10 Tips for Betting on Football

These books change their numbers according to the betting patterns of their customers, so it is not entirely uncommon to find two or three point differences in the lines.”

“A sharp or smart has a plan of what he wants to do,” says Vaccaro, the director of sports operations and public relations at Lucky’s Race and Sports Book in Las Vegas.

3. Thanks to the juice, the only one who profits in this scenario is the bookmaker. “The key to proper money management is to be sure not to bet more than you can afford to lose.”

So, is it possible for the average square to become a little sharper in making football bets this season? According to professionals like Vacarro, Konik and Gordon, amateur bettors have the best chance to win if they demonstrate a little patience and follow the 10 basic tips below. So underdogs tend to be slightly undervalued – except by the sharps.”

But that doesn’t mean you have to bet like a “square” and throw away your hard-earned money.

“A square or recreational player might have a vague plan, but after two Corona’s he will definitely run to the window and make a hasty decision on the USC-Notre Dame game because he wants to be involved in the party atmosphere,” Vaccaro says. But, when you’re struggling, that’s when you want to reduce your bet size until you get out of your slump. “He is not jaded by teams and does not bet with his heart.

“Most people with an understanding of football gambling bet between 3 percent and 5 percent of their bankroll, increasing when they win and reducing when they lose,” Vaccaro says. “For example, if you have a $1,000 bankroll for the season, you should generally bet no more than $50 a game.”

. Drinking and Gambling Don’t Mix – “There is a reason the casinos in Las Vegas supply you with free drinks while you are gambling,” Moseman says. “Most people prefer to bet on the ‘better’ team, the one that will probably win the game. Not all games work according to this formula, but it is usually a good rule of thumb.”

“A square is the average, unsophisticated gambler whose decision making is based on hunches, media manipulation, or spurious systems that cannot overcome the bookmaker’s inherent mathematical advantage,” Konik explains. If you are going to go with a favorite, it is best to place your bet early in the week when the sharps are laying heavy money on the points. If you want advice about sports betting, find someone who has a successful track record. “The sharps are usually members of a betting syndicate privy to the most up-to-date information on injuries, weather, game plans, and, most important, the real power of the teams involved. There is a wealth of information on the Internet; it is just up to you to find it and research it daily.”

Another difference between squares and sharps is how they approach betting on game day.

7.

Newspapers and popular sports sites routinely publish the lines or point spreads for games, and football insiders offer their picks to viewers each week on ESPN and other cable networks.

Moseman agrees and especially likes home underdogs. The only touts bettors should consider are the ones who talk about the long haul and realistic winning percentages, which are in the upper 50 percent to lower 60 percent range.”

So, how much should you bet a game?

4. Giving 11 to 10 odds is almost always the cheapest price you can give.”

While these tips don’t guarantee you’re going to win, hopefully they can make you a little less square and a little more sharp in your picks this season. Also, being “in action” can make a dull late-afternoon game (Buffalo vs. There are almost an infinite number of scenarios that can happen in a single football game. He loses year after year, according to Dan Gordon, a top football handicapper and author of How to Beat the Sports Books (Cardoza Publishing 2005).

***

“The biggest mistake that amateur bettors make is they increase their bets when they are losing,” Sevransky says.

Also, it’s probably a good idea to disregard advice from the myriad of ex-players and football experts you see on television each week. “Common wisdom says that over the course of a long football season the average man or woman will pick approximately 50 percent winners. “When you’re in a good rhythm and winning, you want to increase your bets. Consider Underdogs – “In the long-run, it’s easier to win betting on the underdog,” Konik says. The only locks that exist are those that need keys to open them.”

Betting on football games; whether it’s through a local bookie, an offshore Internet site or a Nevada casino (still the only legal place in America to make football bets), most of us have done it or know of someone who has.

“In an average season, fewer than one bettor in twelve turns a profit,” Gordon says. “In the NFL, a game will often be totally turned around by one or two plays, or even a single penalty. “In trying to bamboozle potential customers, many services make claims about having scouts all over the country that give them inside information and promise 70 or even 80 percent winners, as if the bookmakers were the biggest suckers in the world. Bet at the Right Time – “The sharp bettors tend to bet underdogs, and they tend to bet them early,” Moseman says. Avoid Exotic Bets – “For very skilled handicappers, with a proven track record, there can, at least in theory, be value in betting parlays,” says Gordon on the type of bet that combines two or more individual wagers. “If you listen to their advice, you are sure to lose. “Squares usually bet later in the week and they tend to pick the favorites.

So, how much are we gambling each football season?

Suggest a correction

6. Locks Don’t Exist – “Anyone who has watched sports for about a month realizes that the difference between winning and losing, especially against the spread, can be infinitesimally small,” Gordon says. Shop For Numbers – “Another important aspect of betting on football is shopping for the best number,” Moseman explains. On college you will be able to find different lines at different sports books.

5. Slim underdogs regularly win outright.

2. Research Football Services – “Most sports services realize that most people who sign up with them are insecure,” Gordon warns. The NFL, for example, will have very similar numbers at most of the betting shops you visit.

Even Hollywood is not immune – think Two for the Money with Al Pacino and Matthew McConaughey.

1. If you like an underdog, it is best to get your bet in as late as possible, where there is heavy action from squares on favorites. “As for me, the best bet in football is betting the point spread or over/under totals on individual games. “Thus, the bookies love and cherish the squares.”

Michael Konik, a sports writer and best-selling author of The Smart Money (Simon & Schuster 2006), explains why it is so hard for the recreational gambler to win at betting on football. “If you become an expert on a smaller conference like the WAC, you have a good chance to beat the house because sports book operators do not have the time or resources to follow this conference the way you can. Chasing losses is the fastest way to the poor house.”

Certainly not back into the pockets of the average bettor. “Because alcohol clouds your judgment and usually helps you to make rash decisions you usually wouldn’t otherwise make.

“The standard bet requires gamblers to lay $11 for every $10 they want to win with the extra $1 or 10 percent known as the juice,” Konik says. Avoid Chasing Bets – “Don’t do it! There is no worse way to mismanage your bankroll than to chase your bets after a losing day,” cautions Moseman on the dangerous practice of trying to immediately win back your losses. And why not? We have unconditional love for the sport and betting $50 or $100 on a game adds an extra rush of adrenaline.

And remember, in the immortal words of “Fast” Eddie Felson, “Money won is twice as sweet as money earned.”

“There is probably no better bet in sports than playing an underdog at home,” Moseman says. “Teams play inspired ball at home. Oakland comes to mind) seem like the Super Bowl. Otherwise, you’re better off doing your own research.”

And where does all that money go?

9. In fact, sports bettors must pick 52.4 percent winners just to break even.”

“The bookies fear and despise a tiny coterie of professional bettors known as ‘the sharps,’” Konik says. “There will be more discrepancy in the numbers at different sports books. If North Texas is his best bet on a Saturday then that is his bet.

But even though the math says it’s virtually impossible to win on a consistent basis, Americans continue to bet on football. To be a successful sports bettor you need to operate with a clear mind.”

Although exact figures are impossible to calculate, according to Jimmy Vaccaro, widely considered to be Las Vegas’ most influential bookmaker, Americans probably wager more than $50 billion a year on NFL and college football combined. The payout is just the same as far as he is concerned.

Ted Sevransky, a well-known Las Vegas gambler and sports consultant with Sportsmemo.com, agrees.

10. Money Management – “This is without a doubt the most important aspect of betting on sports and possibly the most neglected,” says Morey “Doc” Moseman, a professional gambler and sports consultant with DocSports.com for nearly 40 years. Focus on Conferences – “The best way to win money betting football is to develop a niche and follow it closely,” Moseman advises. “Over the course of several seasons, the percentage of bettors who turn a profit is minuscule.”

However, Konik adds that there are some bettors who actually know how to beat the bookies. They use powerful computers that can process millions of bits of data and produce a more accurate point-spread line than the bookmakers.”

“The talking heads on TV know nothing about sports betting,” says Sevransky. He is not taken in by being involved in USC-Notre Dame just because it is the biggest watched game of the day. Big underdogs often find ways to cover the spread and they rarely give up toward the end of a game in front of the home crowd.”

8

U.S. History: Income Distribution and Reaganomics

Reagan policies were designed to provide some flexibility for businesses to contain production costs, increase profits by reducing labor costs, and reducing the costs involved in meeting government standards. Also on the hit list for Reaganomics, was the reduction of social programs.. The result of this program was a softening of safety and environmental regulations to ease the burden on industry. The reduced costs resulting from relocating no-skill jobs, low-skill jobs, assembly, and manufacturing operations to low wage areas, validated the practice of outsourcing. Yet, the cost to the average American laborer during that era and continuing into the next administration was what gave Reaganomics its negative reputation.

From 1973 to 1986 average wages have dropped in buying power by nearly 14-percent (Harrison & Bluestone 113).In 1986, the average annual income of the poorest 20-percent of all families was $8,033. Who paid for the improvements in American business during the 1980′s? The lower 60% of American workers paid for these improvements through the reductions in the real purchasing power of their income.

Contingency labor pools were (and still are) not organized under a union. According to Krugman, these salaries did not come primarily from greater profits, but from a larger slice of the profits.

Reaganomics Debate:Inequality in Income Distribution, Government Policies and Corporate Restructuring

Mountains of paper have been written about the economic period of the 1980′s, coined Reaganomics. Some firms have done so to improve their chance of selling to foreign markets or to take advantage of foreign government incentives (taxes) (Harrison & Bluestone 31).

Reagan was not the only one conducting a reduction program. To continue the weakening of the labor pool, the Reaganites engineered the recessions of 1980 and 1981-2 to under-cut labor organizations while contributing to the corporate bottom line (Harrison & Bluestone 14). Harrison and Bluestone define what is usually considered the middle-class income earners, as those making $20,000 to $50,000 annually. Strangely enough, this period seems to be the era of debt for both the government and the American income earners. Since employee turnover is highest during the first few months of employment, businesses could save at least 20 to 25-percent of the wages they would have paid to an employee during that same period.

There is plenty of material to argue whether or not Reaganomics was an economic success or an economic blunder. The Reagan Administration simply continued this trend toward economic deregulation as initiated under Carter. Revolving installment credit grew from $55 billion in 1980 to more than $128 billion in 1986 (Harrison & Bluestone 149). New employees would only receive 75 to 80-percent of the normal wage during a probation period (the probation period usually equated to the business’s employee turnover period). U.S. businesses began discarding their standard practices and shifted capital into overtly speculative ventures. Salaries and benefits of corporate CEOs as compared to the average factory workers were 30 times higher in1980 and reached 130-140 times higher in 1991 (Krugman 262). During this period the government went on a spending spree financed by the deficit. firms have gone abroad to set up assembly or service operations. The existence of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) also quieted union members by insuring the benefits of workers displaced when companies went bankrupt or their pension plans go bust.

Geoghegan, a former labor attorney, tells of his experiences dealing with organized labor, how and why it has lost its ability to fight. The two-tier wage system allowed reduced wages for employees during the new worker’s first few weeks or months of the normal probation period. By the late 1980s the before tax GINI Index was (.423) with the after taxes GINI as (.404). Harrison and Bluestone call the Reagan Administration “the single greatest gift to the business community” (Harrison & Bluestone 102). This included family members taking on extra jobs or moonlighting in order to make ends meet. lost one out of three heavy industrial jobs.

Geoghegan believes that part of the weakening of unions also has to do with a lack of sympathy by the average family. I must add at this point that the “U-turn” in America’s economics actually began during the 1970′s; Reagan only sped up and expanded the process significantly (“U-turn”- the term used by Bluestone and Harrison to describe the reversal of fortune of the labor forces and the shrinking middle class).

Part of the Reagan plan was a reduction in taxes. However, after accounting for the business cycle, for productivity, and for the shrinkage of manufacturing jobs, the growing proportion of baby boomers in the work force contributes nothing to an explanation of low wages. They provided (and still do) flexibility to tailor their work force needs to the production needs. The “engineered recession” of 1980 and 1981-2, along with reductions in social welfare programs contributed to this “great U-turn” in the standard of living of most Americans, employed as well as unemployed, middle managers as well as blue collar workers (Harrison & Bluestone viii). At the end of the Carter Era the GINI Index before taxes was (.403) and (.352) after taxes. And, of course, both sides of the argument will present evidence in support of their positions. This group shrank from 53-percent in 1973 to 47.9-percent in 1984. But most of all, during the Reagan year’s people went into debt.

In Thomas Geoghegan’s book, Which Side Are You On? Trying To Be For Labor When It’s Flat on Its Back, two pieces of legislation are discussed as the beginning of the end for organized labor began with the 1935 Wagner Act and the National Labor relations Board (NLRB).  Reaganomic policies, though we can’t forget some initial deregulation efforts instituted during the Carter years, reversed what had been accomplished prior to the 1970′s (Harrison & Bluestone 79). In some cases businesses just simply got out of the production end and found alternate “ways of making paper profits” or found other ways to reduce labor costs.

Any discussion on Reaganomics should always contain a definition of Reaganomics so let’s get that out of the way from the start. “The old Teamster order collapsed and thousands of firms closed (Geoghegan 139).” During the late 1970′s and into the 1980′s, the Teamster membership fell from 2.2 million to 1.6 million. Often it’s stated that the Reagan Administration was trying to reduce the double-digit inflation of 1980 and turn around the falling rate of production. A further major benefit of these creative pay systems was that they provided a way to avoid unions or at least keep the impact of union actions at a minimum. Reminiscent of the 1920′s and 1930′s, the middle class, formerly the largest class of the post WWII through the Vietnam War era has also been ever decreasing in size. Fulltime manning was drastically reduced in watchdog agencies tasked to monitor the various industries. Employment in mining actually rose until 1981 only to fall nearly in half during the 1980′s through the 1990′s (Slater 129).

While Presidents Reagan and Bush froze the minimum wage level for a nine-year period, essentially cutting pay each year as inflation bit into lower wage earners, the salaries of executives skyrocketed during the 80′s. Reaganomics as described by most, if not all economists and historians was supply-side economics; however, this in itself doesn’t really explain Reaganomics because of what actually happened. Families expanded their use of “plastic money” even faster. Both sides of the Reaganomic fence provide more than enough evidence in support of the argument that says: lower and middle class America lost significant ground during the 1980′s. By the mid-1970′s global competition was eating away at American business profits. During the 1980′s, the U.S. Yet, organized labor was not the only one to feel the reduction of government support. This shows that there was a higher distribution of income in the hands of fewer people (Krugman 25).

This article focused on one particular facet of the Reaganomics debate; the issue of inequality in income distribution in America as a result of a turn-around in government policies combined with corporate restructuring. Contingency labor included part-time and temporary employees. Many of the nation’s economic critics saw the policies of Reaganomics as short-term answers to a long-term problem by borrowing against the nation’s future.

But what is the cost of these outsourcing? The result of reductions in domestic production and outsourcing was a reduction in U.S. As Harrison and Bluestone state it, “Globalization of production was no longer supplementing domestic manufacturing but replacing it (Harrison & Bluestone 28).” Restructuring involved creating multinational corporations with its headquarters and support functions in the major capitalist countries. These methods provided a way of reducing full-time labor wage costs, which included a reduction in employee benefits cost. One argument presented to explain this problem is that the “low wage explosion is mostly a statistical illusion, reflecting the impact of inflation and recession on workers’ earnings (Geoghegan 124).” Another proposal is to attribute the problem to a large influx of baby boomers into the work force. Benefit packages for these contingency employees were either non-existent or at least small enough to still keep labor costs low. The results of these policies directly impacted the redistribution of income in favor of the higher income group (Harrison & Bluestone 162).

Ronald Reagan’s laissez-faire government policies, reminiscent of the 1920′s, included legislative and legal actions that severely hampered organized labor. According to data published in Krugman’s book, Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age of Diminished Expectations, income data for the period reflects that the tax reductions during the 1980s actually cost the lower 60-percent income groups, while the top 40-percent income groups saw monetary increases (Krugman 24-5). A major part of Reagan’s policy was to enhance the military complex in order to stay ahead of the perceived communist threat. His experience through the late 1960′s and 1970′s describes the labor movement as having become political driven organizations characterized by the same characteristics (greed, power, control, and inequality) of those they despised – Big Business. Therefore, it’s not too surprising to see the average American family would not be to upset if union organizations were losing ground. Ronald Reagan’s supporters credit him as being the great savior of the American economy; his critics’ credit his policies for creating the destruction of labor and gambling away the future of the American economy through massive increases in the federal deficit. This act also weakened union power by outlawing mass picketing, secondary strikes on neutral employers, and sit-downs. As a result, the traditional one-income household was no longer sufficient to keep up with the family economic needs. The Government’s induced deflation, deregulation, regressive tax reform, privatization, and “union bashing” have contributed to new corporate strategies and the inequality of income distribution in America (Harrison & Bluestone 16). Either there exists a significant polarization of income distribution around the middle-class or the middle-class is now what used to be the lower-end of the upper-class income.

If labor had not been weakened enough by the high unemployment levels in the late 1970′s, Reagan’s firming of the PATCO members sent a clear message to not only the unions, but also to the courts as to his lack of support for organized labor. The wage-gap between the America lower income group and the upper or rich America group has been ever increasing. It became a joke to say, “We are spending money to help the economy.” Consumer borrowing doubled between 1981 and 1986, from $394 Billion to $739 Billion. However, the benefactors of the tax reduction were not the majority of wage earners.

The counter argument against these income disparity issues is attributed by some as simply a matter of normal business cycles. Additionally, in 1947 and the passing of Taft-Hartley, labor could no longer organize on the scale of unions of the 1930′s. This living on debt and buying time was sufficient to fuel a short-term recovery (Harrison & Bluestone 147). Double income families were not a uniqueness of the lowest income earners, middle-class America also lost, or at least sustained, buying power during the 1980′s. They increased offshore investments and began outsourcing for labor and manufacturing in search of the lowest labor and production costs.

The Government economic policies supporting deregulation and the concept of privatization of government services were actually taken initially between the years 1968-1978. During the 1970′s the average family income was $24,000, while the average steelworker was making $40,000. The same act that affirmed the right to organize but gave the NLRB the job of certifying whether or not a union was to be considered “officially” recognized. DOD spending doubled $134 billion in 1980 to $282 billion in 1987 (Harrison & Bluestone 149). Keeping labor costs from rising is not the only reason that U.S. Employment in the manufacturing area fell seven-percent between 1968 and 1979, continuing to fall twelve-percent more through the 1980′s and 1990′s (Slater 143). Credit card use grew from $55 billion in 1980 to more than $128 billion in 1986 (Harrison & Bluestone 149).Families filing chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code grew from an average of less than 39,000 per year (1975-1980) to almost 95,000 a year (1981-1984) (Harrison & Bluestone 152).

Of course there are many supporters of Reaganomics that will produce statistics showing how the GNP was sustained during the 1980′s; there is really no mystery here. The GINI Index numbers support this disparity. The inequality of income is not limited to only a specific age group (Harrison & Bluestone 125).

Since the mid-1960′s through the 1990′s, Americans have been getting poorer and poorer. More family members entered the work force in order to increase or sustain real income purchasing power. As a result of these actions, profit margins rose steadily, yet average wages for families has decreased or at best has somewhat frozen in place.

Final Word

Deregulation under Carter and Reagan opened the industries of steel, automotive, carpenters, and trucking to what Geoghegan called gypsies – small owner operators (Geoghegan 139). Yet, no real credible argument has been made that the Reagan years did anything to improve the equality of income distribution. As Geoghegan puts it, the Taft-Hartley led to union busting.

To better compete in a global economy, US industries adopted a program of “restructuring”. Reaganomics, in effect, was a program to strengthen business and industry while weakening the power of organized labor, reduce federal spending on other than military programs, reduce taxes, and regulatory abatement. The richest 20-percent received $5,600 more per year in 1986, than they would have based on 1968 monetary values (Harrison & Bluestone 131). This article will discuss one particular facet of the Reaganomics debate; the issue of inequality in income distribution in America as a result of a turn-around in government policies combined with corporate restructuring.

From 1969 – 1980 (prior to Reaganomics) wage cuts and freezes were “practically non-existent” (Harrison & Bluestone 39). With the weakening of organized labor by deregulation, businesses began experimenting with organizational changes to include work, labor, management relations, and flexible arrangements with employees, subcontractors, otherwise known as corporate restructuring.

Social deregulation, as described by Harrison and Bluestone, was a true innovation of the Reagan Administration. This was more than $1,740 less than they would have received based on 1968 income levels (Harrison & Bluestone 131). Families filing chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code grew from an average of less than 39,000 per year (1975-1980) to almost 95,000 a year (1981-1984) (Harrison & Bluestone 152).In effect, most Americans during the Reagan Years went into debt. The groundwork for Reaganomics policies was put in place well before his time.

The total amount borrowed by consumers nearly doubled between 1981 and 1986, from $394 Billion to $739 Billion. production employment. Union bureaucracy began to rival that of the federal and state court systems (Geoghegan 86-7).

Creative wage reduction programs such as the two-tier pay system and conversion of a percentage of full-time employees to contingency labor employees (part-time and temporary employees) or a combination of methods became (and are still) the normal practice. The program included freezing the minimum wage and shifting against federal protection of workers’ rights and unions. After 1980, the purchasing power of lower-class wage earners through middle-class wage earners degraded throughout the period

Inflows to Hong Kong ETFs soar as foreigners bet on Chinese stocks | Reuters

dollar. The Shanghai Composite Index .SSEC dropped 3.2 percent, while the U.S. market was up 7 percent during the same period.

As a scheme to allow more foreign inflows into Chinese stocks draws near, fund managers are wagering on a sustained rebound for the Shanghai Composite Index .SSEC after a prolonged four-year slump has opened up opportunities to buy on the cheap.

The increased appetite has also seen RQFII quotas being exhausted quickly in the past few months, prompting fund mangers to apply for fresh quotas from China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE).

Launched in 2011, RQFII enables financial institutions to use offshore yuan to invest in the mainland’s securities markets.

(Reporting by Michelle Chen; Editing by Shri Navaratnam)

Chan was referring to the recent economic data suggesting China may have arrested a sharp loss of momentum at the start of the year.

By Michelle Chen

| HONG KONG

China has approved a total of 257.6 billion yuan RQFII quotas to 72 asset managers by the end of July, accounting for more than 95 percent of the 270 billion yuan quota the former British colony was granted, according to SAFE statistics. The total injection of funds was around HK$75 billion ($9.68 billion) since July 1, a large chunk of it due to capital inflows into markets.

HONG KONG Offshore investors are rallying behind China’s undervalued equities by plowing billions of dollars into Hong Kong’s exchange-traded funds denominated in the yuan currency.

“There were some switchings from markets where fund managers had gained positive returns to places that they thought there could be more opportunities, and China was be one of them,” said Jackie Choy, an ETF strategist at researcher Morningstar.

ETFs under the Renminbi Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor (RQFII) posted significant net inflows of 8.2 billion yuan ($1.33 billion) last month, the highest since December 2012 and nearly doubling from June, according to Morningstar data. Its FTSE China A50 ETF saw a record high daily trading volume of HK$3.7 billion on August 1, topping all stocks and ETFs listed in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Shenzhen.

“Market sentiment has started to change in the past two to three weeks and fund managers are no longer that pessimistic about China,” Norman Chan, chief executive at the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, told reporters last Tuesday.

“We’ve been asking for new quotas almost every month since April and so far more than 99 percent of our mutual fund quota worth of 42.6 billion yuan has been used up,” said a person with direct knowledge of RQFII business at CSOP Asset Management.

EXHAUSTED QUOTAS

However, the A-share index has rebounded by nearly 10 percent in the past month as investors prepared for the launch of the stock connect that is set to make a debut in October and speculate on price convergence of dual-listed shares. A-shares are generally only available for purchase by mainland residents.

Chinese equity markets were among the worst performers in the first half of this year.

The majority of the net inflows went into the CSOP FTSE China A50 ETF (82822.HK)(2822.HK), which attracted an estimated 6.8 billion yuan, followed by the Bosera FTSE China A50 Index ETF (82832.HK)(2832.HK), which drew an estimated 2.4 billion yuan.

CSOP is the largest RQFII manager with a quota of 44.6 billion yuan as of end-July.

(1 US dollar = 6.1498 Chinese yuan)

Foreign investors, who cannot directly invest in mainland equities, have eagerly embraced the QFII and RQFII schemes to tap China’s onshore market.

(1 US dollar = 7.7507 Hong Kong dollar).

Stock connect would allow mainland investors to trade shares in designated companies listed in Hong Kong, and at the same time let Hong Kong investors buy shares in Shanghai-listed firms.

Thanks to this surge in fund flows, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has had to intervene in the foreign exchange market in recent weeks to protect the Hong Kong dollar’s currency peg with the U.S.

A strengthening of the Chinese currency, which has gained 2 percent from 18-month lows hit in April this year, and a recovering economy, have also helped draw foreigners to these ETFs, analysts say

New Jersey judge strikes down sports betting

The U.S. Voters have approved the concept, but a federal court rejected it in a slightly different form. District Judge Michael Shipp was the expected outcome since the judge had ruled similarly in the past.

A federal law bans New Jersey and most other states from authorizing betting on sports. “The economic impact that sports wagering can have on New Jersey is far too important to simply shrug our shoulders and move on.”

. –  A federal judge ruled Friday night that New Jersey cannot partially lift a prohibition on sports betting in an effort to boost the state’s struggling horse racing and casino industries.

But Shipp agreed with the sports leagues that setting parameters such as limiting sports gambling to certain places amounts to regulation, but noted, that he “finds that the present case is not nearly as clear as either the leagues or the defendants assert.”

While Shipp agreed with the central part of the sports’ leagues argument, he dismissed some of their other arguments.

“We are going to continue pursuing every legal option available,” State Senate president Steve Sweeney said in a statement Friday. sports league to make such a stand.

The decision from U.S. Instead of legalizing sports gambling in defiance of the leagues and federal government, it called for not enforcing the state’s ban. Christie signed that into law last month.

The NCAA and four major professional sports leagues contend that federal law would allow the state to lift the ban entirely — but not to allow sports betting with some conditions, such as limiting it to certain locations and keeping minors from participating.

The state, locked in a legal battle with the NCAA and four professional sports leagues, is expected to appeal to a higher court.

New Jersey has been pushing persistently to allow sports betting at horse tracks and casinos in an effort to support both struggling industries. But the state contended it did not want to license or authorize the betting. Chris Christie’s administration tried a new approach.

The ruling comes just over a week after NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said he supports legalizing sports gambling — though not in the way it would happen if New Jersey prevailed. Supreme Court declined to hear the case earlier this year, and it seemed that might be the end of it.

TRENTON, N.J. The Legislature followed with a bill to lift the ban as it pertains to casinos and tracks. Instead, it was seeking to end a prohibition and that it would not regulate sports betting.

But as the financial crisis in Atlantic City’s casinos deepened, Gov. Silver is the first commissioner of a major U.S

Artificial intelligence: Key to ​Kentucky Derby betting?

Although several prominent industry leaders remain wary of artificial intelligence, and a recent high-profile experiment with it went awry, the technology could revolutionize everything from smartphones to automobiles. The idea is that “many minds are better than one,” therefore the act of pooling individual insights gives groups a better chance of reaching optimal decisions.

You probably didn’t consider basing your Kentucky Derby bets on artificial intelligence — but maybe you should have. The participants then used UNU to predict the winning order — and it turned out to be 100 percent correct. Gun Runner

1. Nyquist

© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. For comparison, none of the experts at Churchill Downs predicted the top four horses, let alone the top four horses in the correct order.

In a statement, Unanimous’ chief information officer David Baltaxe said the whole process took the company’s AI tool 20 minutes.

2.

4. 3. Mohaymen. In a recent 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll, more than half of Americans (53 percent) called society’s quest to advance the field of artificial intelligence “important.”

“I placed my $1 bet on the race at the Derby on Saturday and made $542.10 — the odds of winning the superfecta [the top 4 finishers in order] were 540-1,” TechRepublic reporter Hope Reese wrote. Twenty participants, convened by the company, first used the software to narrow the field of 20 horses down to four top picks.

How does the system work? According to the company, the technology is built on a closed-loop system inspired by the insect swarm found in nature. Exaggerator

The artificial intelligence company Unanimous tested its new software platform, UNU, on last weekend’s Kentucky Derby, as reported by TechRepublic

How To Master Sports Betting

Anything less than this and it is going to be a disaster. For instance, if you are pretty certain that a side is going to win and they are getting good odds for this than take this. On the flip side, you shouldn’t bet against a team because someone you don’t like roots for that team. If you are going to do it you need to do it properly and master it, it means you are completely organized and focused. It doesn’t matter if it is pretty or not.

In the case of team sports, injuries are important. Business is business and you need to be concentrating on who is going to win regardless of who likes and who doesn’t like which team.

Speaking of the long run, this is what you should be focused on. So do yourself a favor and swear off them. Look for value bets. The weather conditions also make a difference as they do in horse racing. Thus when you are doing well, you will still be focused and when you aren’t doing so well you won’t be thinking that it’s the end of the world. Travel is a factor such as when East Coast sides travel to the West Coast and vice versa. You want to know who trained and who didn’t. You will be better off for doing so in the long run.

Sports betting is an easy way to make a tough living. Hopefully this kind of thinking will keep you grounded. You can’t let the highs and lows affect you too much.. Also look into how sides perform the week after doing certain travel. You don’t want to lose money just because you weren’t on top of your game.

The most important thing is that you need to take emotion out of the equation. This means that when you place your bets you need to be thinking clearly and concisely. It could provide great insight as to predicting what will occur.

Information and doing your homework is important, but you don’t want to full into the trap of information overload. It’s all about accumulating winnings. Upsets are always going to happen but see when it makes the most sense when to go for that and when not to. It is only going to place you in a difficult position and as much as you might think it won’t be, your decision making ability is going to be compromised. So if you suffer a bad break along the way, just remember it goes with the territory. You shouldn’t favor a team because they are the team your best friend supports. What is the point of drowning yourself in statistics and research for what you could just as easily decided with a flip of the coin? So you need to sift through it all and just take the morsels here and there which are really important and make a difference. Over time, you will learn what it should be that you should be paying attention to.

Because of this point, it is probably better if you steer clear from any matches involving the teams that you like