I had thought bookies set the odds so that half of incoming bets were on either side. They don’t care which outcome occurs and just take their cut either way. I guess at low volume it’s hard to find that optimal spot and this is what results in losses.
Sportsbooks want action from sharps up until a certain point, because it helps them set the line for the other punters. If they go too far they give too much money to the sharps; not far enough and there is greater opportunity for the regular bettors.
Why don't sportsbooks just follow the polymarket model with buying and selling yes/no shares? It's impossible to lose money that way, and it doesn't matter how well any individual better is doing.
ultimately we see this play out quite a lot, predatory people cry when they’re preyed upon.
time and time again they justify predatory behaviors and then cry foul when someone figures out a way to take them. “it’s ok when i do it but we shouldn’t allow it when im on the wrong side!”
it’s wild how commonplace predatory shit has become in so many facets of society now.
Start a betting pool with a group of friends. Use an exchange (not sports book) internal to the group, so no external money needed. No commission.
It’s no fun realizing you and your friends have taken opposite bets and are just handing money to the house. Keep that money in your social group and make some friendly bets without worrying about the entire group being taken to the cleaners. The group leaves the Super Bowl party, horse races, etc with just as much money as went in (minus tickets, food/drink, etc).
I read a really interesting post in The NY Times (having trouble finding it) that really broke down how crazy sports betting has gotten in the last couple years. The gist is that states love betting, because they can tax them at high rates with little pushback from citizens who are marketed that the money goes to schools. The sportsbooks have to eat the new tax, and change the odds so that they can make a profit. This forces more losers in the state, and causes possible indirect costs from people losing so much. It’s an ugly cycle where no one wins.
Gamblers anonymous should offer a service where if you are struggling with betting addiction you give them your account and they sell it to a “sharp” who profits until you are banned.
Yes, only ~3% of bettors are net profitable, but more important is lifetime value (LTV) vs. customer acquisition cost (CAC). With CAC around $300 and average losses at $100/year, it takes three years of retention just to break even per casual bettor. If the average retention drops below that, sportsbooks lose money on the majority of customers, even if most are losers
14 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 41.2 ms ] threadFuture markets don't have to pay state taxes so that 51% drag on profits goes away [1].
[1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kalshi-ceo-state-law-doesnt-1...
time and time again they justify predatory behaviors and then cry foul when someone figures out a way to take them. “it’s ok when i do it but we shouldn’t allow it when im on the wrong side!”
it’s wild how commonplace predatory shit has become in so many facets of society now.
Start a betting pool with a group of friends. Use an exchange (not sports book) internal to the group, so no external money needed. No commission.
It’s no fun realizing you and your friends have taken opposite bets and are just handing money to the house. Keep that money in your social group and make some friendly bets without worrying about the entire group being taken to the cleaners. The group leaves the Super Bowl party, horse races, etc with just as much money as went in (minus tickets, food/drink, etc).
(Yes, I know, you can still lose all your money in stocks.)
That’s good for everyone right?
Having the house set the rates creates a risk for the house it does not need to take. It seems like an outdated model to run a business like this.