arizona."
>
> "In the next few hours," Rood said, "I've got a big decision to make.
> Right now Pittsburgh is favored by seven; do I drop it to 6 1/2 to
> lure in more money from Pittsburgh? The way it goes now, if Arizona
> wins or covers the seven-point spread, we lose big."
>
> On Feb 3, 6:30 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3 2009 7:29 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > I can't read? This is what you wrote, so please explain it?
>
> > > On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> > > > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> > > The books did OK. The biggest action was on the line, and they
> > > probably
> > > made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced
> > > towards
> > > Pit. They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. Next
> > > biggest
> > > action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. Teasers
> > > they
> > > lost.
>
> > > On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. Depends on
> > > how
> > > much teaser action they had.
>
> > > Wayne Vinson
> > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> > _____________________________________________________________________--=
----=AD -----------
>
> > > An above poster pasted an article from the LA Times where a major
> > > sportsbook in Vegas stated this was the first time in the 17 years he
> > > had worked in Vegas Sportsbooks that they had lost on a Superbowl. I
> > > stated earlier on another post that I called numerous books and none
> > > of them won. However, by your post, the sportsbooks did fine, meaning
> > > making money. I stated, it was almost impossible for them to have won
> > > and knew none that had. You told me I knew nothing. As it normal, I
> > > was right, WINO was wrong.
>
> > You are dead wrong, as usual, Russ. The books took a total bath last
> > year, losing millions.
>
> > This year, Wayne is probably close.
>
> > Fell
> > --
> > "Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."
> > - Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
>
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com-Hide =
quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nobody can read. What the article said was that the books took a bath
on last year's Giants-Pats Super Bowl, presumably because of all the
money line action on the Giants. Had the Patriots won a close game,
the books probably would have done OK. The other thing Mr. Rood said
was that most of this year's money was coming in on Arizona +7, so a
Cardinals cover would cause the books to lose big UNLESS they got late
money on Pittsburgh by dropping the line to 6.5, and the line was
dropped to 6.5 on Sunday morning. They probably lost small, although
if the Cardinals had held on to win it probably would have been a big
loss.
You're right that all the teasers came in; however, the more likely
play for the casual gamblers who make up a large percentage of the
action on the Super Bowl would be parlays with side and total which
the books probably did OK on since the score only went over at the
last minute and I'm pretty sure the total was dropping during the
week, indicating most people were going "under".
Michael
U.S. American
|
| | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 19:21:46
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
Again you're talking up your ass. I never said any of what you state,
especially last year. Here is what the person posted. All I stated is
from what I observed from this years betting is that it was not
possible for the books to have won.
Here is the article from the LA Times that was posted. Please show me
where I stated any of what you said I did? You are a F--ing MORON
From TJ Simers' column in Sunday's LA Times:
"I've been doing this for 17 years," said Jay Rood, recently promoted
to sports book manager for the 12 MGM Mirage properties, "and last
year was the first year the books in Las Vegas lost on the Super
Bowl."
Two years ago, folks wagered a little more than a record $96 million
here. "This year we hope we hit $90 million," Rood said, for the
first
time in history maybe, a wager on the Super Bowl a safer gamble than
anyone sitting on their 401(k).
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the city is expecting 280,000
visitors -- a 1% drop from last year's big weekend, which still
doesn't sound as if the casinos are in danger of going into
foreclosure.
"We took a $500,000 bet on the Cardinals last week," Rood said --
from
someone who presumably knows they don't have to worry about the Bus.
The economy is a wreck and someone is betting half a million bucks on
the worst sports franchise in history to win it all.
As a rule, the public likes to bet on favorites or the team that all
the experts on TV are picking. But instead of going with Pittsburgh,
"all the money is coming in on Arizona."
"In the next few hours," Rood said, "I've got a big decision to make.
Right now Pittsburgh is favored by seven; do I drop it to 6 1/2 to
lure in more money from Pittsburgh? The way it goes now, if Arizona
wins or covers the seven-point spread, we lose big."
On Feb 3, 6:30=EF=BF=BDpm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com > wrote=
:
> On Feb 3 2009 7:29 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I can't read? This is what you wrote, so please explain it?
>
> > On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> > > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> > The books did OK. =EF=BF=BDThe biggest action was on the line, and they
> > probably
> > made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced
> > towards
> > Pit. =EF=BF=BDThey won nearly everything wagered on the money line. =EF=
=BF=BDNext
> > biggest
> > action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. =EF=BF=BDTeas=
ers
> > they
> > lost.
>
> > On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. =EF=BF=BDDepen=
ds on
> > how
> > much teaser action they had.
>
> > Wayne Vinson
> >http://cardsharp.org/
> > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> _____________________________________________________________________----=
--=EF=BF=BD-----------
>
>
>
> > An above poster pasted an article from the LA Times where a major
> > sportsbook in Vegas stated this was the first time in the 17 years he
> > had worked in Vegas Sportsbooks that they had lost on a Superbowl. I
> > stated earlier on another post that I called numerous books and none
> > of them won. However, by your post, the sportsbooks did fine, meaning
> > making money. I stated, it was almost impossible for them to have won
> > and knew none that had. You told me I knew nothing. As it normal, I
> > was right, WINO was wrong.
>
> You are dead wrong, as usual, Russ. =EF=BF=BDThe books took a total bath =
last
> year, losing millions.
>
> This year, Wayne is probably close.
>
> Fell
> --
> "Don't underestimate Fell. =EF=BF=BDHe's a smart kid."
> - Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
>
> ______________________________________________________________________=EF=
=BF=BD
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com- Hide q=
uoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 20:08:21
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
> Russ, I'm not Jason.
That's the most intelligent thing you have ever said.
On Feb 3, 8:02=EF=BF=BDpm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 3 2009 6:29 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I can't read? This is what you wrote, so please explain it?
>
> > On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> > ...
>
> Russ, I'm not Jason. =EF=BF=BDYou're becoming more and more confused as t=
his
> thread goes on.
>
> I'm serious about talking to your doctor. =EF=BF=BDYou've got a problem, =
and it
> may be possible to do something about it before you become
> indistinguishable from doggy.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> ____________________________________________________________________=EF=
=BF=BD
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 16:29:30
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
I can't read? This is what you wrote, so please explain it?
On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
The books did OK. The biggest action was on the line, and they
probably
made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced
towards
Pit. They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. Next
biggest
action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. Teasers
they
lost.
On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. Depends on
how
much teaser action they had.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_____________________________________________________________________------=
-----------
An above poster pasted an article from the LA Times where a major
sportsbook in Vegas stated this was the first time in the 17 years he
had worked in Vegas Sportsbooks that they had lost on a Superbowl. I
stated earlier on another post that I called numerous books and none
of them won. However, by your post, the sportsbooks did fine, meaning
making money. I stated, it was almost impossible for them to have won
and knew none that had. You told me I knew nothing. As it normal, I
was right, WINO was wrong.
On Feb 3, 2:07=EF=BF=BDpm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 3 2009 3:13 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Just more BS from the newspapers. Our resident BOOKMAKING GENIUS, Wino
> > Vinson has already stated the books did ok as a whole. I even called
> > about a half dozen books to confirm this. But, I was right again, as
> > they all lost and none knew of one who did well. But, I know such a
> > small percentage of books in the world in comparision to the grand
> > total, the Nevada books, along with the books I know were just a few
> > that fell through the cracks and lost.
>
> > Just ask Wino, he's our leading BOOKMAKING authority:). He's also our
> > leading POKER authority, as well as being the resident IDIOT.
>
> > Russ Georgiev
>
> Yet more evidence that Russ can't read to save his live. =EF=BF=BDThe art=
icle said
> the books would lose UNLESS THEY MOVED THE LINE BACK TO 6.5. =EF=BF=BDWhi=
ch they
> did. =EF=BF=BDHence why they had balanced action on the line (and a half-=
point
> middle on 7, but they dodged that bullet)
>
> Seriously, you need to go to the doc and get your meds rebalanced.
> Whatever they've got you on has turned your brain to mush.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________=EF=
=BF=BD
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 20:02:53
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 3 2009 6:29 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> I can't read? This is what you wrote, so please explain it?
>
> On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> ...
Russ, I'm not Jason. You're becoming more and more confused as this
thread goes on.
I'm serious about talking to your doctor. You've got a problem, and it
may be possible to do something about it before you become
indistinguishable from doggy.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 18:30:07
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 3 2009 7:29 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> I can't read? This is what you wrote, so please explain it?
>
> On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
>
> > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
>
> The books did OK. The biggest action was on the line, and they
> probably
> made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced
> towards
> Pit. They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. Next
> biggest
> action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. Teasers
> they
> lost.
>
> On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. Depends on
> how
> much teaser action they had.
>
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
_____________________________________________________________________-----------------
>
> An above poster pasted an article from the LA Times where a major
> sportsbook in Vegas stated this was the first time in the 17 years he
> had worked in Vegas Sportsbooks that they had lost on a Superbowl. I
> stated earlier on another post that I called numerous books and none
> of them won. However, by your post, the sportsbooks did fine, meaning
> making money. I stated, it was almost impossible for them to have won
> and knew none that had. You told me I knew nothing. As it normal, I
> was right, WINO was wrong.
You are dead wrong, as usual, Russ. The books took a total bath last
year, losing millions.
This year, Wayne is probably close.
Fell
--
"Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."
- Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 13:13:20
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
Just more BS from the newspapers. Our resident BOOKMAKING GENIUS, Wino
Vinson has already stated the books did ok as a whole. I even called
about a half dozen books to confirm this. But, I was right again, as
they all lost and none knew of one who did well. But, I know such a
small percentage of books in the world in comparision to the grand
total, the Nevada books, along with the books I know were just a few
that fell through the cracks and lost.
Just ask Wino, he's our leading BOOKMAKING authority:). He's also our
leading POKER authority, as well as being the resident IDIOT.
Russ Georgiev
www.pokermafia.com
www.russgeorgiev.com
www.pokerunchecked.com
On Feb 3, 10:29=EF=BF=BDam, phlash74 <phlas...@msn.com > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2:41=EF=BF=BDpm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote=
:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2 2009 4:35 PM, FangBanger wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2 2009 4:25 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 2 2009 3:41 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > > No, no clue at all. Booked for almost 40 years also. An agent for=
Gary
> > > > > Austin of Tradewinds and several other online books. Also booked =
from
> > > > > the 60's. Explain to me how the books could have made more than a
> > > > > marginal win, since more money went on the winner and all teasers
> > > > > lost?
>
> > > > More Russ nonsense. =EF=BF=BDI never claimed that they had more tha=
n a "marginal"
> > > > win - just that most books should have won. =EF=BF=BDTry reading my=
posts, and
> > > > responding to what I actually said rather than what you drug addled=
and
> > > > senile mind wishes I had said.
>
> > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> > > OK ONE LAST TIME .. MORON
>
> > > Total was bet up late and went over ...THATS BAD
>
> > > Dog covered the spread ... THATS GOOD .. but action was very even and=
late
> > > money was on AZ (drove it back down to 6.5)
>
> > > All teasers covered ... THATS REAL BAD
>
> > > NOW WHERE DO YOU SEE ANY PROFIT??
>
> > > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atroci=
ties.
> > > Voltaire
>
> > The likely points of profit were total bets and money line bets (plus v=
ig
> > on all the winning bets).
>
> > Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> > ____________________________________________________________________=EF=
=BF=BD
> > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com-Hide =
quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> From TJ Simers' column in Sunday's LA Times:
>
> "I've been doing this for 17 years," said Jay Rood, recently promoted
> to sports book manager for the 12 MGM Mirage properties, "and last
> year was the first year the books in Las Vegas lost on the Super
> Bowl."
>
> Two years ago, folks wagered a little more than a record $96 million
> here. "This year we hope we hit $90 million," Rood said, for the first
> time in history maybe, a wager on the Super Bowl a safer gamble than
> anyone sitting on their 401(k).
>
> The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the city is expecting 280,000
> visitors -- a 1% drop from last year's big weekend, which still
> doesn't sound as if the casinos are in danger of going into
> foreclosure.
>
> "We took a $500,000 bet on the Cardinals last week," Rood said -- from
> someone who presumably knows they don't have to worry about the Bus.
>
> The economy is a wreck and someone is betting half a million bucks on
> the worst sports franchise in history to win it all.
>
> As a rule, the public likes to bet on favorites or the team that all
> the experts on TV are picking. But instead of going with Pittsburgh,
> "all the money is coming in on Arizona."
>
> "In the next few hours," Rood said, "I've got a big decision to make.
> Right now Pittsburgh is favored by seven; do I drop it to 6 1/2 to
> lure in more money from Pittsburgh? The way it goes now, if Arizona
> wins or covers the seven-point spread, we lose big."
>
> Michael
> U.S. American- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 14:07:40
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 3 2009 3:13 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> Just more BS from the newspapers. Our resident BOOKMAKING GENIUS, Wino
> Vinson has already stated the books did ok as a whole. I even called
> about a half dozen books to confirm this. But, I was right again, as
> they all lost and none knew of one who did well. But, I know such a
> small percentage of books in the world in comparision to the grand
> total, the Nevada books, along with the books I know were just a few
> that fell through the cracks and lost.
>
> Just ask Wino, he's our leading BOOKMAKING authority:). He's also our
> leading POKER authority, as well as being the resident IDIOT.
>
> Russ Georgiev
Yet more evidence that Russ can't read to save his live. The article said
the books would lose UNLESS THEY MOVED THE LINE BACK TO 6.5. Which they
did. Hence why they had balanced action on the line (and a half-point
middle on 7, but they dodged that bullet)
Seriously, you need to go to the doc and get your meds rebalanced.
Whatever they've got you on has turned your brain to mush.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 17:33:10
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 3 2009 4:07 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> On Feb 3 2009 3:13 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Just more BS from the newspapers. Our resident BOOKMAKING GENIUS, Wino
> > Vinson has already stated the books did ok as a whole. I even called
> > about a half dozen books to confirm this. But, I was right again, as
> > they all lost and none knew of one who did well. But, I know such a
> > small percentage of books in the world in comparision to the grand
> > total, the Nevada books, along with the books I know were just a few
> > that fell through the cracks and lost.
> >
> > Just ask Wino, he's our leading BOOKMAKING authority:). He's also our
> > leading POKER authority, as well as being the resident IDIOT.
> >
> > Russ Georgiev
>
>
> Yet more evidence that Russ can't read to save his live. The article said
> the books would lose UNLESS THEY MOVED THE LINE BACK TO 6.5. Which they
> did. Hence why they had balanced action on the line (and a half-point
> middle on 7, but they dodged that bullet)
HERE WE GO AGAIN .. there is no such thing as a 1/2 point middle .. IT IS
CALLED GETTING "SIDED "
YOU REALLY SHOULD JUST STOP NOW
>
> Seriously, you need to go to the doc and get your meds rebalanced.
> Whatever they've got you on has turned your brain to mush.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 20:04:25
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
> HERE WE GO AGAIN .. there is no such thing as a 1/2 point middle .. IT IS
> CALLED GETTING "SIDED "
Just because you don't understand how a middle works doesn't mean that the
rest of us need to stop and explain it to you. Try google or wikipedia or
something.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 22:50:30
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 3 2009 10:04 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> > HERE WE GO AGAIN .. there is no such thing as a 1/2 point middle .. IT IS
> > CALLED GETTING "SIDED "
>
> Just because you don't understand how a middle works doesn't mean that the
> rest of us need to stop and explain it to you. Try google or wikipedia or
> something.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
I was "middling" half time lines before you knew why you got that "funny
feeling " at the end of your bathtime !!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 10:29:54
From: phlash74
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2, 2:41=A0pm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 2 2009 4:35 PM, FangBanger wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2 2009 4:25 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2 2009 3:41 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > No, no clue at all. Booked for almost 40 years also. An agent for G=
ary
> > > > Austin of Tradewinds and several other online books. Also booked fr=
om
> > > > the 60's. Explain to me how the books could have made more than a
> > > > marginal win, since more money went on the winner and all teasers
> > > > lost?
>
> > > More Russ nonsense. =A0I never claimed that they had more than a "mar=
ginal"
> > > win - just that most books should have won. =A0Try reading my posts, =
and
> > > responding to what I actually said rather than what you drug addled a=
nd
> > > senile mind wishes I had said.
>
> > > Wayne Vinson
> > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> > OK ONE LAST TIME .. MORON
>
> > Total was bet up late and went over ...THATS BAD
>
> > Dog covered the spread ... THATS GOOD .. but action was very even and l=
ate
> > money was on AZ (drove it back down to 6.5)
>
> > All teasers covered ... THATS REAL BAD
>
> > NOW WHERE DO YOU SEE ANY PROFIT??
>
> > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrociti=
es.
> > Voltaire
>
> The likely points of profit were total bets and money line bets (plus vig
> on all the winning bets).
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> ____________________________________________________________________=A0
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com- Hide q=
uoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
From TJ Simers' column in Sunday's LA Times:
"I've been doing this for 17 years," said Jay Rood, recently promoted
to sports book manager for the 12 MGM Mirage properties, "and last
year was the first year the books in Las Vegas lost on the Super
Bowl."
Two years ago, folks wagered a little more than a record $96 million
here. "This year we hope we hit $90 million," Rood said, for the first
time in history maybe, a wager on the Super Bowl a safer gamble than
anyone sitting on their 401(k).
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the city is expecting 280,000
visitors -- a 1% drop from last year's big weekend, which still
doesn't sound as if the casinos are in danger of going into
foreclosure.
"We took a $500,000 bet on the Cardinals last week," Rood said -- from
someone who presumably knows they don't have to worry about the Bus.
The economy is a wreck and someone is betting half a million bucks on
the worst sports franchise in history to win it all.
As a rule, the public likes to bet on favorites or the team that all
the experts on TV are picking. But instead of going with Pittsburgh,
"all the money is coming in on Arizona."
"In the next few hours," Rood said, "I've got a big decision to make.
Right now Pittsburgh is favored by seven; do I drop it to 6 1/2 to
lure in more money from Pittsburgh? The way it goes now, if Arizona
wins or covers the seven-point spread, we lose big."
Michael
U.S. American
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:30:18
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 9:14 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> The books did OK. The biggest action was on the line, and they probably
> made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced towards
> Pit. They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. Next biggest
> action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. Teasers they
> lost.
>
> On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. Depends on how
> much teaser action they had.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT ..MORON
The sides are basically a 'wash" .. the total went over , and all the
teasers won
AND YOU THINK THEY DID OK ?
THIS IS LAME .. EVEN FOR YOU !!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:42:18
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
> SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT ..MORON
>
> The sides are basically a 'wash" .. the total went over , and all the
> teasers won
>
> AND YOU THINK THEY DID OK ?
>
> THIS IS LAME .. EVEN FOR YOU !!
>
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> Voltaire
Hmm, you appear to have massive reading problems. Try re-reading for
comprehension.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 13:41:08
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
No, no clue at all. Booked for almost 40 years also. An agent for Gary
Austin of Tradewinds and several other online books. Also booked from
the 60's. Explain to me how the books could have made more than a
marginal win, since more money went on the winner and all teasers
lost?
I used to take close to a $1,000,000 a week in action in the 90's with
Gary Austin. Five of us had a book in Gardena in the 70s. I have
absolutely no knowledge on book making? You're a bigger idiot than
Fangy.
In general, books kill the players (absolutely annihilate) about 4
weeks of the season. In those other weeks, small wins and loses.
On Feb 2, 12:18=EF=BF=BDpm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 2 2009 12:59 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Another brilliant post by Wino Vinson. Don't know which of you is more
> > clueless, Fangy or you. I booked for decades. Books want lop sided
> > games, blowouts, usually by dogs. It's realistically impossible the
> > books made any kind of money to speak of when they lost every possible
> > teaser concievable. Teasers give them their biggest edge, plus many
> > tourist bettors like them. With win/lose, total bets, the vig is less
> > than 5%.
>
> > Just speaking from a math perspective. If 5% of the action was on
> > teasers, which I'm sure it was, it makes it very difficult for books
> > to show a profit, especially since every teaser won. And you always
> > have those who would bet three and point way teasers on this game,
> > besides the normal 2 way teaser.
>
> > Every private book I know lost a little.
>
> There's a lot more to the action a book gets than just teasers. =EF=BF=BD=
=EF=BF=BDBut in
> typical Russ fashion, you've got no clue what's going on.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> _______________________________________________________________________=
=EF=BF=BD
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:25:09
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 3:41 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> No, no clue at all. Booked for almost 40 years also. An agent for Gary
> Austin of Tradewinds and several other online books. Also booked from
> the 60's. Explain to me how the books could have made more than a
> marginal win, since more money went on the winner and all teasers
> lost?
More Russ nonsense. I never claimed that they had more than a "marginal"
win - just that most books should have won. Try reading my posts, and
responding to what I actually said rather than what you drug addled and
senile mind wishes I had said.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 05:04:44
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 5:25 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> On Feb 2 2009 3:41 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > No, no clue at all. Booked for almost 40 years also. An agent for Gary
> > Austin of Tradewinds and several other online books. Also booked from
> > the 60's. Explain to me how the books could have made more than a
> > marginal win, since more money went on the winner and all teasers
> > lost?
>
> More Russ nonsense. I never claimed that they had more than a "marginal"
> win - just that most books should have won. Try reading my posts, and
> responding to what I actually said rather than what you drug addled and
> senile mind wishes I had said.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
he got confused with me also
Atheism is drawing dead
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:35:58
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 4:25 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> On Feb 2 2009 3:41 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > No, no clue at all. Booked for almost 40 years also. An agent for Gary
> > Austin of Tradewinds and several other online books. Also booked from
> > the 60's. Explain to me how the books could have made more than a
> > marginal win, since more money went on the winner and all teasers
> > lost?
>
> More Russ nonsense. I never claimed that they had more than a "marginal"
> win - just that most books should have won. Try reading my posts, and
> responding to what I actually said rather than what you drug addled and
> senile mind wishes I had said.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
OK ONE LAST TIME .. MORON
Total was bet up late and went over ...THATS BAD
Dog covered the spread ... THATS GOOD .. but action was very even and late
money was on AZ (drove it back down to 6.5)
All teasers covered ... THATS REAL BAD
NOW WHERE DO YOU SEE ANY PROFIT??
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:41:20
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 4:35 PM, FangBanger wrote:
> On Feb 2 2009 4:25 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2 2009 3:41 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > No, no clue at all. Booked for almost 40 years also. An agent for Gary
> > > Austin of Tradewinds and several other online books. Also booked from
> > > the 60's. Explain to me how the books could have made more than a
> > > marginal win, since more money went on the winner and all teasers
> > > lost?
> >
> > More Russ nonsense. I never claimed that they had more than a "marginal"
> > win - just that most books should have won. Try reading my posts, and
> > responding to what I actually said rather than what you drug addled and
> > senile mind wishes I had said.
> >
> > Wayne Vinson
> > http://cardsharp.org/
> > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> OK ONE LAST TIME .. MORON
>
> Total was bet up late and went over ...THATS BAD
>
> Dog covered the spread ... THATS GOOD .. but action was very even and late
> money was on AZ (drove it back down to 6.5)
>
> All teasers covered ... THATS REAL BAD
>
> NOW WHERE DO YOU SEE ANY PROFIT??
>
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> Voltaire
The likely points of profit were total bets and money line bets (plus vig
on all the winning bets).
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:02:28
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 4:41 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> No, no clue at all. Booked for almost 40 years also. An agent for Gary
> Austin of Tradewinds and several other online books. Also booked from
> the 60's. Explain to me how the books could have made more than a
> marginal win, since more money went on the winner and all teasers
> lost?
>
> I used to take close to a $1,000,000 a week in action in the 90's with
> Gary Austin. Five of us had a book in Gardena in the 70s. I have
> absolutely no knowledge on book making? You're a bigger idiot than
> Fangy.
>
> In general, books kill the players (absolutely annihilate) about 4
> weeks of the season. In those other weeks, small wins and loses.
>
True
>
>
>
> On Feb 2, 12:18�pm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Feb 2 2009 12:59 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > Another brilliant post by Wino Vinson. Don't know which of you is more
> > > clueless, Fangy or you. I booked for decades. Books want lop sided
> > > games, blowouts, usually by dogs. It's realistically impossible the
> > > books made any kind of money to speak of when they lost every possible
> > > teaser concievable. Teasers give them their biggest edge, plus many
> > > tourist bettors like them. With win/lose, total bets, the vig is less
> > > than 5%.
> >
> > > Just speaking from a math perspective. If 5% of the action was on
> > > teasers, which I'm sure it was, it makes it very difficult for books
> > > to show a profit, especially since every teaser won. And you always
> > > have those who would bet three and point way teasers on this game,
> > > besides the normal 2 way teaser.
> >
> > > Every private book I know lost a little.
> >
> > There's a lot more to the action a book gets than just teasers. � �But
in
> > typical Russ fashion, you've got no clue what's going on.
> >
> > Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________�
> > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
Atheism is drawing dead
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 10:59:59
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
Another brilliant post by Wino Vinson. Don't know which of you is more
clueless, Fangy or you. I booked for decades. Books want lop sided
games, blowouts, usually by dogs. It's realistically impossible the
books made any kind of money to speak of when they lost every possible
teaser concievable. Teasers give them their biggest edge, plus many
tourist bettors like them. With win/lose, total bets, the vig is less
than 5%.
Just speaking from a math perspective. If 5% of the action was on
teasers, which I'm sure it was, it makes it very difficult for books
to show a profit, especially since every teaser won. And you always
have those who would bet three and point way teasers on this game,
besides the normal 2 way teaser.
Every private book I know lost a little.
On Feb 2, 7:14=EF=BF=BDam, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> The books did OK. =EF=BF=BDThe biggest action was on the line, and they p=
robably
> made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced towards
> Pit. =EF=BF=BDThey won nearly everything wagered on the money line. =EF=
=BF=BDNext biggest
> action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. =EF=BF=BDTeaser=
s they
> lost.
>
> On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. =EF=BF=BDDepends=
on how
> much teaser action they had.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> ------=EF=BF=BD
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:01:28
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 1:59 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> Another brilliant post by Wino Vinson. Don't know which of you is more
> clueless, Fangy or you. I booked for decades. Books want lop sided
> games, blowouts, usually by dogs. It's realistically impossible the
> books made any kind of money to speak of when they lost every possible
> teaser concievable. Teasers give them their biggest edge, plus many
> tourist bettors like them. With win/lose, total bets, the vig is less
> than 5%.
>
> Just speaking from a math perspective. If 5% of the action was on
> teasers, which I'm sure it was, it makes it very difficult for books
> to show a profit, especially since every teaser won. And you always
> have those who would bet three and point way teasers on this game,
> besides the normal 2 way teaser.
>
> Every private book I know lost a little.
>
7 points for a spread can be rough for a book when you can tease the
total for almost free.This specific area is something that could be
systemized in a relatively short amount of time. I'm so glad you guys are
here. I found a new thing to study.
>
>
> On Feb 2, 7:14�am, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> >
> > > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
> >
> > The books did OK. �The biggest action was on the line, and they probably
> > made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced towards
> > Pit. �They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. �Next
biggest
> > action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. �Teasers they
> > lost.
> >
> > On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. �Depends on how
> > much teaser action they had.
> >
> > Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> >
> > ------�
> > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
Atheism is drawing dead
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:37:34
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 4:01 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
> On Feb 2 2009 1:59 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Another brilliant post by Wino Vinson. Don't know which of you is more
> > clueless, Fangy or you. I booked for decades. Books want lop sided
> > games, blowouts, usually by dogs. It's realistically impossible the
> > books made any kind of money to speak of when they lost every possible
> > teaser concievable. Teasers give them their biggest edge, plus many
> > tourist bettors like them. With win/lose, total bets, the vig is less
> > than 5%.
> >
> > Just speaking from a math perspective. If 5% of the action was on
> > teasers, which I'm sure it was, it makes it very difficult for books
> > to show a profit, especially since every teaser won. And you always
> > have those who would bet three and point way teasers on this game,
> > besides the normal 2 way teaser.
> >
> > Every private book I know lost a little.
> >
>
> 7 points for a spread can be rough for a book when you can tease the
> total for almost free.This specific area is something that could be
> systemized in a relatively short amount of time. I'm so glad you guys are
> here. I found a new thing to study.
WHAT ? WHAT ? AND WHAT ?
>
> >
> >
> > On Feb 2, 7:14�am, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
> > >
> > > The books did OK. �The biggest action was on the line, and they
probably
> > > made more than the vig there - I think it was a little unbalanced towards
> > > Pit. �They won nearly everything wagered on the money line. �Next
> biggest
> > > action is the total, and they definitely lost some there. �Teasers they
> > > lost.
> > >
> > > On the whole this was probably a decent result for them. �Depends on
how
> > > much teaser action they had.
> > >
> > > Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> > >
> > > ------�
> > > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
>
>
> Atheism is drawing dead
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 12:18:49
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 12:59 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> Another brilliant post by Wino Vinson. Don't know which of you is more
> clueless, Fangy or you. I booked for decades. Books want lop sided
> games, blowouts, usually by dogs. It's realistically impossible the
> books made any kind of money to speak of when they lost every possible
> teaser concievable. Teasers give them their biggest edge, plus many
> tourist bettors like them. With win/lose, total bets, the vig is less
> than 5%.
>
> Just speaking from a math perspective. If 5% of the action was on
> teasers, which I'm sure it was, it makes it very difficult for books
> to show a profit, especially since every teaser won. And you always
> have those who would bet three and point way teasers on this game,
> besides the normal 2 way teaser.
>
> Every private book I know lost a little.
There's a lot more to the action a book gets than just teasers. But in
typical Russ fashion, you've got no clue what's going on.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 17:19:17
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 1 2009 5:10 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> NOTE: doggystyle is not welcome to post in this thread.
>
> --
> "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
> Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
yeah .. whatever you do . dont welcome an answer from the guy that knows
the most !!
And if there were a side they needed.. it would be AZ .. But most likely
it doesnt matter
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:45:28
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 1, 6:10=A0pm, "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> NOTE: doggystyle is not welcome to post in this thread.
There might be some books in the Pittsburgh area who didn't lay off
their Pittsburgh action and really, really need Arizona to cover.
There might be some books in Arizona with the opposite problem. Small-
time bookies do some foolish things and a bookie around here went out
of business after he held unbalanced betting a few Super Bowls ago. .
But the national books don't care. If the line had attracted too much
action one way, they would have changed it. They take some money from
one group of people and pay a smaller amount to another group.
--
Will in New Haven
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 17:15:17
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
"Jason Pawloski" <a6794a4@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:hnmh56x795.ln2@recgroups.com...
> I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> NOTE: doggystyle is not welcome to post in this thread.
>
> --
> "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
> Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
Why would they care who wins?
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:06:50
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
WRONG. The reason is simple. It's basically a 50-50 proposition. When
they're rooting for a side, the scales are always tilted because of
the VIG. One way they win 50K, the other way they lose 10K. I just
used this as an example. This is basically the way it works. The main
thing books want is action volume. The rest will take care of itself
over the year.
On Feb 2, 1:27=EF=BF=BDpm, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:09=EF=BF=BDam, "La =EF=BF=BDCosa =EF=BF=BDNostradamus" <a6f4.=
..@webnntp.invalid >
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1 2009 7:35 PM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
>
> > > Who do the sportsbooks want to win. LOL! Someone give this guy the
> > > breathalyzer. I hope you're not driving.
>
> > It's nice to see the ignorant talk so much. Sportsbooks routinely have =
a
> > team they are rooting for.
>
> Sportsbooks will LOSE a lot of money if they routinely have to root
> for a team.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Feb 2009 04:55:46
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
Maybe you clowns should realize that the THREAD IS ABOUT 1 SPECIFIC GAME
AND NOT THE WHOLE SEASON.
On Feb 2 2009 5:06 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> WRONG. The reason is simple. It's basically a 50-50 proposition. When
> they're rooting for a side, the scales are always tilted because of
> the VIG. One way they win 50K, the other way they lose 10K. I just
> used this as an example. This is basically the way it works. The main
> thing books want is action volume. The rest will take care of itself
> over the year.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 2, 1:27�pm, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 6:09�am, "La �Cosa �Nostradamus" <a6f4....@webnntp.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 1 2009 7:35 PM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
> >
> > > > Who do the sportsbooks want to win. LOL! Someone give this guy the
> > > > breathalyzer. I hope you're not driving.
> >
> > > It's nice to see the ignorant talk so much. Sportsbooks routinely have a
> > > team they are rooting for.
> >
> > Sportsbooks will LOSE a lot of money if they routinely have to root
> > for a team.
Atheism is drawing dead
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 13:27:06
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2, 6:09=A0am, "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f4...@webnntp.invalid >
wrote:
> On Feb 1 2009 7:35 PM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
>
> > Who do the sportsbooks want to win. LOL! Someone give this guy the
> > breathalyzer. I hope you're not driving.
>
> It's nice to see the ignorant talk so much. Sportsbooks routinely have a
> team they are rooting for.
Sportsbooks will LOSE a lot of money if they routinely have to root
for a team.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Feb 2009 06:44:03
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 3:27 PM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:09 am, "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f4...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 1 2009 7:35 PM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
> >
> > > Who do the sportsbooks want to win. LOL! Someone give this guy the
> > > breathalyzer. I hope you're not driving.
> >
> > It's nice to see the ignorant talk so much. Sportsbooks routinely have a
> > team they are rooting for.
>
> Sportsbooks will LOSE a lot of money if they routinely have to root
> for a team.
Routinely .. or about "half" the time .. think about it
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 13:56:12
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 2 2009 4:27 PM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:09 am, "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f4...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 1 2009 7:35 PM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
> >
> > > Who do the sportsbooks want to win. LOL! Someone give this guy the
> > > breathalyzer. I hope you're not driving.
> >
> > It's nice to see the ignorant talk so much. Sportsbooks routinely have a
> > team they are rooting for.
>
> Sportsbooks will LOSE a lot of money if they routinely have to root
> for a team.
true. i thought the thread was about this game ? Usually the favorite is
overbought on the superbowl or any championship 1 game final. Most of
basketball gets the day off. The superbowl has traditionally been the
biggest wagering day of the year and also when the favorite is most
overbought. Without seeing any totals i would imagine that this year was
more balanced than others.
Atheism is drawing dead
---
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 21:27:22
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
It's good you won Razz0, but Mo-Fangy and I were discussing Teasers
and you enter this with some BS where you bet a $50 parlay.
On Feb 1, 9:23=EF=BF=BDpm, "RazzO" <ra...@razzo.com > wrote:
> Where did I state that I played a teaser?
>
> Heh. That sounds like you talk'in, brah.
>
> On Feb 1 2009 8:29 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Oh, another MO-ron eneters the room. Razz0, don't you know what you
> > bet? It's called a PARLAY, not a teaser. If you'd have bet a teaser,
> > you'd have Ariz with at least 13 points and the over would have been
> > 41 1/2.
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:15=EF=BF=BDpm, "RazzO" <ra...@razzo.com> wrote:
> > > I bet a $50 ticket
>
> > > AZ +7 / 47.5 (Over)
>
> > > On Feb 1 2009 7:51 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > You a a F*KING IDIOT ---period. The total was 46. Say some had it a
> > > > point off either way, at 45 or 47. If you teased it over, you TALE =
OFF
> > > > POINTS, making it 6-7 points less, which covered. If you teased it
> > > > under, you added points. You are a MORON and you continue to argue
> > > > with me? You have NEVER won.
>
> > > RazzO
>
> > > (...)
>
> > > ----=EF=BF=BD
> > > looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com
>
> RazzO
>
> (...)
>
> -------=EF=BF=BD
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:14:09
From: RazzO
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
Yea, wrong thread.
On Feb 1 2009 9:27 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> It's good you won Razz0, but Mo-Fangy and I were discussing Teasers
> and you enter this with some BS where you bet a $50 parlay.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 1, 9:23�pm, "RazzO" <ra...@razzo.com> wrote:
> > Where did I state that I played a teaser?
> >
> > Heh. That sounds like you talk'in, brah.
> >
> > On Feb 1 2009 8:29 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Oh, another MO-ron eneters the room. Razz0, don't you know what you
> > > bet? It's called a PARLAY, not a teaser. If you'd have bet a teaser,
> > > you'd have Ariz with at least 13 points and the over would have been
> > > 41 1/2.
> >
> > > On Feb 1, 8:15�pm, "RazzO" <ra...@razzo.com> wrote:
> > > > I bet a $50 ticket
> >
> > > > AZ +7 / 47.5 (Over)
> >
> > > > On Feb 1 2009 7:51 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > You a a F*KING IDIOT ---period. The total was 46. Say some had it a
> > > > > point off either way, at 45 or 47. If you teased it over, you TALE
OFF
> > > > > POINTS, making it 6-7 points less, which covered. If you teased it
> > > > > under, you added points. You are a MORON and you continue to argue
> > > > > with me? You have NEVER won.
> >
> > > > RazzO
> >
> > > > (...)
> >
> > > > ----�
> > > > looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com
> >
> > RazzO
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > -------�
> > looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted
text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
RazzO
(...)
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 20:29:47
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
Oh, another MO-ron eneters the room. Razz0, don't you know what you
bet? It's called a PARLAY, not a teaser. If you'd have bet a teaser,
you'd have Ariz with at least 13 points and the over would have been
41 1/2.
On Feb 1, 8:15=EF=BF=BDpm, "RazzO" <ra...@razzo.com > wrote:
> I bet a $50 ticket
>
> AZ +7 / 47.5 (Over)
>
> On Feb 1 2009 7:51 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > You a a F*KING IDIOT ---period. The total was 46. Say some had it a
> > point off either way, at 45 or 47. If you teased it over, you TALE OFF
> > POINTS, making it 6-7 points less, which covered. If you teased it
> > under, you added points. You are a MORON and you continue to argue
> > with me? You have NEVER won.
>
> RazzO
>
> (...)
>
> ----=EF=BF=BD
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 21:23:17
From: RazzO
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
Where did I state that I played a teaser?
Heh. That sounds like you talk'in, brah.
On Feb 1 2009 8:29 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> Oh, another MO-ron eneters the room. Razz0, don't you know what you
> bet? It's called a PARLAY, not a teaser. If you'd have bet a teaser,
> you'd have Ariz with at least 13 points and the over would have been
> 41 1/2.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 1, 8:15�pm, "RazzO" <ra...@razzo.com> wrote:
> > I bet a $50 ticket
> >
> > AZ +7 / 47.5 (Over)
> >
> > On Feb 1 2009 7:51 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > You a a F*KING IDIOT ---period. The total was 46. Say some had it a
> > > point off either way, at 45 or 47. If you teased it over, you TALE OFF
> > > POINTS, making it 6-7 points less, which covered. If you teased it
> > > under, you added points. You are a MORON and you continue to argue
> > > with me? You have NEVER won.
> >
> > RazzO
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > ----�
> > looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com
RazzO
(...)
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 19:51:26
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
You a a F*KING IDIOT ---period. The total was 46. Say some had it a
point off either way, at 45 or 47. If you teased it over, you TALE OFF
POINTS, making it 6-7 points less, which covered. If you teased it
under, you added points. You are a MORON and you continue to argue
with me? You have NEVER won.
On Feb 1, 7:42=EF=BF=BDpm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 1 2009 9:18 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > It looks like you don't understand it either. The SuperBowl is not
> > just straight betting. Teasers, money lines and other things enter the
> > equation. From the looks of it, all teasers covered, the WORST
> > possible scenario for a game. Money line money probably Pitt. Game
> > money probably Phoenix. Books can tell you what they want, but
> > overall, few books could have made any money to talk about on this
> > game. Many books could have lost their ass with all teasers covering.
>
> all teasers didnt cover genius !! =EF=BF=BDIf you teased the total up and=
bet it
> under .. you lost
>
> they held their PC in the middle and won all the DOG m/l bettors money
>
> teaser money doesnt compare to "dog " money on the m/l
>
> They all made money !!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 5:20=EF=BF=BDpm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid> wrote=
:
> > > On Feb 1 2009 5:39 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > > > "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > > >news:39oh56x6c5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > > > On Feb 1 2009 4:15 PM, Susan wrote:
>
> > > > >> "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > > > >>news:hnmh56x795.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > > >> > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> > > > >> > NOTE: doggystyle is not welcome to post in this thread.
>
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. =EF=BF=BDHe's smart =
also.." -
> Paul
> > > > >> > Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
>
> > > > >> Why would they care who wins?
>
> > > > > I guess I was asking if the bets were lopsided. If they stood to =
lose
> one
> > > > > way, then they would root against that.
>
> > > > If the betting was lopsided, they'd move the line.
>
> > > > Jim
>
> > > He doesnt understand !!
>
> > > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atroci=
ties..
> > > Voltaire
>
> > > _____________________________________________________________________=
=EF=BF=BD
> > > looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com-Hide quoted
> text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities=
.
> Voltaire
>
> ____________________________________________________________________=EF=
=BF=BD
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 20:15:52
From: RazzO
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
I bet a $50 ticket
AZ +7 / 47.5 (Over)
On Feb 1 2009 7:51 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> You a a F*KING IDIOT ---period. The total was 46. Say some had it a
> point off either way, at 45 or 47. If you teased it over, you TALE OFF
> POINTS, making it 6-7 points less, which covered. If you teased it
> under, you added points. You are a MORON and you continue to argue
> with me? You have NEVER won.
RazzO
(...)
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 19:18:15
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
It looks like you don't understand it either. The SuperBowl is not
just straight betting. Teasers, money lines and other things enter the
equation. From the looks of it, all teasers covered, the WORST
possible scenario for a game. Money line money probably Pitt. Game
money probably Phoenix. Books can tell you what they want, but
overall, few books could have made any money to talk about on this
game. Many books could have lost their ass with all teasers covering.
On Feb 1, 5:20=EF=BF=BDpm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 1 2009 5:39 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:39oh56x6c5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > On Feb 1 2009 4:15 PM, Susan wrote:
>
> > >> "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > >>news:hnmh56x795.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > >> > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>
> > >> > NOTE: doggystyle is not welcome to post in this thread.
>
> > >> > --
> > >> > "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. =EF=BF=BDHe's smart also=
." - Paul
> > >> > Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
>
> > >> Why would they care who wins?
>
> > > I guess I was asking if the bets were lopsided. If they stood to lose=
one
> > > way, then they would root against that.
>
> > If the betting was lopsided, they'd move the line.
>
> > Jim
>
> He doesnt understand !!
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities=
.
> Voltaire
>
> _____________________________________________________________________=EF=
=BF=BD
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 19:42:39
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 1 2009 9:18 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> It looks like you don't understand it either. The SuperBowl is not
> just straight betting. Teasers, money lines and other things enter the
> equation. From the looks of it, all teasers covered, the WORST
> possible scenario for a game. Money line money probably Pitt. Game
> money probably Phoenix. Books can tell you what they want, but
> overall, few books could have made any money to talk about on this
> game. Many books could have lost their ass with all teasers covering.
all teasers didnt cover genius !! If you teased the total up and bet it
under .. you lost
they held their PC in the middle and won all the DOG m/l bettors money
teaser money doesnt compare to "dog " money on the m/l
They all made money !!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 1, 5:20�pm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Feb 1 2009 5:39 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > >news:39oh56x6c5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > > On Feb 1 2009 4:15 PM, Susan wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > > >>news:hnmh56x795.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > >> > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
> >
> > > >> > NOTE: doggystyle is not welcome to post in this thread.
> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. �He's smart also.." -
Paul
> > > >> > Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
> >
> > > >> Why would they care who wins?
> >
> > > > I guess I was asking if the bets were lopsided. If they stood to lose
one
> > > > way, then they would root against that.
> >
> > > If the betting was lopsided, they'd move the line.
> >
> > > Jim
> >
> > He doesnt understand !!
> >
> > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..
> > Voltaire
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________________�
> > looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted
text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 17:17:08
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 1 2009 5:15 PM, Susan wrote:
> "Jason Pawloski" <a6794a4@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hnmh56x795.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
> >
> > NOTE: doggystyle is not welcome to post in this thread.
> >
> > --
> > "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
> > Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
>
>
>
> Why would they care who wins?
Exactly correct .. "Not so PDS". With the line moving back and forth from
6 1/2 and 7 , they dont care
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 19:23:43
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
"FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:k5uh56xku5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Exactly correct .. "Not so PDS". With the line moving back and forth from
> 6 1/2 and 7 , they dont care
Yeah - doggy loves me, he really really loves me
*blushing*
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 17:51:16
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 1 2009 7:23 PM, Susan wrote:
> "FangBanger" <a29bed1@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:k5uh56xku5.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> > Exactly correct .. "Not so PDS". With the line moving back and forth from
> > 6 1/2 and 7 , they dont care
>
> Yeah - doggy loves me, he really really loves me
>
> *blushing*
always have !! You had me in the thread entitled "BIG BUST IN TENNESSEE
".. and you answered 'you rang "?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:35:14
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
Who do the sportsbooks want to win. LOL! Someone give this guy the
breathalyzer. I hope you're not driving.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2009 03:09:25
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 1 2009 7:35 PM, Senator Millionaire wrote:
> Who do the sportsbooks want to win. LOL! Someone give this guy the
> breathalyzer. I hope you're not driving.
It's nice to see the ignorant talk so much. Sportsbooks routinely have a
team they are rooting for. In the case of the superbowl above all other
football games that is the case. There isn't much action that day and in
order to dillute and insure themselves bookies push the prop bets. Human
bookies have done this for years. They moved the line from 6 to 7 because
they had overwhelming initial support for Pitt. They wll stop moving the
line at a round number and then change the payout odds. Vegas can still
have an unbalanced book at gametime. Bottomline it is common for Vegas to
have interest in one side winning. It's also common for people to think
they know everything and make breathalyzer comments.
_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 15:36:35
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 1 2009 4:15 PM, Susan wrote:
> "Jason Pawloski" <a6794a4@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hnmh56x795.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
> >
> > NOTE: doggystyle is not welcome to post in this thread.
> >
> > --
> > "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
> > Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
>
>
>
> Why would they care who wins?
I guess I was asking if the bets were lopsided. If they stood to lose one
way, then they would root against that.
--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
---
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 15:39:09
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
"Jason Pawloski" <a6794a4@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:39oh56x6c5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 1 2009 4:15 PM, Susan wrote:
>
>> "Jason Pawloski" <a6794a4@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hnmh56x795.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
>> >
>> > NOTE: doggystyle is not welcome to post in this thread.
>> >
>> > --
>> > "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
>> > Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
>>
>>
>>
>> Why would they care who wins?
>
> I guess I was asking if the bets were lopsided. If they stood to lose one
> way, then they would root against that.
If the betting was lopsided, they'd move the line.
Jim
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2009 17:20:36
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Who do the sportsbooks want to win?
|
On Feb 1 2009 5:39 PM, Clave wrote:
> "Jason Pawloski" <a6794a4@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:39oh56x6c5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Feb 1 2009 4:15 PM, Susan wrote:
> >
> >> "Jason Pawloski" <a6794a4@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:hnmh56x795.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >> > I'm assuming Pitt. If anyone has insight please let me know.
> >> >
> >> > NOTE: doggystyle is not welcome to post in this thread.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
> >> > Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Why would they care who wins?
> >
> > I guess I was asking if the bets were lopsided. If they stood to lose one
> > way, then they would root against that.
>
> If the betting was lopsided, they'd move the line.
>
> Jim
He doesnt understand !!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
|
