Dual lines - opinions?

  • Start date
    • •
  • Replies 78 Comments
  • • Views 5,261 Views
reno cool
That kind of move can bury them worse. I loved it when Bowmans was giving me a different line than was available to others. :dunno:
Click to expand...

It's typically just a market lineset that they move you to though.
 
These books do themselves no favors when it comes to US regulations. Perhaps, they just don't think it'll ever happen, but the more that they play these sorts of games and get away from simple market dynamics, the more resistance they'll get from policy makers here. Dealing dual linesets certainly wouldn't fly in a Las Vegas regulatory setting.

I have no idea what these books' sheets look like, but I can't imagine that Pinnacle and a very select few other books are the only ones that can generate enough revenue as a straight-shooting book. Why people don't copy their sort of profiling rather than dealing dual linesets is beyond me. It's hard for me to believe that with Bovada's size that they couldn't do this.

Again, I don't know the books' sheets, but for the larger books, I would think the added revenue from a multitude of sharps that would otherwise not be betting there into a Pinny-type model can't be much (if any) less profitable than dealing dual lines providing the proper risk tolerance.
 
MonkeyF0cker
These books do themselves no favors when it comes to US regulations. Perhaps, they just don't think it'll ever happen, but the more that they play these sorts of games and get away from simple market dynamics, the more resistance they'll get from policy makers here. Dealing dual linesets certainly wouldn't fly in a Las Vegas regulatory setting.

I have no idea what these books' sheets look like, but I can't imagine that Pinnacle and a very select few other books are the only ones that can generate enough revenue as a straight-shooting book. Why people don't copy their sort of profiling rather than dealing dual linesets is beyond me. It's hard for me to believe that with Bovada's size that they couldn't do this.

Again, I don't know the books' sheets, but for the larger books, I would think the added revenue from a multitude of sharps that would otherwise not be betting there into a Pinny-type model can't be much (if any) less profitable than dealing dual lines providing the proper risk tolerance.
Click to expand...

talking to people who are actively engaged in dealing dual lines, the issue seems to be not that they have to do it to stay in business, but it's more of a "why wouldn't we?" kind of attitude

If you are profiling players well, it's a relatively simple programming task to deal multiple lines. So they see all the action they are taking, see that their offerings are "transferring wealth" from squares to sharps, and see that with a few clicks of the mouse and keyboard, they can divert most of that wealth away from sharps and to them, so "why wouldn't they"
 
I would like to think the offshore books are often run by complete idiots because of the legal issues, but all the European books are run by equally stupid people (or worse perhaps).
 
As long as you pick the winning side of the dual line it doesn't really matter. Books would pay a winning bet regardless of what line it was booked.
 
pally
talking to people who are actively engaged in dealing dual lines, the issue seems to be not that they have to do it to stay in business, but it's more of a "why wouldn't we?" kind of attitude

If you are profiling players well, it's a relatively simple programming task to deal multiple lines. So they see all the action they are taking, see that their offerings are "transferring wealth" from squares to sharps, and see that with a few clicks of the mouse and keyboard, they can divert most of that wealth away from sharps and to them, so "why wouldn't they"
Click to expand...

But if you're profiling well, why wouldn't you be able to adopt the Pinny model just as easily? It actually seems like less of a programmatic issue since you're only dealing with having to maintain one lineset with variable micro-line moves.

The question becomes how much additional revenue you could obtain just through sheer reference and marketability versus being deemed "shady" by your own clientele. I would venture to guess that it could be fairly significant as there is great difficulty in finding an offshore solution that resembles a Pinnacle-type of solution for many Americans.

Perhaps, dealing dual lines is short-sighted. But again, that's merely conjecture on my part. I certainly don't know the specifics.

I could be wrong.
 
We are talking about a book that has been for squares and losers only for it's entire existence up until 10 months ago. And even since then it isn't sure what it wants to do.
 
I don't think adopting pinny's model is that easy. Every other book that has tried to deal low juice for decent limits has failed.
 
durito
We are talking about a book that has been for squares and losers only for it's entire existence up until 10 months ago. And even since then it isn't sure what it wants to do.
Click to expand...

True. But I think the Pinny model could work extremely well there. I don't know how many squares here have told me how much they LOVE Cantor's lines. Typically, they get good numbers relative to the rest of the market on an already overpriced side. And they get destroyed.

It doesn't take many more people to attract to your book through BETTER priced lines to offset any gains that you would get by charging your current customers extra.
 
durito
I don't think adopting pinny's model is that easy. Every other book that has tried to deal low juice for decent limits has failed.
Click to expand...

It would certainly take good profiling and risk tolerance.

You wouldn't have to start out with low juice or large limits, but you would hope that you would get there eventually.

You'd really need to do some market research to see if it's viable beforehand though.
 
The idiots at sbr seem to think this a terrible sin, so it probably won't go over well once they all figure it out. Of course most people are still just figuring out that bodog does this and it's been going on there for as long as I've been gambling.
 
MonkeyF0cker
True. But I think the Pinny model could work extremely well there. I don't know how many squares here have told me how much they LOVE Cantor's lines. Typically, they get good numbers relative to the rest of the market on an already overpriced side. And they get destroyed.

It doesn't take many more people to attract to your book through BETTER priced lines to offset any gains that you would get by charging your current customers extra.
Click to expand...

This is true. How many people at sbr bitch and bitch about how they wish they could bet at pinny.
 
I'm trying to figure out how much of a "sin" it should be considered. I mean compare it to offering a -7 -110/+7 -110 lineset, but you have it set up to not take bets at -7, only at -7.5, you offer -7.5 and if the player wants it, you take it.

The "the player doesn't have to take anything he doesn't want" argument still holds there - you don't have to take -7.5 if you don't want to.

So you are a book that isn't offering 20 cent lines, but again, what's wrong with that? If someone wants to set up a 40 cent book, that's fine.

So then, if neither of those things is wrong, then why wouldn't a book just offer -7.5 -110/ +7 -110 lines? Because even the squarest of squares would never play there and think the book was ridiculously bad. So THAT'S why it's bad if a book does that. Because there is huge, huge, huge value in "advertising" or "presenting" yourself as a -7 -110/ +7 -110 book.

So if secretly offering -7.5/+7 lines while publicly trying to make it seem like you are offering -7/+7 lines is so bad, as durito is saying 5dimes does and as other books have done, then how is that different from dealing dual lines? Because the line sets you are dealing still all have the same juice? Then why not just come out and say you are dealing dual lines, just like a -7.5/+7 book could just come out and say that they are dealing those lines?
 
pally
I'm trying to figure out how much of a "sin" it should be considered. I mean compare it to offering a -7 -110/+7 -110 lineset, but you have it set up to not take bets at -7, only at -7.5, you offer -7.5 and if the player wants it, you take it.

The "the player doesn't have to take anything he doesn't want" argument still holds there - you don't have to take -7.5 if you don't want to.

So you are a book that isn't offering 20 cent lines, but again, what's wrong with that? If someone wants to set up a 40 cent book, that's fine.

So then, if neither of those things is wrong, then why wouldn't a book just offer -7.5 -110/ +7 -110 lines? Because even the squarest of squares would never play there and think the book was ridiculously bad. So THAT'S why it's bad if a book does that. Because there is huge, huge, huge value in "advertising" or "presenting" yourself as a -7 -110/ +7 -110 book.

So if secretly offering -7.5/+7 lines while publicly trying to make it seem like you are offering -7/+7 lines is so bad, as durito is saying 5dimes does and as other books have done, then how is that different from dealing dual lines? Because the line sets you are dealing still all have the same juice? Then why not just come out and say you are dealing dual lines, just like a -7.5/+7 book could just come out and say that they are dealing those lines?
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to PR. if 99% of your customers are "happy" and 1% are sad are you going to change your business model to accommodate the 1%? I can tell you by those two numbers fuck no.

If we want to get into volume and setup a theoretical situation I think we can find out the profits, if any, are involved.
 
Yeah. That's pretty much what I was saying earlier, pally. It boils down to a question of honesty in either case. Most players are universally pretty intolerant of dishonesty with books. It's a constant frustration voiced on the forums. When a book is unwilling to admit their practices to their players, it becomes hard for them to trust the book with their money. In the current offshore atmosphere, you'd think you would want to be progressive and attempt to gain your clients' trust as much as possible rather than actively mislead them. There's a signficant market share window there with all of the recent departures of some pretty big U.S.-facing books in the last couple of years. Everyone remaining seems to want to be equal rather than a standout though.

Maybe they just don't want that (DOJ) target on their back if they do become the big dog though. :dunno:
 
What 5dimes does is essentially take one side off the board after they get a max bet until a person looks at it(rather than just auto moving it). So if they have a line at -6 and someone bets the max, and then I try to bet the max it will say the line is not available at the moment because it is being updated. Which is fine, except that if I try to bet +6, it will take it. On most sports they usually move the line within a minute so it's not available that long, but it does happen (every day) that lines will sit there for way longer (i've seen it for hours) where they are only taking action on the wrong side.

That is scummy imo. Dealing me -110/100 and letting me bet either while you get -105/-105 if fine with me. If I ran a book I would do that.

But, yea they should admit to doing it. Bodog has never done so, and sbr has never said a word about it.
 
That's really weird.

Why would you clone 5D and not Pinny? Are their offices next door to each other?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.