Of course I read your math. I don't respond to a post without reading it first. But, and maybe I'm missing something here, I'm just not sure how your math adds up. Pun intended.

But I so think we already agree on a few things...

First, obviously it's up to a bookie to choose when to layoff. Some, for one reason or another, may be more comfortable with being exposed than others.

Second, a bookie doesn't want to layoff if he doesn't have to. And there are any number of ways he can try and avoid it.

Third, I understand what you're saying when you talk about the "human" aspect of the sports book. But I think that "human" aspect is also due to simple math. While the player's chances may appear 50/50, because of the built in vig, it's not. Even if he wins as many bets as he loses, he's going to ultimately lose money. I can't remember the exact number but, for a player to win money, he's got to win a little over 52% of his bets.

Just for the sake of argument, I would ask you why a bookie would want to risk having to cover a hit when it's not necessary. But that question is sort of pointless because, nowadays, the bookie simply attaches himself and his package to a larger operation. And that larger operation handles the balancing itself, including paying out all losses. We saw this very thing in the Lucchese operation out of Jersey. Don't know if you say it but the criminal complaint gave a very extensive and detailed view of how various individual bookies aligned themselves with the Pernas.