Tweet
OPEN FOR DISCUSSION
-
-
AN ARTICLE FROM BUZZ DALY SPORTS SCENE:
February 26, 2001 - by Buzz Daly
Sportsbooks Face New Threat
From Syndicates & Followers
Unlike casino players, sports bettors can realistically harbor blue sky optimism, since our activity does not have the negative expectation inherent in table games and slots.
The 11-10 charged on a straight bet means a punter has to win 52.38 percent of his plays just to break even. Enough bettors go over the break-even point to fuel high hopes among those of us who do business with bookmakers.
Once you get past the relatively mild 4.545 percent impost in effect on straight bets, increasingly steeper premiums are charged to play parlays, teasers and exotic bets.
But recently, syndicates and sophisticated bettors have added a new wrinkle, in which they have a substantial edge: correlated parlays.
This is not a new concept. Books are well aware of correlated parlays and do not permit players to take advantage by prohibiting such wagers. For instance, we cannot parlay an underdog on the money line to the same team getting points, since if the first bet wins, so does the second play.
The software at most offshore books prevents these plays from being made.
But only obvious correlated parlays are banned. Some bettors have developed techniques in which more subtle correlations are perceived, and bet.
This is technical stuff, and in order to get a clear explanation we went to one of our favorite offshore bookmakers, whose in-depth understanding of the business is well established.
Here is our interview with him.
SBS: What is a correlated parlay? Teaser?
BM: A correlated parlay or teaser is a wager in which if a certain event takes place more likely than not the anticipated outcome of a second event will follow.
Example: The Yankees are –1.60 over the Mets. The total is 8 flat.
There was a very successful group two years ago that on the same call would make the following two wagers:
(a) Yankees –1.60 and over 8 flat for a limit parlay.
(b) Mets +1.50 and under 8 flat for a limit parlay.
In a correlated parlay if the game went over more times than not, the Yankees would win and vice versa.
Conversely, if the Mets won more times than not, the game would go under, and vice versa.
Thus, the “correlation” of two related events where the outcome of one dictated the outcome of the second.
Bookmakers, myself included, thought we had found the biggest sucker in the world.
We were all laughing in the beginning and crying in the end.
This crew needed to get down in as many places as possible.
They worked on volume.
I was told they wanted to win between 6 and 8 percent of all their wagers.
I was also told they won between 12 and 14 percent that year.
SBS: Do syndicates/originators make these plays along with straight bets … if so, isn’t that a departure from what they normally bet?
BM: There is some rumor now that “the king of the heap” has involved himself in this form of betting.
It is a departure, but if the computer programs they are using say they have an edge in any proposition they will seek to exploit it until they no longer can.
SBS: How would you describe a mover?
BM: A mover is an individual who works for an originator in concert with others to effectively bet as much money as possible on a game in the shortest period of time at the price the order calls for.
In doing so, movers can effectively wipe out the marketplace in 30 to 60 seconds, thus creating the phenomenon known as “steam”.
This can easily be identified when the Don Best goes black from the first casino to the last in a matter of seconds.
SBS: Do the movers make parlays and teasers based on an originator’s plays?
BM: A mover’s only job is to move the game at the number the order goes out at or a better number.
The orders only have value at the prescribed numbers.
SBS: What can a book do about this, if anything?
BM: Identify the movers and originators and limit their play.
SBS: Can a serious player use a formula to find correlated parlays and put in these bets with a book?
BM: Why not? Bookmakers by definition are supposed to take bets.
There are only a handful of originators and movers who the books with a “no wiseguy” policy have to concern themselves with.
These individuals constitute a minuscule part of the betting population but in all honesty their bankrolls do have significant clout.
Our thanks to this bookmaker, who took time from a busy schedule to enlighten SBS readers on this sports betting development.
Sportsbook Scene has no illusions about being a sharp player. But recently, we made a correlated parlay without knowing it.
The week before the NFL Conference Championships were played, we parlayed Baltimore on the money line (+210) vs. Oakland, to under 46 in the Super Bowl. At that time, the Super Bowl line was AFC –3 O/U 46, based on the assumption that the two conference favorites, Minnesota and Oakland, would meet.
We figured if Baltimore went to the S.B., the total would be much lower than 46. They did, and it was, giving us a double-digit middle to shoot at.
When we mentioned the play to a bookmaker, he pointed out that we had made a correlated parlay.
If we can do it by accident, pity the sportsbooks that face a well financed army of professionals doing it every day.
-
Reality - Could you please explain to me in you correlated parlay example why there would be a relationship between the Yankees winning and going over or the Mets winning and going under. I am lost on that point.
Thankyou
GAKComment
-
GAK,
THE YANKEES ARE PLAYING THE METS.
IN A CORRELATED PARLAY THE COMPUTER PROGRAM DETERMINES THAT IF THE YANKEES WIN THE LIKLIEHOOD IS THAT THE GAME TOTAL WILL GO OVER.
SIMILARLY, THE COMPUTER PROGRAM DETERMINES THAT IF THE METS WIN THE LIKELIEHOOD IS THAT THE GAME TOTAL WILL GO UNDER.
HENCE THE CORRELATION.
THEY KNOW IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN BOTH WAGERS BUT THE COMPUTER PROGRAM HAS DETERMINED MORE LIKELY THAN NOT ONE OF THESE PARLAYS MUST CLICK.
NATURALLY IF THE YANKS AND UNDER OR METS AND OVER OCCUR THEY WOULD LOSE BOTH WAGERS.
I HAVE BEEN TOLD THEY WERE LOOKING TO WIN BETWEEN 6 AND 8% OF THE TOTAL HANDLE WAGERED AND THEY DID IN FACT WIN BETWEEN 12 AND 14%.
AS A BOOKMAKER HOW STRONG WOULD YOU FEEL GETTING BOTH THOSE WAGERS ON THE SAME CALL?
REALITYComment
Comment