It seems that the house doesn’t always prevail in betting scenarios. When losses occur, they are often influenced by geographical factors.

In a recent twist, Nevada sports books reported an incredible win of $22.1 million during Super Bowl LIX, while their counterparts in Pennsylvania faced a different fate.

According to David Purdum from ESPN.com, Pennsylvania sports books sustained a staggering net loss of $6.5 million on the same event. With a remarkable total of $101.5 million wagered on the game—a 20.4 percent increase from the previous record set two years ago—a significant number of those bets were placed on the Eagles.

Specifically, for ESPN Bet’s operations in Pennsylvania, 73 percent of the wagers and 79 percent of the total handle were directed towards the Eagles.

The situation could have been more critical if running back Saquon Barkley had successfully scored a touchdown, as he was among the top contenders in the anytime-touchdown betting market.

The challenge for Pennsylvania provides insight into a trend where emotional betting leads to losses. Back in the 1970s, when my father acted as a bookmaker just an hour from Pittsburgh, local patrons consistently placed their bets on the Steelers. This ultimately led him to develop a discontent toward the home team due to their knack for covering the spread.

Interestingly, his enthusiasm was reserved for the Cowboys, a team that many locals loved to despise, which was reflected in their betting patterns.

It comes as no surprise that, as reported by Purdum, New York sports books celebrated a remarkable win of $62.8 million during the Super Bowl. This total includes futures bets on the eventual NFL champion. Many Giants fans likely could not bring themselves to bet on the Eagles, resulting in a profitable outcome for the bookmakers as the Eagles triumphed decisively.

One lasting lesson from my upbringing in a bookmaker’s environment is this: the focus was never on “Who are you cheering for?” Instead, it was always “Who do you need to win?”