2) "Whole businesses specialize in collecting those stats, sportsbook directors are more and more media guests, and so on. Would you not think that anyone who tried to systematically manipulate their numbers would be outed pretty quickly since they would be out of line with the broader market? It seems that you would lose credibility pretty quickly in today's world."
Some points:
Yes, there are businesses that specialize in collecting the stats, but where do they get the stats from?
They get it from the books, whose sole purpose is to take money from bettors.
Yes, sportsbook directors appear on media, but the media in this country polls worse than congress for trust-worthiness, so appearing on it does not lend credibility.
In fact, it's the opposite, think of it this way:
Question - with the advent of legalized sportsbetting, who else has increased their media presence?
Answer - the biggest names in the scamdicapping business, the phil steeles and marc lawrences of the world. FOX, nbc, espn etc have all gotten in bed with these scammers for their picks and "expert analysis."
To me, this makes no sense - the network's customers are sports fans and sports bettors, why align yourself with people who make their living lying about their records and cheating sport bettors?
Are the networks ignorant of the facts, or do they just not care because they think most of their audience doesn't know any better?
When did it become "good business sense" to treat your potential customers like sheep to be sheared?
At my book, I threw out all the newsletters and pamphlets the crooks used to try and leave on my counter.
So, media presence should not add credibility.
I'm sure it does, for some, but shouldn't if you're familiar with them.
And being a sportsbook director does not automatically make you credible.
There's a guy, one of the most popular names in Vegas, who does a weekly column during football season, on "Sharps and Squares." He does media on this topic. When they introduce him and puff up his credentials, what they don't tell you (probably don't know it, being outside the industry) is that he's been fired by two of the biggest houses in Vegas because instead of seeking equal action he was taking positions, betting with house money.
And why shouldn't he? He "knows" where the "sharp" money is going, right?
No. Which is why he keeps getting fired.
Credible? Absolutely not. Yet, there he is, on websites, magazines, radio, and TV, telling people about what teams are seeing the most action, and whether it's sharp or square. And the public buys into it.
As for it being systematic, I didn't mean to imply everyone does it, or that the books that do it do so all the time. But when games have extremely lopsided action and they want to lessen their risk, what do you think they do - give out info that would hurt or help them?
And who would out them for giving misinformation?
Other books? No; not if they want to ensure job security, or future employment opportunities.
The outlets that are getting the info from them?
No, they wouldn't want to discredit their own product.
The public? Yes, sure, but to little effect - they don't have a large enough platform to make a difference.
And besides, if a book was called out because their #'s did not align with what the other books are reporting, it would be easy to dismiss it as "business as usual." Bettors make the mistake in talking in generalities, such as "the books are getting heavy action on team A, so they need Team B tonight."
Not all books need the same outcome.
I may need Team A, but my friend, the sportsbook Director from the hotel next door, may need team B.
It's not every day, but it's also not unusual at all, so any "anomaly" can be excused away with "it happens sometimes" because, it does.
A final word on sharps and reverse line movement.
RLM - all anyone needs to know is this - EVERY football season, all over the internet, new posters pop up and say they have finally figured out how to win, and, "I'm going to use this thing called RLM and I'll be sharing my picks with everyone!" Every year, those threads disappear at some point in the season.
Why? Because they lose.
You know why books label certain players as sharp?
Because they win more often than they lose.
If bettors are really getting sharp plays, how come they don't win too?
Sometimes I couldn't say for certain what $ was sharp when the media or hotel guests asked me, I could only give generalities. Most of the time I had a good idea what was what, but here's a typical scenario:
Saturday morning, a sharpie comes in and bets the house limit on a Mich/Mich St basketball game laying 3 pts with State.
The morning shift ticket writer tells his friends "Hey, X Group is on Mich St -3 today."
The line is moving all over town, climbs to -4, then -5, settles on -6.
Three hours later, right before tip off, the same player that bought -3 that morning comes in and bets Mich +6. The afternoon shift ticket writer calls his friends and says, "Hey the X Group is all over Mich +6!"
So, where is the sharp money, what are the businesses that give out that info telling people?
I had a database of player info, it logged every bet made. I knew which guys were beating us, which guys weren't.
And I had friends and neighbors who bet sports for a living.
Sometimes, one of the sharp groups would bet one side, another group took the other side.
Where is the sharp money on that game?
My point is there are far too many variables to know what $ comes in, which teams it comes in on, and is it sharp or square. What you can be sure of is that bookmakers, like everyone else, like to keep their job.
They don't stay employed by losing money, and they use numbers to make sure they don't.
If a player is incorporating the #'s the books report as part of his 'capping, and is doing well, then by all means keep doing so. Caveat emptor is all I'm saying.
