‘Vegas knows something!’ Common mistakes media make when covering sports betting

The NFL season is just around the corner and with it comes an increased focus on sports gambling. In part thanks to the growth in social media, the rise of fantasy, and legislative efforts to expand its legalization, gambling is no longer just a dirty secret for sports fans to whisper about at parties.

Readers are increasingly more interested in and knowledgeable about sports betting, and as such, mainstream media sitesfrom CBS to Fox to ESPNhave begun reporting on the industry like a traditional sports beat. While this is a positive, legitimatizing step for sports betting, many media outlets, particularly those who write occasional stories, often oversimplify and dumb down coverage by spreading myths and contributing to mistruths. In many cases, industry reporting is simply inaccurate.

With that in mind, we assembled a panel of industry observers to identify the common mistakes often committed by the mainstream media. This isn’t meant to point fingers or shame, because most of us have made these same mistakes a time or seven. Instead, it’s an effort to elevate the standard for industry reporting to greater heights.

“Vegas, baby, Vegas”

Nevada is currently the only state in the US where sports gambling is fully legal. However, that doesn’t mean it is the only place in the world where sportsbooks reside. Thanks to the very internet on which you are reading this, betting lines from around the world are now available for viewing in the US. Just because you see a point spread or betting line does not mean it is from “Vegas.” Reporting something as “Vegas says…” without understanding the actual sportsbook being referenced is lazy and often flat out wrong, like using “Kleenex” as shorthand for any and all facial tissues. “Vegas” isn’t and shouldn’t be considered a generic term for a sports book.

You may view this as being somewhat pedantic, but there are a few very good reasons to end this practice. The first is that “Vegas” is not a single entity. There are many competing sports books located in Las Vegas and they often differ in the lines they post. Saying, for instance, “Vegas has the Lions as 3-point favorites” can be factually wrong if some books have them listed as 3.5-point favorites.

The second, and more important reason, is that often the sportsbook quoted isn’t even based in the US. Sites like Pinnacle, 5Dimes, BetOnline, Bookmaker, etc., none of these are even in Las Vegasno matter what this writer says. Offshore books possess a lot more flexibility in creating lines (such as Super Bowl halftime cleavage props) as they are not subject to the strict rules set forth by the Nevada Gaming Commission. Of course, given that it is technically illegal to use these books from the US, this lack of governmental insight has another impact: If your readers don’t get paid their winnings, there is no legal recourse.

Citing ‘bad’ books

Speaking of players not getting paid, even within the extra-legal world of offshore gambling, not all sports books are created equal. Promoting, directly or indirectly, offshore books with bad reputations undermines the credibility of the entire industry just as it is gaining mainstream respectability.

Unsure on the provenance of that unique betting line? Sportsbook Review isn’t perfect, but it’s presently the best, most credible offshore sportsbook watchdog site. SBR assigns every offshore book anywhere between an ‘A’ and ‘F’ rating based on several criteria, including user reviews, and they aggressively report on books that slow pay (or don’t pay) customers. Before blindly passing along a sportsbook’s odds, it’s probably not a bad idea to check SBR’s sportsbook rating guide.

When an Upset isn’t an Upset 

Last year, top-ranked Mississippi State lost to fifth-ranked Alabama. It was an SEC West defining game and helped clinch Alabama’s place in the first college football playoff. But, you know one thing that game was not?

An upsetdespite what the headlines said later.

Alabama closed as a 10-point favorite, implying it had roughly an 80-percent chance to win. Yet, based on deeply flawed polls, the “best team in the country” lost. If you are going to be conversant in betting lines at one minute, you can’t ignore them in the next moment to amp up the drama of a game.

“Someone knows something”

Most of us can agree that College Football Gameday is one of the best shows on TV. Additionally, as a graduate of Florida State, I am obligated to love and revere Lee Corso. However, one thing the Vegas guys can’t support is his occasional “someone knows something” gimmick when looking at the conflict between a betting line and general perception of two teams.

Yes Lee, they do know something. But it isn’t anything shady as could be inferred. What “someone” knows is that the opinions of coaches that only see other teams in late night highlight packages can be misguided. A sports book manager probably has just the same information available to the rest of the world but they also have years of experience using information to shape a model to generate those spreads.

The other flaw in the logic of “someone knowing something” is that it implies that the point spread reflects only one person’s knowledge. A point spread is a market. If everyone betting that spread has different information than the bookmaker, the spread will ultimately reflect it.

“These Guys are Good”

The San Francisco 49ers were favorites in the 2013 NFC Championship game by between 3.5 and 4.5 points (depending on the day and location). They ultimately beat the Atlanta Falcons 28-24.The immediate reaction after a game’s point spread or total lands on or near the closing number is to think, “Man, those bookmakers are good!” Yet, no one ever mentions when the line is totally wrong (that same day the Patriots were 8-point home favorites and lost), and more to the point, nobody mentions that the closing line is the result of all the betting action that occurs prior to the start of the game. Bookmakers provide the opening line, but the closing line—which is refined by bettors—is the better, more efficient line.

Bookmakers are primarily good at one thing: Winning money. But remember, they are at an extreme advantage since bettors must hit at least 52.4 percent to overcome the house edge.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

The key to successful sports gambling is to find an edge not recognized by the sportsbooks—to understand that the odds being offered do not accurately reflect the probability of something occurring. In pursuit of that edge, bettors often look for any and all statistics that can tip the scales in their favor. This has spawned a cottage industry of gambling experts spouting any and every stat they can find. Of course, many of these stats simply reinforce an opinion they already have, or they end up finding so many statistics that they contradict each other on any Sunday where only 16 games are played. Without detailed analysis showing the correlation between a stat and winning bets over a sustained period of time, then it just becomes noise, a concept that has already been written about by someone much smarter than me.  

To Tout or Not to Tout

It is natural when covering a topic to seek out experts; CNBC would probably only have about three hours of programming a day without interviewing stock analysts and CEOs. More often than not, those experts aren’t dispassionate observers of that subject, they are participants and therefore possess an (often unspoken) agenda. While CNBC must deal with analysts hyping stocks they already own, in the world of sports betting, journalists must deal with “touts” that sell handicapping services.

But, which ones to use? When speaking with industry observers, they believe touts must be pushed to be open and honest about their verified records—demonstrate the transparency required of stock analysts since the dot-com bubble burst. Many touts present themselves as winners with a proven edge, but beneath all the bluster and bravado is often a long-term record of losing results. Questions should be asked of industry observers or watchdogs prior to using a supposed sports betting expert. It would be a step in the right direction and improve a reporter’s credibility.

Sharps vs. Squares

Betting action is frequently framed as the “Sharp” side comprised of big-money professional bettors against the “Square” side of casual public bettors. Going unspoken but implied is that the square side is wrong, because the public doesn’t know what they are doing. While in the long term, the public may have a lower winning percentage than the pros, this simplified view of sharps versus squares ignores a simple reality: There isn’t really a sharp side or square side—there are sharp and square numbers.

It isn’t about picking the right team, it is betting on them at the right number. A “Sharps” vs. “Squares” segment that fails to mention the lines isn’t providing any real information, it is just parroting information without understanding it. As an example, revisit the 2013 NFC championship game above; each team covered the spread depending on the number where the bet was placed, so which side was the “sharp” side and which was the “square” side?

Continue the discussion

Everyone makes mistakes, and ours might have been missing some of the other mistakes made by media members covering the sports betting industry. Feel free to share them at the Betting Talk forum.

* * *

David McIntire (@PFBSuperDave) lives in Denver. His book on a season spent betting on football in Las Vegas, Swimming with the Sharps, is available now.