By Ross Thornton, CEO of Wise Guy Team
The Common Belief: Sportsbooks Always Balance the Action
One of the most persistent myths in sports betting is that sportsbooks always balance bets on both sides of a game to guarantee a profit. It sounds perfectly logical: if a book takes equal money on Team A and Team B, they can’t lose. They’d just scoop up the vigorish (that built-in fee on losing bets) and laugh their way to the bank every time. For example, imagine a bookmaker takes $1.1 million in wagers on each side of a football game at standard -110 odds. The losing side’s bettors would pay $1.1 million, the book would pay out $1 million to the winners, and keep $100,000 as profit — a tidy 4.5% cut for the house, no matter who wins. Risk-free money, right?
This idea is so appealing that many casual bettors just take it for granted. Why would a sportsbook ever need to sweat a game’s outcome if they could simply adjust the lines to draw equal action and lock in a sure win? If you believe that, you’d assume oddsmakers spend their days frantically tweaking odds to make sure exactly half the money is on each side of every game. It’s a comforting thought — the notion that “the house always wins” by rigging the system to eliminate all risk.
But as someone who’s spent years in the betting industry, let me assure you: this perfect 50/50 balance is more myth than reality. In fact, sportsbooks wish it were that easy. The truth is a lot more interesting and a lot more insightful for us bettors.
Fact or Fiction? Industry Insiders Weigh In
I’ve had countless conversations with bookmakers and professional bettors, and they all flatly reject the notion that books always balance their bets. This isn’t just my opinion; it’s the consensus of the people who actually set the lines in Las Vegas and beyond. Legendary oddsmakers have openly called the balanced-book theory “a fallacy” and even “an urban legend” . In other words, the idea sounds nice in theory, but real-world betting rarely works out so neatly.
Think about it: on any given Sunday, bookmakers are dealing with thousands of bettors, each with different opinions, wagers on parlays and teasers, and bets coming in at different times. Red Rock Resort sportsbook director Chuck Esposito put it plainly — dividing the action equally on every single game is “somewhat of a myth” once you factor in parlays and teasers that tie multiple games together . There are simply too many moving parts. Maybe the point spread action on tonight’s NBA game is evenly split, but what about all those parlay bets that include that game as a leg? Those create uneven exposures no matter what.
The reality is that sportsbooks almost always end up with more money on one side than the otherfor any given matchup . In the industry, we say the book has a “decision” on the game — meaning the house will win money if one team covers and lose if the other side does. As former sportsbook director Nick Bogdanovich explained, “The books always have decisions. That’s the bottom line” . Sometimes those decisions are small, other times they’re huge. But the notion that bookmakers are just sitting back with a perfectly balanced ledger on every game? That’s fiction, plain and simple.
Why Sportsbooks Don’t Mind Unbalanced Action
If sportsbooks aren’t actually balancing every game, you might wonder: Are they just gambling, like the rest of us? In a sense, yes – the house is willing to gamble when it has an edge. Bookmakers are in the business of making money, not of making sure they never take a loss on any single game. They manage their risk, of course, but they do not eliminate it. In fact, sometimes they embrace risk by taking a strong position on a game.
Here’s an insider secret: sometimes a sportsbook deliberately encourages lopsided betting on one side because they have an educated opinion on the game’s outcome. This is known as “taking a position”. Instead of moving the line to try and attract money on the other side and balance the bets, the bookmaker essentially says, “We’re fine being unbalanced here. We think our number is right, and if most bettors want the other side, so be it.” They’ll hold a big decision and accept the gamble that comes with it. Why? Because if their read on the game is correct, the payoff for the house is much bigger than if they had just balanced the action for a small, commission-only profit.
As an example, let’s say the sportsbook staff strongly believes Team X should be a 7-point favorite, but they opened at -6.5 and the public is hammering Team X at that number. The “by the book” move might be to adjust the line to -7 or -7.5 to slow down the influx of Team X bets. But if the bookmakers’ own analysis (and perhaps some sharp bettors’ opinions) tell them -6.5 was the right number, they may choose to hold at -6.5 and let that imbalance grow. In doing so, the sportsbook is effectively betting on Team Y (the underdog) to cover. If Team Y indeed covers (or wins the game outright), the book wins big. If Team X covers, the book loses that decision. This is the calculated risk books sometimes take when they feel they have the right side.
Not every sportsbook takes bold positions on purpose – some prefer to “play it straight” with less exposure – but many will when the circumstances are right . After all, the house still has its built-in advantage (that -110 juice on bets), so even when it gambles a bit, it does so from a favorable position. As South Point sportsbook director Chris Andrews wrote in his memoir, balanced action is usually the goal in theory, but “it’s rarely the reality” . His philosophy: having some balance is good, but it’s not the primary goal. If he has the majority of sharp bettors on one side and recreational bettors on the other, he’s comfortable “needing” the sharps’ side to win . In his words, “Of course, this can lead to some very unbalanced games, but that’s OK with me.”
Sharps vs. Public: The Real Balancing Act
So if sportsbooks aren’t balancing dollars, what are they balancing? The answer: information and risk. Specifically, they pay close attention to who is betting each side – the sharp money (professional bettors) versus the public money (casual bettors). A sportsbook’s dream scenario isn’t necessarily equal money on both sides; it’s having the same side as the smartest bettors in the room.
Think of it this way: not all bets are created equal. A $20,000 bet from an unknown recreational bettor doesn’t carry the same weight as a $2,000 bet from a proven sharp. The sharp bettor’s wager is rich with information – it signals the line might be off. The recreational bettor’s $20k might just be a hunch or fandom. Sportsbooks know this, and they’ll happily have uneven action if the right people are on the side the bookie believes is correct.
As MGM’s trading director Jeff Stoneback put it, in a perfect world you might want even action, “but when professionals get involved, we want to make sure we’re on their side” . Those pros bet for a living, so if all the sharp bettors are picking one team, the book wants that team to win too. This often means the sportsbook will accept being heavy on the opposite side (with mostly public money) and bank on the sharps being right. They’d rather have a large one-sided risk and be rooting with the sharps, than to move the line drastically just to even out the dollars. As Westgate VP Jay Kornegay explained, “the truth is, you always want to put the book in the best possible position to win – and that is at times needing one side or the other” .
This is why you might see a situation where 90% of bets (and a big chunk of the money) are on, say, the favorite -3½, yet the point spread only ticked up to -4 instead of -5 or -6. If a few respected bettors grabbed the underdog at +3½ early, the sportsbook now knows sharp action is on the dog. The line moves just enough to maybe discourage some public bets on the favorite, but the book isn’t desperate to balance everything out. They’re content to “gamble against the public” in this spot . In fact, oddsmakers often intentionally hang a number that they believe is correct and let the bets fall where they may, rather than swinging the odds wildly to cater to public sentiment . The goal is to manage risk in an intelligent way, not to avoid risk entirely.
Sportsbooks also have long memories and databases tracking every bettor’s tendencies. They know who the winners are (the “wiseguys”) and who the likely losers are (the everyday Joes chasing parlays). A result of this: the book will move mountains (or at least point spreads) when a sharp bets, but barely blink when a casual bettor does. Kornegay gave a great example: a “regular house player” (casual bettor) might be allowed to put down six figures on a game without moving the line at all, whereas a $10,000 bet from a known sharp could immediately force an oddsmaker to adjust the line . In other words, sportsbooks actively imbalance the action in their favor by reacting differently depending on who’s betting. That’s the real balancing act – balancing the book’s exposure to informed money versus uninformed money, not just red versus blue on the ledger.
House Edge and the Long Game
Let’s address another reason sportsbooks don’t lose sleep over unbalanced bets: the house edge and the law of large numbers. Remember that even if a book takes a big loss on one game because they happened to need the wrong side, the built-in advantages of the sportsbook model will likely make up for it over time. Casinos and sportsbooks are experts at playing the long game. They know that in the long run, the odds are stacked heavily in their favor.
First, there’s the straightforward math of the vigorish (the “juice”). That ~4.5% edge (when offering -110 on both sides) may not sound huge to a casual observer, but it’s massive when you churn millions of dollars in bets through it. Earning roughly a 4-5% return on every dollar wagered, over hundreds of thousands of bets, adds up to a fortune . If a professional bettor could secure a consistent 4-5% edge on every bet they place, they’d be counted among the greatest gamblers of all time. That’s how strong the book’s position is when it comes to the vig.
But the vig is just the beginning. Modern sportsbooks make a significant portion of their profits from parlays, teasers, and other exotic bets that carry much higher margins for the house. Ever notice how casual bettors love multi-team parlays and long-shot futures? Those are gold mines for the book. A sportsbook might lose a $100,000 decision on a single big game, but meanwhile they could be clearing far more from all the losing parlays and teaser bets that day. As Nick Bogdanovich noted, “parlays, teasers, betting into bad futures lines and the juice, in the long run, make it tough for the average bettor to win” . In plain terms: the average Joe is often his own worst enemy, and sportsbooks know it. They rely on the reality that most customers will eventually lose money due to those high-edge wagers and the grind of the vig. This cushion allows the house to take a few gambles on any given Sunday. Even if they drop a decision or two, the consistent mathematical edge and the volume of bets typically keep them profitable overall.
This is why the idea of the house “safely” balancing every bet isn’t even necessary for their business model. Sportsbooks don’t need to win every game to win in the long run. They just need to ensure that their odds are sharp, their risk is managed smartly, and let the probabilities work in their favor over hundreds of games. So far, that formula has worked spectacularly well for them – just look at the soaring revenues of sportsbooks in newly legalized U.S. markets. The bottom line is that the house has multiple avenues to make money (small edges that compound, plus bettor mistakes), so it can afford to have an opinion on a game here and there.
Key Takeaways for the Serious Bettor
What does all this mean for those of us trying to beat the books (or at least make sound wagers)? Understanding the myth of “balanced action” can actually give you an edge in how you interpret betting lines and data. Here are a few parting insights to keep in mind:
- Don’t assume line movements equal public money. A common mistake is thinking a point spread moves because “too many people bet Team A.” In reality, it might have moved because a few smart bettors bet Team A early, or the book took a position and didn’t move it as much as you’d expect. Always consider who likely caused the move, not just how much money. The betting percentages you see on TV or websites only tell part of the story.
- The sportsbook’s goal isn’t to be neutral – it’s to be right. A bookmaker would rather accurately predict the outcome and have a winning position than simply collect a small commission on an evenly split game. If you can identify games where the book seems comfortable holding lots of one-sided risk, that’s a hint about which side might be the “sharp” side. It’s not foolproof, but it’s valuable context.
- The house edge is powerful, but not unbeatable. Yes, sportsbooks enjoy structural advantages, and they will exploit public biases. But they’re also showing you where the respectable money is going if you know what to look for. As a serious bettor, you want to align yourself more with the sharps and the sportsbook’s opinions, and less with the noisy crowd. That could mean sometimes betting against the popular team or narrative when you see the line stubbornly staying at a certain number despite heavy public betting. The books might be telling you something with that hesitation.
- Most importantly, let the myth-busting motivate you: the fact that sportsbooks take calculated risks should empower you to do the same – when you’ve done your homework. The books aren’t magic or infallible; they’re making educated bets just like the best bettors do. The difference is they have the cushion of the vig and a big bankroll. You might not have those luxuries, so you must be even more selective and disciplined. But you also don’t have to play every game on the board – you can pick your spots where you think the book’s position might actually be wrong or where public perception has skewed a line too far.
The myth of perfectly balanced books has been busted: sportsbooks do not simply guarantee themselves a profit by evening out the money on each side. They manage risk, they move lines based on respected action, and yes, they gamble on outcomes they believe in. They trust their process and their long-term edge. As a bettor, you should take the same long-term, informed approach. Don’t shy away from taking a side just because “everyone is on the other side” — sometimes that’s exactly why you should take it.
In the end, the house does usually win, but not by playing it safe — they win by playing it smart. If you want to be on the winning side, it pays to understand how the game is really played behind the counter. Armed with that knowledge, you can make wiser bets and avoid falling for the simplistic narratives. The truth about sportsbook strategy isn’t just trivia; it’s actionable insight. Use it to bet sharp and stay ahead of the game.
