You want it to be one way. But it's (maybe) the other way.

 

"You want it to be one way. But it's the other way."

                    - Marlo Stanfield

I got so sick of hearing how "The Wire was the best show ever made, other than maybe Breaking Bad," that I went and binged the entire series over the last 4 weeks. And let me tell you something - it absolutely lived up to the hype. What a fantastic show - the story arcs, character development, weaving of previous season plots into future episodes, acting...it was all incredible. But more importantly, I finally have context into the Twitter memes I pretended like I understood (Stringer Bell "We back up," Wee-Bey shocked face, "Price of the brick going up," "Omar comin'"). Now I can nod along knowingly when one random, anonymous Twitter troll bodies another anonymous, random Twitter troll with a Wire reference. I think I've also seen the sports betting Twitter Aussies use this from time to time, but I'll be damned if I give them any credit (plz don't retweet my stupid tweets).

The quote above stands out as Marlo Stanfield packed a heavy punch with so few words. By directing his statement to a minimum wage, downtrodden, trying-to-do-his-job convenience store security guard, it gave a glimpse into how Marlo viewed the world. Normal members of society want the world to be  one way; a way in which everyday people can do their job and are given the proper respect for doing said job. These everyday people don't need awards, recognition, or riches; they just want people to respect what they do and fall in line like everyone else. Instead, in a way that cuts to the core, Marlo explains to this low-level security guard that life doesn't work like this. Those with riches, power, and authority do as they please and there isn't a thing common folks can do about it. It's a harsh reality - it really is the other way.

With this week's Massachusetts Gaming Commission meeting regarding limiting winning players, it got me thinking about how all parties in sports betting want the world to be viewed vs. how it actually works. I find myself listening to and agreeing with points from both sides of the argument. In a nutshell, these for-profit companies have an obligation to make as much money as they possibly can and sharp sports bettors shouldn't have to beard into these companies' sportsbooks to get a fair bet. Both of these things can be true.

But what really irks me is how disingenuous the arguments are for each of the parties involved. The sportsbooks come to the negotiation table (EDIT: they don't actually come to the negotiation table. They all bail at the last second because they might have to admit to some scumbag behaviors) crying "woe is me" because sports bettors are able to find beatable lines in their thousands of offerings. They cry foul play (never illegal play) and fail to mention the millions of dollars they spend on advertising how anyone can be a big winner when you play at their sportsbook! And I think we can all agree the most frustrating part of all of this is that these slimy fucking weasels will never straight up say "Correct, we limit winning sports bettors because it's bad for business." Yes, I understand they're covering their asses. No, that doesn't make it right for them to hide behind "proprietary algorithms." Maybe I'm way off, but the sportsbooks admitting they limit winning bettors, supported with just a little bit of data, would go a long way in progressing and accelerating these conversations.

Then we have the sharp sports bettors. They come to the negotiation table (EDIT: they don't actually come to the negotiation table either because 99% of you are blowhards that want to bitch about limiting, but never take any real, actionable steps to create change) crying that they've been limited to $6.37 on their bets, failing to mention they were limited because they were betting second half, 3rd tier Indonesian soccer for $1,000 a pop. Or they were taking shots at obvious line errors, wayyy off market prices, or arbing for significant sums with one of the 8,000 software platforms that helps you do this. "These DRESSMAKERS won't take my bet on this bullshit sport no one has ever heard of! They won't let me arb for infinite money glitch! TAKE THEIR GAMING LICENSE!"

Both parties want it one way.

I was never on the debate team in high school as I wasn't a fucking nerd. I was too busy not having sex, not drinking, and not hanging around the super cool kids. But from what I understand, one of the most effective strategies to help prepare for a debate is to come up with an argument your opponent is most likely to employ against your argument. This will help you identify flaws in your own argument and prepare you to combat them, should they arise.

So, let's all acknowledge that both sportsbooks and sharp bettors want it to be one way. But instead of bitching per usual, let's see what it's like understanding the other way.

How Sports Bettors Think it Is - I should be allowed to bet on anything, any time of day, for any amount of money. If Circa, Prime, or any other competent sportsbook comes to my state, all this limiting will go away and my problems are solved.

Hey you - yes, I'm speaking to you, the person reading my dumbass blog post. Got a little secret for you - you aren't beating Circa or Prime. They don't limit for a reason. You know what that reason is? Their lines are super sharp and their decision-makers are competent. They understand how to run a low-margin sportsbook and how to use a bettor's information to make better lines. Let's answer a few questions about these sharp sportsbooks.

• Will they show you the minimum and maximum you're allowed to bet? Yep!
• Will they offer lower vig? Yep!
• Will they let you beat them to injury news? Yep!
• Will they let you arb with them? Yep!
• Will they let you bet relatively large sums of money, when compared to other operators? Yep!

Let's answer some more questions about these sharp sportsbooks.

• Do they spend money on marketing like other sportsbooks? Nope!
• Do they offer promos/bonus bets/rewards programs? Nope!
• Will they offer SGP's, boosted bets, and correlated bullshit? Nope!
• Will they be on the losing side of a majority of your arbs? Nope! (will this accelerate you getting limited at the other side of the arb faster? Yes.)
• Will they have all the same offerings as the rec books your friends play at? You know, the offerings that all of us make most of our money on and don't talk about openly? Nope!

Listen, I really do hope books like Circa and Prime keep expanding. They're good for the industry and the people running them seem competent. You root for businesses like that. But sports bettors need to realize they can't have it one way. These sharp sportsbooks don't actually solve their problems. Their betting menu is extremely limited, they move on your action (eventually causing other books to move, which isn't good), and they'll use your information to make the market sharper as a whole.

I've passed off dozens dozens of PPH accounts. You know how many bets on NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL sides/totals I've seen go into these accounts? I can count it on two hands. You know what the bulk of sharp sportsbooks' offerings are? Yeah, you guessed it. I'm not beating major market sides/totals and neither are you. And if you are, stop reading this stupid ass blog and go back to swimming in your money, Scrooge McDuck style.

Of course you can offer limits as large as one would like when most of your offerings are major, liquid markets with efficient lines. What I would really like to see from someone like Jeff Benson is data on how many bettors they have whose average bet size is say, $2,000 or more and Circa doesn't believe the person be a professional sports bettor. Truly, what is the size of that market? How many people are you actually trying to run a sharp sportsbook for that can't make their sucker bets at your typical rec book like FanDuel or DraftKings? And on top of that, this group of people doesn't want all the perks that come with being a massive loser VIP at one of these rec books? That's a hard sell.

The professionals betting major markets don't need PPH accounts, hence why you don't see that stuff go in when you pass of your PPH. I'm guessing they don't really need the rec books either, unless they've taken over a whale's account. Whether they will admit it or not, many sharp sports bettors make their money off of soft, overlooked offerings by rec books. These soft offerings (not to be confused with what I've got for my wife after a bottle of Captain) attract your average recreational bettor and are most likely thrown into a $5, 10-team SGP. They aren't made for $500 pops by a sharp bettor who's created models to price the bet accurately. If your argument is that once the non-limiting sportsbooks obtain more market share, they can begin offering some of these softer markets, I guess I would hear you out. But what do you think would eventually happen to a soft market once it gets more attention from competent bookmakers?

So, no, sharp sports bettors, these shops will not solve all your problems and you getting excited for them to launch in your state is probably misguided. You want it one way, but it's the other way.

How Sportsbooks Think it Is - We cannot provide data on why customers are limited as it's a competitive space and our methods are proprietary. We will lose money and go out of business if we allow winning bettors to bet anything above $5. Also, we can't provide minimum and maximum bet amounts for any account.

This cannot be the way you're going about this. Zero data, zero rationale, zero public disclosures. You're collectively worth billions of dollars, and the best argument you've got for regulators is "we've got this." If you want it one way, you're gonna have to do a hell of a lot better.

Limiting unprofitable customers is the right choice by a for-profit enterprise. Does it look bad? Absolutely. Are they doing it with basically zero oversight? Definitely. Should they be allowed to market anyone can be a winner if they try hard enough? Probably not.

Sportsbooks cannot operate to a point where they only have losers betting into them. What's difficult is that these sportsbooks will always have the trump card - they have millions of data points showing hundreds (thousands?) of accounts that are up lifetime with their book. They will be able to truthfully and transparently show regulators that they don't actually limit all winning bettors because there are plenty of accounts as evidence to the contrary. What they will fail to mention is that if you were to dig into the data, these "winning" accounts are made up of customers that got lucky, showed little to no skill in winning their money, and have won a relatively small amount over the reviewed timeframe.

One thing that stood out to me in the Massachusetts Gaming Commission meeting was the representative from Bally's mumbling, tumbling, and stumbling through most of his responses when it came to answering questions regarding the limits placed on winning bettors. I mean, I guess I feel for the guy as Bally's clearly didn't get the memo every other sportsbook was bailing. If they knew everyone else was bailing and still sent this guy, they must really hate you, Justin Black. 

https://www.youtube.com/live/UWey5L89JSc?si=as6WEeEffoa4sQzY

But go back and watch the portion (about the 53:30 mark in the link above) towards the end of the meeting when the MGC starts discussing what would happen if all bettors were provided with minimum limits. It's like the Apostles healed the Bally's rep and his ability to think critically/speak was magically restored! You damn well better believe he spoke confidently and had responses cooked up on what it would look like if every bettor was provided with the same minimum bet size on any offering. It's almost like sportsbooks who limit winners were prepared to paint a terrible picture of the sports betting landscape if this were to happen.

What I would really like to see is sound analysis from someone on that side of the counter with data detailing most likely outcomes of what happens when you don't limit winning bettors. And I'm not talking about hypotheticals and possibilities, or any type of general, blanket statements lacking substance. I'm asking for data paired with a transparent, logic-driven argument as to what happens to a sportsbook when they don't limit sports bettors. 

Additionally, if the sportsbooks do want to go with the "offerings will be greatly reduced if we allow sharp bettors" argument, provide a detailed, data-driven look at what that would do to the profitability of their company. Provide a breakdown of how much of their betting volume will go away, or drive rec bettors to competitors. Maybe a former, shitty PointsBet trader could speak or write to something like this. In any case, we cannot be sitting in 2024 and have one of the parties trying to operate in only one way - a way in which they're able to restrict a person's betting with zero explanation to both the person and regulators.

So what we're left with is two parties that both want it one way. At best, they're able to see where the other side is coming from. At worst, neither ever tries to do anything to solve the problem. In a situation that feels like there should/could be a lot of middle-ground, it doesn't seem like either side is willing to work on anything other than their own way.

Random Thoughts

It's OK to criticize

In a previous blog, I mentioned how much I dislike it when someone assumes someone else is a miserable human because they critique others online. If this were the case, every Twitter user would be out on a ledge, debating whether to jump, because of how miserable their life is. On second thought.... maybe this idea has some merit.

Well, I'm here to continue fighting against this notion that if you critique others, you must have something awful happening in your life or you're a miserable person. Here's exactly what I've written before "You can be perfectly happy with everything going on in your life.....AND still shit on other's opinions and actions." 

Not only would I like to fight back against this notion, but I'm going to make the claim that those who are nothing but smiles, good times, and preach that everyone love everyone are actually some of the worst, messed up, tightly-wound nut jobs out there. Case in point? None other than one of the recently  (correctly) elected worst Twitter follows, Pisky Positivo (@PiskyPositivo). People like him are so dead set on being a happy-go-lucky type person that they push all negative thoughts deep down to the point where they can't work through it. He's clearly a guy that doesn't know how to bust balls with sports betting peers or take any type of criticism. If you need that final push to get you off the ledge I just mentioned, turn on an episode of the Always Betting Pod and you'll understand/jump.

Instead of rolling with it, like others, Pisky attempted to publicly dox Knish. Now, I have no clue if Knish cared about this or not. I don't care whether they've made up behind the scenes. My point is that these "sunshine and rainbows" people are so set on having a positive outlook that they struggle to process normal criticisms. Pisky was rightfully called out for having the personality of the quote wall in a sorority house. You know what I'm talking about:

And his response was to try and dox someone? Stop it. Be able to process something other than "everything is great all the time!"

Now Pisky, with all this said, try to avoid having the self-proclaimed godfather scream gibberish into a microphone about these criticisms. 27 people might lose their ability to hear and you might get kicked out of your WeWork cubicle for bothering others.

How do guests go on Circles Off and not have a +EV or -EV move of the week?

This is super specific, but I find it so awkward when they have a guest on that doesn't understand the concept or doesn't have a +/-EV move of the week. Frankly, it means they've never listened to a full episode of a show, which is hilarious and kind of a kick in the nuts to Rob and Johnny. It doesn't happen often, but really, it shouldn't happen at all. Cringeworthy, but makes me a laugh every time.

Why do people root against the sports they bet on or cover?

Look, I'm all for fairness and ensuring the guilty parties are held accountable for what they did wrong. However, over the last month or so, I cannot believe how many fans of baseball have seemingly gone out of their way to retweet every negative opinion or rumor about how involved Ohtani was in the betting scandal. It's like they won't be happy until Ohtani is locked up and banned from baseball. Again, if he did something wrong, let him face the consequences. But based on 30 seconds of Google searching, a federal investigation took place and nothing was found in his phone or spoken of in interviews. You're saying every person involved is covering it up? They've got every person involved tight-lipped and no chance of leaking info? I know sports bettors tend to hate a lot of things, most notably themselves, but it feels really weird to go out of your way to try and make this guy guilty with a bunch of bullshit rumors/assumptions and fuck over the sport you supposedly love.

Unit shaming should be normalized

One really small part of last week's Circles Off I found particularly interesting was the discussion on whether Portnoy's opinion on a game mattered more when he bets $500k and proves it with a bet slip. I don't think either of the hosts had the correct response. The correct response is that no, Portnoy's opinion doesn't matter more. However, he absolutely gets to care more than his army of $5 and $10 bettors that follow his every move.

At some point, we all bet super small stakes. Our bet amounts were small because that's all we could afford, or it was actually a relatively large sum of money at the time. What I don't like is when I'm told it's not OK to unit shame. Bullshit. A person that has $100 on a game is not allowed to care more than the person that has $10,000 on the game. And before I catch any heat, yes, I know it's the cool thing to not care about the game at all, regardless of how much money you have on it.

I'm not saying you have to go out of your way to degrade someone betting small amounts of money. I'm not saying the person who bets $100 on a game is a moron. I'm not saying they don't know what they're doing. They might be the next Bet Bash Hall of Famer in the making, but don't even realize how good they are yet. But I would like it known that if you're not betting sums of money that you believe the pros to be betting, you don't get to care like they do. The person betting real money always gets to care more and you sit at the table with people betting similar amounts to you.

Rumors I'm Hearing

Unabated releasing a new subscription tier?

• Last year, Unabated released their Concierge tier, which spoon feeds a user +EV edges to the point they really don't have to use their brain. However, rumors are that Concierge tier members were getting sick of having to open up the Unabated website and navigate 3-4 screens to find a good bet. As a result, I'm hearing Unabated is coming out with an even higher-priced tier (could not get exact pricing details, but revenue from this new product is not expected to help fund the American Bettors Coalition). In this newly created tier, Rufus Peabody personally calls you and tells you what to click on to win bets. Here's the kicker: if you don't place the bet, CJ calls you and tells you he hopes you die. Lastly, there's been rumors that for an additional $12 per month, Rufus will also fill you in on the Peabody Cup before the info is made public.

New SpankOdds intro?

• Recently, Spanky announced that the subscription price of SpankOdds would be going up in the near future. However, rumors are that in this new pricing package, users will be able to customize the audio/visual you get when opening the SpankOdds software. Customers complained that the spank noise wasn't enough and they needed something a little more "intense" to get them in the mood to steam chase. According to subscribers' feedback, customers felt like there should be an option for adult videos that could play when you open the odds screen, or more personalized settings for the noises you hear when a line moves. Per sources, "moans, squeals, and slurps" are some of the most requested additions. And from what I understand, the SpankOdds team is taking this very seriously as they've reached out to leading industry experts in online horniness. After Trench politely declined, insiders believe Rex Beyers (@Rex_Beyers) has been tasked with developing this unique user experience.

Candidates for new RAS message board?

• RIP to an OG Covid creation, the RAS Discord. After years of valuable information was unceremoniously wiped from the archives, sources say that management has turned their attention to finding the new moderator for what appears to be a paid message board (???) service. While no firm decisions have been made yet, I'm hearing that the short-list of serious candidates includes Matt Zylbert, Keith Line, Steve Fezzik, Vegas Jack, and the original moderator himself, Elihu. 
• Early word is that Zylbert can't make it work as his 9:00-5:00 has him too busy stocking shelves and he's requested every 'Winsday' off from moderating.
• Fezzik's reaction when he found out he was in consideration

• 

• Faced with the possibility of not having full control over what RAS subscribers read or think, it's rumored Elihu gave an impassioned speech to some of his most loyal supporters in a closed-door rally. One attendee gave an excerpt from the meeting:
• Nothing is possible unless one will commands, a will which has to be obeyed by others, beginning at the top and ending only at the very bottom. This is the expression of an authoritarian state – not of a weak, babbling democracy – of an authoritarian state where everyone is proud to obey, because he knows: I will likewise be obeyed when I must take command. 
• There is no timetable for a final decision to be made, but once it is, it's expected that Ed will announce the new moderator on a panel at BetBash someone from the company will let everyone know.

Person I Miss

Until next time.

Ferris

@FerrisB_86