Vegas odds mistake Super Bowl 14 mistake - both teams betters won

[LittleBoyBlue]

Heard this on the radio last night on way home. The FAN radio station here in New York.

Older lady calls in. Talks about how Vegas had made a mistake in odds changing for Super Bowl 4.

She says, steeler vs rams, the point spread was steelers giving 13 1/2. Big money conglomerates took that bet. They bet Rams.

Day before or day of Super Bowl. They spread went down to 11. They took that bet too. This time they took Steelers bet.

Final score 31-19



Difference of 12 points.

First bet. Steelers didn't cover. Rams bet wins.
Second bet. Steelers covered. Steelers bet wins.


Lol.... Nice.

 

[Rogah]

Similar thing happened for SB 31 when the public took GB when the line was 13 1/2 but they took NE when it hit 14. Since GB won by 14, all the people taking GB won, and all the people taking NE pushed (tied) so they at least got their money back and the bookies were the big losers.

It is an old gambler trick known as "middling." Believe me, it's not a valid long term strategy. You have to hit that "middle" ~5% of the time or you lose in the long run. The biggest problem is that trying to predict line movements is no easier than trying to predict the outcomes of the game themselves.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Similar thing happened for SB 31 when the public took GB when the line was 13 1/2 but they took NE when it hit 14. Since GB won by 14, all the people taking GB won, and all the people taking NE pushed (tied) so they at least got their money back and the bookies were the big losers.

It is an old gambler trick known as "middling." Believe me, it's not a valid long term strategy. You have to hit that "middle" ~5% of the time or you lose in the long run. The biggest problem is that trying to predict line movements is no easier than trying to predict the outcomes of the game themselves.

Disagree with first part. Not the same. Not similar.

In my scenario they lost both ways.

In your scenario. The second bet was returned. So they didn't gain (but didn't lose either). "It was if the bet never existed" - Tom Hagen (slides hands together to dismiss) lol



Agreed with latter part 100%

 

[Rogah]

Disagree with first part. Not the same. Not similar.

In my scenario they lost both ways.

In your scenario. The second bet was returned. So they didn't gain (but didn't lose either). "It was if the bet never existed" - Tom Hagen (slides hands together to dismiss) lol

The whole point of bookmaking is to collect money on everyone that bet on the losing team and pay out money to everyone who bet on the winning team (and keeping the vig for yourself). Vegas lost money on SB31 because they had to pay out to everyone who took GB-13 1/2 but were unable to collect from everyone who bet NE +14. That's really the only point I was trying to make.

Obviously from a bookie standpoint it is better to win 1 and tie 1 than it is to lose both, but I am just giving another high profile example of a situation where the wise guys lost money.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

The whole point of bookmaking is to collect money on everyone that bet on the losing team and pay out money to everyone who bet on the winning team (and keeping the vig for yourself). Vegas lost money on SB31 because they had to pay out to everyone who took GB-13 1/2 but were unable to collect from everyone who bet NE +14. That's really the only point I was trying to make.

Obviously from a bookie standpoint it is better to win 1 and tie 1 than it is to lose both, but I am just giving another high profile example of a situation where the wise guys lost money.

I hear ya. And I like when someone contributes a story like this. Lost archives of the mind.

Your point is taken.

My point was a double shot. Imagine paying for both teams like that. Lol