The Justifications of Bad Bettors

Football season is here, and, more importantly to some, so are the 5 most active months in terms of sports betting. It's no secret that football is king when it comes to sports gambling in this country, and because of that, everyone wants to get after a piece or two of the action. What's interesting is that with the wealth of information we have at our disposal today when it comes to handicapping games (weather reports, injury reports, team blogs updated round the clock, statistics out the wazoo, etc.), the harder it ultimately becomes to make a good bet, because there's simply too much information out there. Your mind can become clouded quite easily.

That being said, there is no secret formula, and if there were, it would have been discovered by now. All you can ask of yourself is to make an informed decision on which team you want to back, because, hey, it's called gambling for a reason. But what cracks me up is when people think they have everything figured out, when all they're really doing is throwing money around with nothing but hollow reasoning. Bad bettors come in all shapes and sizes, but their justifications seem to fit a select few molds.

-"They were due!" Really? Were they due? You hear this a lot when someone bets on a team thinking they're going to snap a losing streak. Chances are, they're not "due," they just stink. It works the other way too - people try to bet on a hot team to lose simply because they're "due." How many people got crushed on that thinking with the 2008 Lions or 2007 Patriots - it's like a guy who's lost 5 straight $20 dollar blackjack hands and tries throwing $100 on the next hand because his luck has eventually got to change. Obviously, streaks come and go, but if you're throwing money out there with only the logic that a team is "due" and nothing else, you might as well go play roulette. (An exception would be when a team is blatantly underperforming or overperforming its talent level, i.e. last year when the Broncos started 6-0 and the Titans started 0-6. It was clear the Broncos were not that good and the Titans were not that bad. But tread that line carefully.)

-Basing this week's game too heavily on last week's game. How many times do you hear "they're mad after getting blown out last week," or "they had an emotional win last week and this will be the letdown" from dimwits that you work with or hear on the radio. People who say this have never played real football before. It's one thing to be extra motivated for a game, but let's make something clear: you always have to be "mad" when you step on a football field. If you're not in some sort of altered mental state, you're going to the hospital. The team that's supposedly "mad" in a game after a 35-point loss was probably just as "mad" when they took the field before that very 35-point loss. I find it hilarious when uninformed people try to all of a sudden enter the psyche of a group of coaches and athletes they've never met personally. One exception is a blatantly disadvantageous travel scenario or short week, especially if team turmoil is somehow involved (i.e. 2008 Thanksgiving, the Cardinals had zero chance coming East to Philly on about two days' rest from their game that past Sunday).

-Finding asinine stats to back up whatever conclusion you want to believe in. Stats are there to allow you to draw a conclusion, not the other way around, because there are so many numbers at our hands that you can hand pick and manipulate almost any stat that supposedly supports your thinking. Covers.com, the website I like to go to for spreads and other information, has on each matchup page a sometimes-useful "trends" section and lists the ten prior meetings between the teams in question (which does you zero good if you have interconference opponents who meet every four years - yeah, those times when Miami and Minnesota met in 2006 and 2002 are really going to help me find an edge for Week 2 in 2010). Some people put so much stock in this stuff, it's amusing. I'd like to meet the guy who reads a stat like "Tampa is 6-1-1 against the spread in its last 8 daytime home games when getting 1.5 points or more" and takes something so obscure as reason enough to plunk money down on the Bucs. That guy is out there somewhere. Hell, that guy is everywhere.

-Blind faith in your own team/blind hatred for your team's rivals. Fandom and betting are a tough mix. I'm not saying you have to ever bet against your favorite team or bet for your most hated team, but money tends to stay in the pockets of those who are objective. Don't allow your biases (and we ALL have biases) to distort your vision. For instance, Dallas has opened between an 8- and 9-point favorite at home against Chicago this coming week. Does the fan in me think they can beat the Bears by double digits? Yes. But the observer in me knows the team is poorly coached, lacks discipline, and most of the time does not do the little things right. I wouldn't even bet on them this week with someone else's money. Show me a guy who bets with his heart instead of his eyes and ears, and I'll show you a guy who helped build Vegas.

In conclusion, all you can ever want is to be above .500. And yes, sometimes lucky is better than good. We're all guilty of this stuff from time to time (you're talking to a guy who once lost $50 in Vegas two years ago because he thought he had a feeling about Boof f*ing Bonser and the Twins in a late May game against the Tigers. The Twinkies only lost that game for me by about 16 runs). But, until next time, remember that there is a difference between a losing bet and a stupid bet.

10 for the Weekend, Part Two

Ah, Week One of the NFL Season. That first Sunday is akin to Christmas morning. Conventional wisdom says it's the toughest week of all to bet, since your knowledge of each team is limited. Unconventional wisdom says it's the best week to take advantage of relatively tame point spreads. (as usual, home teams in CAPS)

Cincinnati (+4.5) over NEW ENGLAND
Tom Brady's car accident and contract notwithstanding, the Pats just don’t have the defense at the moment. T.O. and Ochocinco should have a day against the very inexperienced New England secondary, and last time we saw the Pats, they were getting the bowling-pin treatment from Ray Rice and the Ravens ground game in the playoffs. I still think the Patriots are overall the better team, but Cincinnati has enough defense (and possibly the best coordinator in the league in Mike Zimmer) to keep New England in the low 20s.

Indianapolis (-2.5) over HOUSTON
Ride the Colts until they buck ya. Houston is in its third year of being “the next up and coming team,” but I’m going to wait for them to actually beat Peyton Manning once before I ever bet on them to do so. If it were 3.5 I’d probably be scared away because this game has a good chance to be close, but the Colts giving less than a field goal is an inviting bet.

Oakland (+6.5) over TENNESSEE
Maybe this is the year the Raiders shed the doormat image. You can argue that no team underwent a bigger quarterback upgrade than Oakland did this year (because they went from “awful” in JaMarcus Russell to “average” with Jason Campbell), plus their defense has quietly been built into a respectable unit. You don’t expect Vince Young to accomplish hardly anything through the air in the game, and a team that has to win by running many times ends up playing close games. I’d still be a little surprised if the Raiders won, but a 20-16ish game smells right.

Green Bay (-3) over PHILADELPHIA
This is a case of the Week 1 tame lines. If this game were to be played in Week 7, the Pack would be a 7-7.5 point favorite in Philly. Give the 3 all day and all night. The Green Bay offense has the ability to put up some pinball numbers and the Eagles did not upgrade their defense in its problematic areas (the sans-blitz pass rush and the straight-ahead run game). Throw in Kevin Kolb playing with some real expectations for the first time and you could easily see the crowd booing and chanting for Michael Vick if Kolb is 1 for 7 in the second quarter.

Baltimore (+2) over NY JETS (Monday Night)
Don’t believe the hype just yet with Gang Green. Believe the hype with Baltimore. The Jets insist they can win all their games 16-13, but the Ravens should be able to get to 20 points in this game, which is a taller order for the Jets. I don’t know if they trust Mark Sanchez enough yet to try to win the game by taking advantage of Ed Reed’s absence, and simply running Shonn Greene between the tackles won’t be enough.

Red Light...Green Light It

Gambling is a billion dollar industry. The Catholic Church calls it a vice. People claim that it brings in a seedy underbelly and leads to crime. I won't dispute this completely. To some degree I believe it to be true but I feel its blown out of proportion. Its an age old agrument but don't let the actions of some ruin things for the majority of us. Most people enjoy gambling for fun and are prepared to lose some coin when the go to the casino because they expect to have some fun along the way. You go down the shore and hang out with your friends and family and enjoy a night or a weekend of controlled mayhem.

I like gambling of all forms because it taxes the dumb, weak willed, and poor that do not contribute enough to taxes. Buy your scratch offs on your lunch breaks and on the way home from work. You might get lucky some times but in the end you will lose. Thank you for contributing to the state funds.

People who bitch about gambling are the ones that don't do it and because they are not having fun, they don't want you to either. These people need to get a life. Casinos are beginning to pop up around our area in limited form to raise dollars for the Tri state area. They are popping up throughout the rest of the country as well because they are generating an interest in otherwise uninteresting areas and are helping to pay for government deficits.

Sports betting is one area that Delaware tried to pass an ultimately failed. 3 team parlays were approved in the state but thats a far cry from single game betting. For the life of me, I don't understand why federal law limits single game betting to Las Vegas. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 allowed Delaware and Oregon to run sports lotteries but not single game betting like Nevada. I specualte, to the point where I am nearly certain, that politics and the mob are involved in keeping in in Vegas. The NCAA and NFL are the biggest professional roadblocks to sports gambling spreading making several threats.

The point is that people enjoy sports gambling, perhaps even more so then table games. Bookies exist throughout the country and would continue to exist (because they allow betting on credit) but gambling would be more regulated. The mob presence would subside some because some people will choose to gamble legally and the states across the country would have some added revenue. I look forward to the day where betting palors are outside of stadium and you can place bets at halftime of games. Gambling may be considered part of the red light district but its time to green light it for the sake of the majority.

License and Registration, Please - Part Three

The theme of this series of posts involves the uninformed and oblivious screwing with the time and money of the informed and focused. Thus far, we've looked at ineptitude in the gym and on the golf course, which directly screws with a man's time and indirectly screws with a man's money. In this final installment, we go where the action is, directly to the money - the casino floor.

A great thing about living in South Jersey is the proximity of Atlantic City, our own (very) miniature Las Vegas. While those from North Jersey, New York, Washington, Baltimore, etc. may have a trek of 2-3 hours or more to AC, many a South Jerseyan can make it to the bright lights within 50 minutes of backing out of the driveway. For a lot of us from this area, AC stands as the crown jewel of the 21-and-over life, something we drool over as 18-19-20 year olds like a dog staring at a steak. What beckons to us is not necessarily the bars and club scene, because once you hit college the party life becomes habit. No, I'm talking about gambling.

There's a reason that the gambling age is 21, and whether you believe it should be lowered to 18 is another issue. I don't have a problem with it being 21, because I want the population of gamblers on the floor at any given time to be as SMART as possible. I don't mean book smarts, I mean knowing a.) what their limits are, b.) what their surroundings are, and c.) WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE DOING. Towns like Atlantic City were built on the losses of those with clouded judgment. The casinos welcome you with open arms in anticipation of feeding you drinks and blinding you with visions of jackpot grandeur until your pockets are empty. Understand that going in.

Foremost, if you do not know the game you are playing, you are not only being reckless with your own money, you are being reckless with the money of others much of the time, and that can get you into trouble (or at the very least it will yield you the scorn of everyone around you). The first time I ever played in a casino was in Montréal at age 20 (legal age is 18 there), and I only played roulette (I know, soft) because I knew at least I'd be essentially playing a game independent of those at the same table as me. I was honest enough to admit I didn't know blackjack or craps well enough to deserve a spot at one of those tables. And to this day, I still don't know craps that well, so I have never put one red cent on a crap table. Part of that stems from seeing two acquainted friends nearly come to blows in Vegas over how to bet during a crap game.

But what I have come to know is blackjack, and blackjack possibly above all others is a team game. Everyone sitting at that table is playing against the dealer. And since every decision you make alters the card progression for the rest of the shoe, it is overwhelmingly imperative to know what the hell you are doing. It's not that hard. Spend an hour on hitorstand.net or read the Wikipedia article on blackjack and you'll know enough. There is a right way to play and a wrong way to play, and both are outlined pretty clearly.

John I and I recently won about $600 between us in just one shoe, largely because everyone was playing right. Playing right means hitting a 15 when the dealer shows an 8, even though you know you're probably busting. Even if you do bust, you have to take one for the team, not only because what goes around comes around, but because it perpetuates a mathematically proven winning strategy all the way around the table. For instance, if you chicken out on that 15, maybe the next card is a 10 or face and you do get to live a bit longer when hitting would have busted you. But now the guy next to you rightly hits his 14, gets the 10 you would have gotten, and he's busted. Then the guy next to him with the 10, he doubles down and gets a dog-crap 6. While you cross your fingers for the dealer to bust, she flips over a 10 on her 8 to give her an 18, and now everyone at the table has lost the hand, including you, and now both dudes to your left are giving you the Manning Face. Had you hit your 15 and busted, the guy next to you gets the 6 to give him 20 and the doubled-down guy after him is still in good shape with the next card coming. One decision takes the table from 0-3 to a likely 2-1 on the hand. I've seen it way too many times.

Obviously this case is hypothetical and could easily go the other way, but the two underlying themes are these: 1. karma comes back to you - play right and the cards will fall the way you want over a long enough time period; 2. not playing right screws with other people's money as well as your own. If you don't care so much about your money, that's your business, but I damn well care about mine, even if it's the money that I've deemed expendable enough to cash in for casino chips for an hour or two.