Connect with us

BSM Writers

Why Pay a Losing Bet?

“Whether you agree or disagree with the sportsbook’s decisions to pay out Rahm bets, a more important question needs to be asked. Why did they do that?”

Scott Seidenberg

Published

on

banknotesandcoins

A win is a win right? Last week when John Rahm was forced to withdraw from the Memorial Tournament due to a positive Covid test, immediately the sports betting world had questions. What will happen to all the bets placed on Rahm? After 3 rounds, Rahm held a six stroke lead and looked to be headed towards a win. Going off as the betting favorite prior to the event, many sportsbooks held a decent sized liability on Rahm winning. Others, not so much. Regardless, the betting public was watching. 

By now you know what happened. FanDuel, DraftKings, PointsBet, BetMGM and William Hill, all paid out Rahm bets in some capacity. Some in cash and some in site credit. Either way, it’s a marketing ploy that is not new to online gambling sites. DraftKings, FanDuel & PointsBet have all given out “Bad Beat” payouts before, paying both sides of a bet when a controversial call is made or some other circumstance costs one side a win. In Vegas, The SuperBook and Circa did not pay out Rahm bets. 

Circa Sportsbook Director Matthew Metcalf tweeted, “Through the years, I’ve shied away from any payouts that involve subjectivity. It never leads to a good place long term from a customer perspective … Everything we do at Circa Sports revolves around building a consistent experience for the customer”

Whether you agree or disagree with the sportsbook’s decisions to pay out Rahm bets, a more important question needs to be asked. Why did they do that? 

“I think a lot of sports betters look at this in a very shortsighted way,” Patrick Everson from covers.com told me. “They look at it as, ‘Hey, there’s a prospect with this company. They treat their customers more fairly and pay out on bad beats and so forth,’ What they failed to do is ask the question, why is it that these companies can not only pay out or refund potentially on losing bets, but pay out losing bets as winners? I think the betters, the customers need to ask that question.”

So what drives a book to make this decision? The first factor would be the sportsbook’s business model. Do they rely heavily on promotions and parlays? We know the parlay is the bookmakers best friend. The more parlays bet, the more the book makes. So if you’re a sportsbook who’s business model is built upon promoting parlays and other giveaways to entice people, then paying out the Rahm bet is a no brainer. You’re going to make that money back tenfold in parlays. 

Another reason is the holds these books have on the actual Rahm bets and futures in general. 

Everson explained “Some books theoretical futures holds are significantly larger than others. And if that’s the case, well, you’re going to be in a position where financially it’s more in your interest to give that customer a boost, a bonus refund, a bet pay out on a losing bet, etc, because you’ve made enough money to do it.”

This makes more sense. For those who don’t know, a hold refers to the amount of money the book keeps per dollar wagered. The higher the hold, the more money the books make. The lower the hold, the better it is for the bettor. Say that ten times fast. A theoretical hold is how much the books will keep no matter how many bets they take on a future. 

The novice sports bettor, or average fan, is not paying attention to this. This goes back to Patrick’s initial comment about being short sided. They place the bet, they see the payout. But it’s important to understand that different books have different odds for a reason. Understanding these odds can be crucial to longterm success. There are many books out there where you are consistently overpaying.

The last reason a book would payout a Rahm bet or something similar, would be their position. What is their position on that event or other events? Pat Morrow from Bovada spoke on the Bovada At Odds Podcast about their NBA futures, saying the Lakers were their largest liability, saying “We are thrilled to bid them happy trails”. Bovada voided all John Rahm bets, but paid out potential winnings as site bonuses. Probably using the money they won from their Lakers futures. 

When Was the Last Time the LA Lakers Were Eliminated in the First Round of  the NBA Playoffs?
Courtesy: Getty Images

There’s a lot of questions that can arise from the sportsbook’s decisions on the Rahm situation. Does it create a slippery slope? Will this set a bad precedent? Will other books feel pressured to follow? The most important question however, is not being asked, and thats why? Why were these books able to just hand out money. Understanding that, may help you not only find a new place to bet, but become a more successful gambler in the long run. 

BSM Writers

Being Wrong On-Air Isn’t A Bad Thing

…if you feel yourself getting uncomfortable over the fact that you were wrong, stop to realize that’s your pride talking. Your ego. And if people call you out for being wrong, it’s actually a good sign.

Published

on

WRONG BAD

In the press conference after the Warriors won their fourth NBA title in eight years, Steph Curry referenced a very specific gesture from a very specific episode of Get Up that aired in August 2021.

“Clearly remember some experts and talking heads putting up the big zero,” Curry said, then holding up a hollowed fist to one eye, looking through it as if it were a telescope.

“How many championships we would have going forward because of everything we went through.”

Yep, Kendrick Perkins and Domonique Foxworth each predicted the Warriors wouldn’t win a single title over the course of the four-year extension Curry had just signed. The Warriors won the NBA title and guess what? Curry gets to gloat.

The funny part to me was the people who felt Perkins or Foxworth should be mad or embarrassed. Why? Because they were wrong?

That’s part of the game. If you’re a host or analyst who is never wrong in a prediction, it’s more likely that you’re excruciatingly boring than exceedingly smart. Being wrong is not necessarily fun, but it’s not a bad thing in this business.

You shouldn’t try to be wrong, but you shouldn’t be afraid of it, either. And if you are wrong, own it. Hold your L as I’ve heard the kids say. Don’t try to minimize it or explain it or try to point out how many other people are wrong, too. Do what Kendrick Perkins did on Get Up the day after the Warriors won the title.

“When they go on to win it, guess what?” He said, sitting next to Mike Greenberg. “You have to eat that.”

Do not do what Perkins did later that morning on First Take.

Perkins: “I come on here and it’s cool, right? Y’all can pull up Perk receipts and things to that nature. And then you give other people a pass like J-Will.”

Jason Williams: “I don’t get passes on this show.”

Perkins: “You had to, you had a receipt, too, because me and you both picked the Memphis Grizzlies to beat the Golden State Warriors, but I’m OK with that. I’m OK with that. Go ahead Stephen A. I know you’re about to have fun and do your thing. Go ahead.”

Stephen A. Smith: “First of all, I’m going to get serious for a second with the both of you, especially you, Perk, and I want to tell you something right now. Let me throw myself on Front Street, we can sit up there and make fun of me. You know how many damn Finals predictions I got wrong? I don’t give a damn. I mean, I got a whole bunch of them wrong. Ain’t no reason to come on the air and defend yourself. Perk, listen man. You were wrong. And we making fun, and Steph Curry making fun of you. You laugh at that my brother. He got you today. That’s all. He got you today.”

It’s absolutely great advice, and if you feel yourself getting uncomfortable over the fact that you were wrong, stop to realize that’s your pride talking. Your ego. And if people call you out for being wrong, it’s actually a good sign. It means they’re not just listening, but holding on to what you say. You matter. Don’t ruin that by getting defensive and testy.

WORTH EVERY PENNY

I did a double-take when I saw Chris Russo’s list of the greatest QB-TE combinations ever on Wednesday and this was before I ever got to Tom Brady-to-Rob Gronkowski listed at No. 5. It was actually No. 4 that stopped me cold: Starr-Kramer.

My first thought: Jerry Kramer didn’t play tight end.

My second thought: I must be unaware of this really good tight end from the Lombardi-era Packers.

After further review, I don’t think that’s necessarily true, either. Ron Kramer did play for the Lombardi-era Packers, and he was a good player. He caught 14 scoring passes in a three-year stretch where he really mattered, but he failed to catch a single touchdown pass in six of the 10 NFL seasons he played. He was named first-team All-Pro once and finished his career with 229 receptions.

Now this is not the only reason that this is an absolutely terrible list. It is the most egregious, however. Bart Starr and Kramer are not among the 25 top QB-TE combinations in NFL history let alone the top five. And if you’re to believe Russo’s list, eighty percent of the top tandems played in the NFL in the 30-year window from 1958 to 1987 with only one tandem from the past 30 years meriting inclusion when this is the era in which tight end production has steadily climbed.

Then I found out that Russo is making $10,000 per appearance on “First Take.”

My first thought: You don’t have to pay that much to get a 60-something white guy to grossly exaggerate how great stuff used to be.

My second thought: That might be the best $10,000 ESPN has ever spent.

Once a week, Russo comes on and draws a reaction out of a younger demographic by playing a good-natured version of Dana Carvey’s Grumpy Old Man. Russo groans to JJ Redick about the lack of fundamental basketball skills in today’s game or he proclaims the majesty of a tight end-quarterback pairing that was among the top five in its decade, but doesn’t sniff the top five of all-time.

And guess what? It works. Redick rolls his eyes, asks Russo which game he’s watching, and on Wednesday he got me to spend a good 25 minutes looking up statistics for some Packers tight end I’d never heard of. Not satisfied with that, I then moved on to determine Russo’s biggest omission from the list, which I’ve concluded is Philip Rivers and Antonio Gates, who connected for 89 touchdowns over 15 seasons, which is only 73 more touchdowns than Kramer scored in his career. John Elway and Shannon Sharpe should be on there, too.

Continue Reading

BSM Writers

Money Isn’t The Key Reason Why Sellers Sell Sports Radio

I started selling sports radio because I enjoyed working with clients who loved sports, our station, and wanted to reach fans with our commercials and promotions.

Jeff Caves

Published

on

Radio Sales

A radio salesperson’s value being purely tied to money is overrated to me. Our managers all believe that our main motivation for selling radio is to make more money. They see no problem in asking us to sell more in various ways because it increases our paycheck. We are offered more money to sell digital, NTR, to sell another station in the cluster, weekend remotes, new direct business, or via the phone in 8 hours. 

But is that why you sell sports radio?

In 2022, the Top 10 highest paying sales jobs are all in technology. Not a media company among them. You could argue that if it were all about making money, we should quit and work in tech. Famous bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed twenty banks over twenty years. He reportedly said,” that’s where the money is”. Sutton is the classic example of a person who wanted what money could provide and was willing to do whatever it took to get it, BUT he also admitted he liked robbing banks and felt alive. So, Sutton didn’t do it just for the money.

A salesperson’s relationship with money and prestige is also at the center of the play Death of a Salesman. Willy Loman is an aging and failing salesman who decides he is worth more dead than alive and kills himself in an auto accident giving his family the death benefit from his life insurance policy. Loman wasn’t working for the money. He wanted the prestige of what money could buy for himself and his family. 

Recently, I met a woman who spent twelve years selling radio from 1999-2011. I asked her why she left her senior sales job. She said she didn’t like the changes in the industry. Consolidation was at its peak, and most salespeople were asked to do more with less help. She described her radio sales job as one with “golden handcuffs”. The station paid her too much money to quit even though she hated the job. She finally quit. The job wasn’t worth the money to her.

I started selling sports radio because I enjoyed working with clients who loved sports, our station, and wanted to reach fans with our commercials and promotions. I never wanted to sell anything else and specifically enjoyed selling programming centered around reaching fans of Boise State University football. That’s it. Very similar to what Mark Glynn and his KJR staff experience when selling Kraken hockey and Huskies football.  

I never thought selling sports radio was the best way to make money. I just enjoyed the way I could make money. I focused on the process and what I enjoyed about the position—the freedom to come and go and set my schedule for the most part. I concentrated on annual contracts and clients who wanted to run radio commercials over the air to get more traffic and build their brand.

Most of my clients were local direct and listened to the station. Some other sales initiatives had steep learning curves, were one-day events or contracted out shaky support staff. In other words, the money didn’t motivate me enough. How I spent my time was more important. 

So, if you are in management, maybe consider why your sales staff is working at the station. Because to me, they’d be robbing banks if it were all about making lots of money.  

Continue Reading

BSM Writers

Media Noise: BSM Podcast Network Round Table

Published

on

Demetri Ravanos welcomes the two newest members of the BSM Podcast Network to the show. Brady Farkas and Stephen Strom join for a roundtable discussion that includes the new media, Sage Steele and Roger Goodell telling Congress that Dave Portnoy isn’t banned from NFL events.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 Barrett Media.