Official Bookie of the NFL
Now, we are seeing leagues and even teams partner with sportsbooks. Arizona will be the first NFL team with a book right at the stadium, before this Pittsburgh probably just edged out Las Vegas for the closest book to the stadium if walking. Other leagues already have a couple books on site.
Question is, does anyone care if a sportbook is "The Official Sports Book of the Jacksonville Jaguars" or any other team? Do the books get much bang for this sponsorship buck? Or is it more a case of paying off the teams above the table for peace, quiet, and maybe some access?
Could being affiliated affect the line?
Even when I cared about sports I cannot imagine caring beyond if I was at a game and wanted to make a bet I would just bet at the stadium. Otherwise if I bet live I am betting where I am, either for poker or some other reason and I decide to lay a bet.
Thoughts?
Quote: AZDuffman10 years ago most sports leagues barely acknowledged sports betting existed. In the 1980s the Jimmy "the Greek" segments had to hide what they thought the line was instead of saying it was the Steelers -3 they would have to disguise it in the picks in some way.
Now, we are seeing leagues and even teams partner with sportsbooks. Arizona will be the first NFL team with a book right at the stadium, before this Pittsburgh probably just edged out Las Vegas for the closest book to the stadium if walking. Other leagues already have a couple books on site.
Question is, does anyone care if a sportbook is "The Official Sports Book of the Jacksonville Jaguars" or any other team? Do the books get much bang for this sponsorship buck? Or is it more a case of paying off the teams above the table for peace, quiet, and maybe some access?
Could being affiliated affect the line?
Even when I cared about sports I cannot imagine caring beyond if I was at a game and wanted to make a bet I would just bet at the stadium. Otherwise if I bet live I am betting where I am, either for poker or some other reason and I decide to lay a bet.
Thoughts?
I'll offer my general thoughts on the subject, but I'd first like to disclaim that sports betting is nowhere near being a specialty of mine, to wit, I don't know much about it and I don't know how well my thoughts will even answer the questions.
1.) The USA Today has published the Vegas lines for quite some time. I'm not certain that it has been the case for over ten years, but I'm pretty sure it has been, so I don't think that the general public (or media) has really made a habit of completely burying their heads in the sand when it comes to sports betting. My understanding is that, fairly specifically, Vegas sportsbooks could not give their lines over the phone...but it's not like lines were completely unreported.
2.) Also, while the illegality of sportsbetting in states where it was illegal (though per the Federal Government via the since overturned as Unconstitutional PASPA) seemed to be strictly enforced on those acting as bookies or oddsmakers bet-takers on a for-profit basis, I don't know that anything was ever done about social (person to person) betting. I think that you just didn't see most media outlets report on, "Lines," simply because the entire media market (think local news) could not legally place bets in a sportsbook or most (think ESPN) of the national market could not legally place bets in a sportsbook.
I think it's still true that the majority of Americans cannot get legal sports action down, but maybe the majority can...I'd have to do a state-by-state legality v. population analysis, but DFS is more widely regulated and legalized than direct sportsbetting, so it's my opinion that national sports outlets feel that sports betting is authorized, widely enough, by states to justify the coverage.
3.) There's really no good reason not to take money from sportsbooks wanting to sponsor teams as long as such sponsorship does not run afoul of any state laws or NFL bylaws.
4.) I don't think being affiliated will impact the lines because, for most games, the lines end up being more-or-less standardized in a hurry even if the opening lines are slightly different. I tend to think that sportsbooks all recognize serious arbitrage potential as being bad for all of them, and as such, are in no hurry to artificially place lines that would give bettors such an opportunity.
In fact, when sports betting became legalized and offered in the general Pittsburgh region, I had hoped that, "Hometown bias," would have moved the lines against local teams at (physically) local sportsbooks and create some arbitrage opportunities working in concert with a Las Vegas based bettor, or bettor located elsewhere, in general, but that did not seem to materialize.
Quote: Mission146
1.) The USA Today has published the Vegas lines for quite some time. I'm not certain that it has been the case for over ten years, but I'm pretty sure it has been, so I don't think that the general public (or media) has really made a habit of completely burying their heads in the sand when it comes to sports betting. My understanding is that, fairly specifically, Vegas sportsbooks could not give their lines over the phone...but it's not like lines were completely unreported.
They and others did it back in the 1980s, that is as far back as I remember. Lots of papers did. The places that did not were the ones broadcasting the game or pregame. Sort of like it was part of the rights deal.
Quote:I think it's still true that the majority of Americans cannot get legal sports action down, but maybe the majority can...I'd have to do a state-by-state legality v. population analysis, but DFS is more widely regulated and legalized than direct sportsbetting, so it's my opinion that national sports outlets feel that sports betting is authorized, widely enough, by states to justify the coverage.
If that is true now it will not be for long. Listen to GambleOn. They give updates. Most states will soon have sports betting, just that most were not like NJ and PA who had "trigger" legislation that went into effect automatic or near automatic when SCOTUS ruled.
Quote:3.) There's really no good reason not to take money from sportsbooks wanting to sponsor teams as long as such sponsorship does not run afoul of any state laws or NFL bylaws.
4.) I don't think being affiliated will impact the lines because, for most games, the lines end up being more-or-less standardized in a hurry even if the opening lines are slightly different. I tend to think that sportsbooks all recognize serious arbitrage potential as being bad for all of them, and as such, are in no hurry to artificially place lines that would give bettors such an opportunity.
For the team yes, take the money and run with it. The leagues at first wanted to take a piece as a sort of royalty, but that went nowhere fast as sports betting is not as profitable as many people think. But the ones who should care are the books. I wrote here somewhere once where Five Dimes was taking action on professional wrestling! I said it made me question their operation for doing something so crazy. If a bookie took action on staged events, what else are they doing? Same if Rivers is all tied in with the Steelers, maybe eventually I question how they run their book and just bet at Meadows.
Quote:In fact, when sports betting became legalized and offered in the general Pittsburgh region, I had hoped that, "Hometown bias," would have moved the lines against local teams at (physically) local sportsbooks and create some arbitrage opportunities working in concert with a Las Vegas based bettor, or bettor located elsewhere, in general, but that did not seem to materialize.
IIRC the first bet placed was ten dimes on the Patriots against the Steelers. We all know that the first bet was not random but to have a grand opening. Whether it was staged to the point of selecting based on bet we have no idea. But later that same day I bet $50 the sane bet, of course that time they beat the Pats.
Quote: AZDuffmanThey and others did it back in the 1980s, that is as far back as I remember. Lots of papers did. The places that did not were the ones broadcasting the game or pregame. Sort of like it was part of the rights deal.
I have no idea, but now I do remember that from one of the papers more local to me when I grew up. I think they had NFL and College lines, for sure, and maybe even High School. I'm just recalling that now because it occurs to me that I wondered what the numbers in parenthesis meant for the longest time.
Quote:If that is true now it will not be for long. Listen to GambleOn. They give updates. Most states will soon have sports betting, just that most were not like NJ and PA who had "trigger" legislation that went into effect automatic or near automatic when SCOTUS ruled.
Most, as in, "Simple majority?" Probably. I'm not even entirely certain that they don't already, or for the ones who don't, legislation is probably in the works. How can you pass on the money, if you're the state, for one thing? I think it's just a matter of time for any state with licensed and regulated casinos already, but then certain states (Utah, Hawaii) will probably never get it---especially not Utah.
Here we go:
https://www.americangaming.org/research/state-gaming-map/
32 legal and 22 operational, if that site is correct.
Quote:For the team yes, take the money and run with it. The leagues at first wanted to take a piece as a sort of royalty, but that went nowhere fast as sports betting is not as profitable as many people think. But the ones who should care are the books. I wrote here somewhere once where Five Dimes was taking action on professional wrestling! I said it made me question their operation for doing something so crazy. If a bookie took action on staged events, what else are they doing? Same if Rivers is all tied in with the Steelers, maybe eventually I question how they run their book and just bet at Meadows.
Yeah, the downward stream of revenues just isn't there for the leagues to get any serious benefit out of only one sponsor.******
What was the gap on the pro wrestling lines? If I'm offering something like -180/-110, for example, then why the hell not? Even if there are people in the know, then you can just make the maximum wager not worth their while to do. I don't know that it would be profitable, but probably worth trying.
I don't know what you mean, "How they run their book." The line is the line. Are the lines the same? I think usually.
Quote:IIRC the first bet placed was ten dimes on the Patriots against the Steelers. We all know that the first bet was not random but to have a grand opening. Whether it was staged to the point of selecting based on bet we have no idea. But later that same day I bet $50 the sane bet, of course that time they beat the Pats.
That's how it goes!
******Edit to Add: An official sportsbook sponsor of the NFL itself might also give the possible appearance of impropriety because the refs answer to the NFL directly.
It also had ridiculously low max bets. It was more fantasy football than sports betting.
Quote: Mission146I have no idea, but now I do remember that from one of the papers more local to me when I grew up. I think they had NFL and College lines, for sure, and maybe even High School. I'm just recalling that now because it occurs to me that I wondered what the numbers in parenthesis meant for the longest time.
I was trying to really learn football as a kid and in the paper they had a short outline of each game and at the bottom it would say "Las Vegas Line." So if it said "Las Vegas Line Steelers by 3" I thought that meant the Steelers should win by 3. Of course I was just a little kid and half the adults still think that so I give myself a pass. Eventually they switched it to a writer making a prediction. But I was even then intrigued at the idea of betting on sports. A normal kid I was not.
Quote:Most, as in, "Simple majority?" Probably. I'm not even entirely certain that they don't already, or for the ones who don't, legislation is probably in the works. How can you pass on the money, if you're the state, for one thing? I think it's just a matter of time for any state with licensed and regulated casinos already, but then certain states (Utah, Hawaii) will probably never get it---especially not Utah.
Here we go:
https://www.americangaming.org/research/state-gaming-map/
32 legal and 22 operational, if that site is correct.
Most as in majority of states and majority of population. Lots of states seem to keep screwing up passing it over the stupid things. Some do not want you betting local college teams, others on wanting to force you to show up at the casino to register before you play online in a severe KYC type of regulation.
Quote:What was the gap on the pro wrestling lines? If I'm offering something like -180/-110, for example, then why the hell not? Even if there are people in the know, then you can just make the maximum wager not worth their while to do. I don't know that it would be profitable, but probably worth trying.
I don't know what you mean, "How they run their book." The line is the line. Are the lines the same? I think usually.
I do not remember the type of wrestling bets as I no longer know any wrestling names and would never bet it. And if there was a "Dusty Finish" the books could easily refuse to pay. What I mean in "how they run their book" is well let me give an example. Ever hear of the concept that a restaurant that has a dirty restroom makes you wonder about the kitchen? I stopped going to the Hardee's in Greene County, PA (where Jerry Sandusky now lives for those of you not from here) because the men's room was a disaster. So I questioned if they do not clean what I can see, how clean is the kitchen where I can't.
Thus if a sport book takes bets on a staged sport I wonder how professional the guys running it are. That is like offering a line on a Globetrotter's basketball game. We are not talking NFL exhibition games, which sometimes have some value to bet. We are talking betting on a predetermined event.
Quote: AZDuffmanI was trying to really learn football as a kid and in the paper they had a short outline of each game and at the bottom it would say "Las Vegas Line." So if it said "Las Vegas Line Steelers by 3" I thought that meant the Steelers should win by 3. Of course I was just a little kid and half the adults still think that so I give myself a pass. Eventually they switched it to a writer making a prediction. But I was even then intrigued at the idea of betting on sports. A normal kid I was not.
I wouldn't have known it was for betting until I was at least a teenager. I didn't really have Internet access readily available to me until I was fourteen, or so, so I read the paper cover-to-cover in the morning because I was an early riser. I also looked at the NFL schedule, specifically, because I HAD played fantasy football since about eleven years old. I guess that counts as sports betting. I made the money to pay my own league dues!
Quote:Most as in majority of states and majority of population. Lots of states seem to keep screwing up passing it over the stupid things. Some do not want you betting local college teams, others on wanting to force you to show up at the casino to register before you play online in a severe KYC type of regulation.
States, yes. Population, I don't think. California, no; Texas, no; Florida, not live yet (according to that site), so that's going to about do it for population, as of this very second, almost regardless of anything else.
Yeah, I think Virginia has something to the effect of college games, or it was proposed.
Quote:I do not remember the type of wrestling bets as I no longer know any wrestling names and would never bet it. And if there was a "Dusty Finish" the books could easily refuse to pay. What I mean in "how they run their book" is well let me give an example. Ever hear of the concept that a restaurant that has a dirty restroom makes you wonder about the kitchen? I stopped going to the Hardee's in Greene County, PA (where Jerry Sandusky now lives for those of you not from here) because the men's room was a disaster. So I questioned if they do not clean what I can see, how clean is the kitchen where I can't.
Thus if a sport book takes bets on a staged sport I wonder how professional the guys running it are. That is like offering a line on a Globetrotter's basketball game. We are not talking NFL exhibition games, which sometimes have some value to bet. We are talking betting on a predetermined event.
I doubt if there was much nefarious going on with the pro wrestling lines. I seriously imagine that it was high juice, low betting maximums and pretty much all parties involved saw it as just goofing around. I should imagine that the declared winner of the match is the declared winner of the match at the end of the event.
Quote: AZDuffmanEven when I cared about sports I cannot imagine caring beyond if I was at a game and wanted to make a bet I would just bet at the stadium. Otherwise if I bet live I am betting where I am, either for poker or some other reason and I decide to lay a bet.
The only possible way someone is going to win money betting sports is if they are extremely price sensitive. Yet this shows that there are customers that aren't and they will almost certainly lose money. Which is why partnership between the books and teams / venues is such a big deal.
It was like when there was uncertainty about Aaron Rodgers playing for the Packers this year. Most everyone took Green Bay season wins off the board. A few places kept them up, with odds adjusted based a variable that was unknown to almost everyone, but not quite everyone -- just like how pro wresting operates. I give those places credit. It's crazy to think that because a place is willing to take a bet, that it means there should be some concern with them. It should be the opposite: question the places that aren't willing to take a bet.
