Would it work for books to split vigorish between winning and losing wagers?

Tulsa · May 21, 2006

Could a book split the vig between winning wagers and losing wagers and is there any huge reason they do not (other than tradition and customers not liking change.)

Is there any really reason a book could not charge 5% on losses and 5% (of wager) on wins? I don't know if that would bother me or not.... Would the players rebel and move on to other books?

One thing I see is that if people lose more than they win then this strategy would actually LOWER the book's revenue, wouldn't it? Players would not like their winning wagers being reduced by 5% of wager amount and the book's revenue would go down, I believe.

I guess maybe I answered my own question. Anyone have any insights or thoughts on how books might change their structure a little to make themselves more profitable and yet maintain or increase player satisfaction?

REMEMBER, this question(s) of mine may sound silly but a little over 80 years ago, there was no such thing as a point spread! Everything was MoneyLine. The point spread allowed a simple process for picking a side in football and changed the whole industry...such a simple concept!! tulsa

ppeter · May 21, 2006

The books would lose a lot of money because the players by their nature, or due to bad money management lose more than they win. For example, almost every player at some point and time (even right off the bat, lol) shoots their entire balance held at a particular shop on one final losing play. The books would only get 5% hold on that last, losing wager, and not 10%.

trytrytry · May 21, 2006

that would put books out of business but not collecting all the vig they lose year in and year out.

Tulsa · May 21, 2006

I believe you guys are very correct. That would diminish the revenue for the books and what is really funny is that the players wouldn't like it either!! OK....so that was a bad idea. tulsa

Doug · May 21, 2006

ppeter said:
For example, almost every player at some point and time (even right off the bat, lol) shoots their entire balance held at a particular shop on one final losing play. The books would only get 5% hold on that last, losing wager, and not 10%.

I do that every day !, by intention.

drunkguy · May 22, 2006

I am pretty sure it wouldn't change anything

doesn't matter if the winner pays or loser pays, it is all an illusion

If something really radical was used, prices would just adjust to be in line with prices at other books anyway.

MrJ · May 22, 2006

I agree with drunkguy, vig is vig.

I do think that there is psycological value to paying vig when you lose (ie that is how people prefer it), partly because of the whole 'I don't pay it if I win' illusion.

Woody0 · May 22, 2006

Mr J said:
I agree with drunkguy, vig is vig.

I do think that there is psycological value to paying vig when you lose (ie that is how people prefer it), partly because of the whole 'I don't pay it if I win' illusion.

Question reminds me of UK when corner shops were first legalized and a betting tax was paid. I forget the exact tax amount but you could either pay on the bet or on the win. So if you bet 100 at evens you could pay the, say 5 tax, and return 200 for 105 bet or pay 10 on the 200 winnings and return 190 for 100 bet.

So a winning player was better off paying the tax on the bet and there was psychological value in paying on a losing bet.

Historical note: Before corner shops customers could legally have an account with a "turf accountant", the decription used for this honourable profession, and make contact by telephone. The way it used to work is that publicans (owners/operators of public houses or bars) would have an account and would place bets (illegally) for their trusted customers on their own account.

beetman · May 22, 2006

Setting it up that way would just be mathematical voodoo to make it look like both sides were paying the vig. You could set it up now such that your "$100 bet" at -110 odds was 104.76 to win 95.24, that way you pay $4.76 regardless of whether you win or lose. The person who wants the loser to pay the vig can bet 110 to win 100; the person who wants the winner to pay the vig can bet 100 to win 90.91.