Nice article Fezzik and I agree totally with what your saying.
I really do not think alot of players, even some seasoned veterans here at the RX, realize how valuable lower vig can mean to them in the long run.
I hear all the time posters claiming that books cant survive offering 20% and up bonuses.
The fact is, a book that offers up -107 vig or less in the hands of an incompetent bookmaker is WAY WAY more dangerous than what a 20-25% bonus can in the long run do to a sportsbook.
Strongly believe as you say, that books are going to need to offer reduced vig to stay up with the competition.
Reduced vig is a one of the top priorties I look for in a book I choose to play at these days.
I really do not think alot of players, even some seasoned veterans here at the RX, realize how valuable lower vig can mean to them in the long run.
I hear all the time posters claiming that books cant survive offering 20% and up bonuses.
The fact is, a book that offers up -107 vig or less in the hands of an incompetent bookmaker is WAY WAY more dangerous than what a 20-25% bonus can in the long run do to a sportsbook.
Strongly believe as you say, that books are going to need to offer reduced vig to stay up with the competition.
Reduced vig is a one of the top priorties I look for in a book I choose to play at these days.
I posted a story on this not too long ago and since then, unfortunately one of the few lower juice books has gone into the tank (Panam) and one has seemed to cut back on their reduced vig and limits for hockey (Canbet). IIS I heard lowered their limits.
I agree totally with the premise and think that the handful of good books can win lots of money with it, but after what I wrote I did get a couple of private comments. One said point blank that there are probably 10 line managers in the world that are solid enough to handle reduced vig well. Another guy pointed out that bonuses are still around instead of vig because the customers people want don't realize the edge lower vig gives, but they sure can see what 20% extra looks like in their betting account. Still another told me that unfortunately most owners and investors just don't have the stomach for it, they want safety and until they see their internal numbers fall off a lot they aren't going to make the competitive move to lower vig. He led me onto my theory about what ails Panam with the investors wanting out due to poor returns.
In the end we all can talk about this and agree completely. Problem is that until the squares wisen up and give their business to the lower vig places we probably won't see quite enough movement on this issue. It can't hurt though for all of us to keep mentioning this and keep this thought alive, especially here as we get into baseball season and where the vig can be all over the board and where getting the best price is paramount to success.
I agree totally with the premise and think that the handful of good books can win lots of money with it, but after what I wrote I did get a couple of private comments. One said point blank that there are probably 10 line managers in the world that are solid enough to handle reduced vig well. Another guy pointed out that bonuses are still around instead of vig because the customers people want don't realize the edge lower vig gives, but they sure can see what 20% extra looks like in their betting account. Still another told me that unfortunately most owners and investors just don't have the stomach for it, they want safety and until they see their internal numbers fall off a lot they aren't going to make the competitive move to lower vig. He led me onto my theory about what ails Panam with the investors wanting out due to poor returns.
In the end we all can talk about this and agree completely. Problem is that until the squares wisen up and give their business to the lower vig places we probably won't see quite enough movement on this issue. It can't hurt though for all of us to keep mentioning this and keep this thought alive, especially here as we get into baseball season and where the vig can be all over the board and where getting the best price is paramount to success.
Low vig is a gimmick like any other. In theory it saves the player some money but in the end the players lose just as much -- all of it.
The real problem with low vig is that you are attracting sharp action without really drawing squares. For whatever reason squares seem to respond to bonuses much more than low vig. There is not a single book that lets players who beat them for any reasonable amount of money bet at reduced vig and I am sure it will stay that way.
The real problem with low vig is that you are attracting sharp action without really drawing squares. For whatever reason squares seem to respond to bonuses much more than low vig. There is not a single book that lets players who beat them for any reasonable amount of money bet at reduced vig and I am sure it will stay that way.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nick Douglas:
Low vig is a gimmick like any other. In theory it saves the player some money but in the end the players lose just as much -- all of it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please tell me thats a joke. If it's not, you have ABSOLUTELY no clue.
Low vig is a gimmick like any other. In theory it saves the player some money but in the end the players lose just as much -- all of it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please tell me thats a joke. If it's not, you have ABSOLUTELY no clue.
rpm says
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>only if that future includes going out of business <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
~
bill _ fish say
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Nice article Fezzik and I agree totally with what your saying.
I really do not think alot of players, even some seasoned veterans here at the RX, realize how valuable lower vig can mean to them in the long run.
I hear all the time posters claiming that books cant survive offering 20% and up bonuses.
The fact is, a book that offers up -107 vig or less in the hands of an incompetent bookmaker is WAY WAY more dangerous than what a 20-25% bonus can in the long run do to a sportsbook.
Strongly believe as you say, that books are going to need to offer reduced vig to stay up with the competition.
Reduced vig is a one of the top priorties I look for in a book I choose to play at these days.
Posts: 8185 | Registered: October 19, 2000
WildBill
Certifiably Crazy
posted February 06, 2004 08:43 PM
I posted a story on this not too long ago and since then, unfortunately one of the few lower juice books has gone into the tank (Panam) and one has seemed to cut back on their reduced vig and limits for hockey (Canbet). IIS I heard lowered their limits.
I agree totally with the premise and think that the handful of good books can win lots of money with it, but after what I wrote I did get a couple of private comments. One said point blank that there are probably 10 line managers in the world that are solid enough to handle reduced vig well. Another guy pointed out that bonuses are still around instead of vig because the customers people want don't realize the edge lower vig gives, but they sure can see what 20% extra looks like in their betting account. Still another told me that unfortunately most owners and investors just don't have the stomach for it, they want safety and until they see their internal numbers fall off a lot they aren't going to make the competitive move to lower vig. He led me onto my theory about what ails Panam with the investors wanting out due to poor returns.
In the end we all can talk about this and agree completely. Problem is that until the squares wisen up and give their business to the lower vig places we probably won't see quite enough movement on this issue. It can't hurt though for all of us to keep mentioning this and keep this thought alive, especially here as we get into baseball season and where the vig can be all over the board and where getting the best price is paramount to success.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If we want to consolidate moderators I guess Marty knows where to look
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>only if that future includes going out of business <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
~
bill _ fish say
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Nice article Fezzik and I agree totally with what your saying.
I really do not think alot of players, even some seasoned veterans here at the RX, realize how valuable lower vig can mean to them in the long run.
I hear all the time posters claiming that books cant survive offering 20% and up bonuses.
The fact is, a book that offers up -107 vig or less in the hands of an incompetent bookmaker is WAY WAY more dangerous than what a 20-25% bonus can in the long run do to a sportsbook.
Strongly believe as you say, that books are going to need to offer reduced vig to stay up with the competition.
Reduced vig is a one of the top priorties I look for in a book I choose to play at these days.
Posts: 8185 | Registered: October 19, 2000
WildBill
Certifiably Crazy
posted February 06, 2004 08:43 PM
I posted a story on this not too long ago and since then, unfortunately one of the few lower juice books has gone into the tank (Panam) and one has seemed to cut back on their reduced vig and limits for hockey (Canbet). IIS I heard lowered their limits.
I agree totally with the premise and think that the handful of good books can win lots of money with it, but after what I wrote I did get a couple of private comments. One said point blank that there are probably 10 line managers in the world that are solid enough to handle reduced vig well. Another guy pointed out that bonuses are still around instead of vig because the customers people want don't realize the edge lower vig gives, but they sure can see what 20% extra looks like in their betting account. Still another told me that unfortunately most owners and investors just don't have the stomach for it, they want safety and until they see their internal numbers fall off a lot they aren't going to make the competitive move to lower vig. He led me onto my theory about what ails Panam with the investors wanting out due to poor returns.
In the end we all can talk about this and agree completely. Problem is that until the squares wisen up and give their business to the lower vig places we probably won't see quite enough movement on this issue. It can't hurt though for all of us to keep mentioning this and keep this thought alive, especially here as we get into baseball season and where the vig can be all over the board and where getting the best price is paramount to success.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If we want to consolidate moderators I guess Marty knows where to look
No joke, TT. For the vast majority of players they are going to lose just as much betting -107 as they would betting -110.
It is true for a small percentage of bettors low juice helps but you have to look at the big picture. Most players go up and down for a while and then lose their ass when they go on tilt trying to place make-up bets. So if you are down $1500 trying to make a makeup bet with your remaining balance of $700 or if you are down $1300 because of reduced juice and you make a makeup bet with your remaining balance of $900, either way you are going to lose the same amount -- all of it.
If you were thinking I was making that comment about sharp players then I can see why you would be skeptical but I was talking about the majority.
It is true for a small percentage of bettors low juice helps but you have to look at the big picture. Most players go up and down for a while and then lose their ass when they go on tilt trying to place make-up bets. So if you are down $1500 trying to make a makeup bet with your remaining balance of $700 or if you are down $1300 because of reduced juice and you make a makeup bet with your remaining balance of $900, either way you are going to lose the same amount -- all of it.
If you were thinking I was making that comment about sharp players then I can see why you would be skeptical but I was talking about the majority.
Nick and TT, I think you are both right. Nick is right in the sense that poor money management will bury squares whether they are laying 115 or 102. Sharp bookmakers will agree on this. Why do you think that the majority of people who walk up to a craps table lose when the house edge is only 1.5% on the pass line? they lose because they have poor money management. TT is right that lowered juice helps wise guys enormously and should not be taken lightly by books offering it.
We're all basically on the same page. Sure, there will always be the guys why couldn't stay afloat for any amount of time due to the lack of $$$ management.
Unless you have a HUGE square base, and a rather small base of anyone with a clue, reduced juice puts a DEEP cut into the bottom line. Pinny & probably Hollywood can do it due to their volume. If reduced juice is your "primary product", you have to have that kind of volume, and some damn good linesmen. Without both, your days are numbered.
Unless you have a HUGE square base, and a rather small base of anyone with a clue, reduced juice puts a DEEP cut into the bottom line. Pinny & probably Hollywood can do it due to their volume. If reduced juice is your "primary product", you have to have that kind of volume, and some damn good linesmen. Without both, your days are numbered.
TT, I think we are on the same page for the most part.
My feeling on low vig isn't so much that the math works against you as a book (though it does to a small degree). The main problem is that it attracts the wrong kind of clientele. That is why I don't see it taking over any time soon. The foundation of a book should be large betting squares. I strongly believe that large betting squares are enticed a heck of a lot more by fast payouts and bonuses than they are by reduced vigorish. Because of that, I have to disagree strongly with this article.
One last note is that Pinnacle's reduced juice does not cut heavily into Pinnacle's bottom line. If you beat them up for 10 dimes or so you'll lose your low juice faster than you can say "Scotty's back". If you are a losing bettor, it doesn't matter that Pinnacle's take is only 2.3% rather than 4.5% because Pinnacle is going to take all your money anyway.
My feeling on low vig isn't so much that the math works against you as a book (though it does to a small degree). The main problem is that it attracts the wrong kind of clientele. That is why I don't see it taking over any time soon. The foundation of a book should be large betting squares. I strongly believe that large betting squares are enticed a heck of a lot more by fast payouts and bonuses than they are by reduced vigorish. Because of that, I have to disagree strongly with this article.
One last note is that Pinnacle's reduced juice does not cut heavily into Pinnacle's bottom line. If you beat them up for 10 dimes or so you'll lose your low juice faster than you can say "Scotty's back". If you are a losing bettor, it doesn't matter that Pinnacle's take is only 2.3% rather than 4.5% because Pinnacle is going to take all your money anyway.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Meyer Lansky:
Nick and TT, I think you are both right. Nick is right in the sense that poor money management will bury squares whether they are laying 115 or 102. Sharp bookmakers will agree on this. Why do you think that the majority of people who walk up to a craps table lose when the house edge is only 1.5% on the pass line? they lose because they have poor money management. TT is right that lowered juice helps wise guys enormously and should not be taken lightly by books offering it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Players don't lose at a crap table because of poor money management, they lose because the odds are against them. There is no money manangement method that will beat a negative expectation.
Nick and TT, I think you are both right. Nick is right in the sense that poor money management will bury squares whether they are laying 115 or 102. Sharp bookmakers will agree on this. Why do you think that the majority of people who walk up to a craps table lose when the house edge is only 1.5% on the pass line? they lose because they have poor money management. TT is right that lowered juice helps wise guys enormously and should not be taken lightly by books offering it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Players don't lose at a crap table because of poor money management, they lose because the odds are against them. There is no money manangement method that will beat a negative expectation.
Response To Nick Douglas on Pinnacle:
Nick, I guarantee you that certain people have beaten up on Pinny's -105 pricing, and those folks have not had the juice taken back on them, or their limits reduced.
Just because others are struggling, it does not mean ALL are struggling. Of course, it certainly helps to have guys running the show from places like MIT and Yale, vs. other places that have guys running the pricing with 1 year undergraduate from Chico State.
Nick, I guarantee you that certain people have beaten up on Pinny's -105 pricing, and those folks have not had the juice taken back on them, or their limits reduced.
Just because others are struggling, it does not mean ALL are struggling. Of course, it certainly helps to have guys running the show from places like MIT and Yale, vs. other places that have guys running the pricing with 1 year undergraduate from Chico State.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Just because others are struggling, it does not mean ALL are struggling. Of course, it certainly helps to have guys running the show from places like MIT and Yale, vs. other places that have guys running the pricing with 1 year undergraduate from Chico State. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When I read references like above, I can't help but think of Long Term Capital Management. Some very educated people who were breaking all "the rules" when it came to risk management, but they were supposed to "smart" enough to get away with it.
They were not.
When I read references like above, I can't help but think of Long Term Capital Management. Some very educated people who were breaking all "the rules" when it came to risk management, but they were supposed to "smart" enough to get away with it.
They were not.
The decision to offer low vig is similar to the one faced by casinos in offering deeply dealt decent rules 21 games. Those type of 21 games naturally attract the smarter players who don't lose as quickly (or at all) while not attracting enough of the poorer(higher casino profit) players to off-set the good players. One of the reasons the poorer players are so is that they don't know the difference between a good game and a bad one.
I hope the future holds more lower vig shops and that business and profit gravitates to them, but I'm not convinced of the logic. Really hope I'm wrong.
I hope the future holds more lower vig shops and that business and profit gravitates to them, but I'm not convinced of the logic. Really hope I'm wrong.
