Bonus/matchplay vs. low vig?

Boddie · Aug 7, 2006

Would like to hear feedback on which players prefer. I have requests to code matchplay tracking and probably will, but my biased view prefers the simplicity of low vig ops. No manulal checking of roll-overs req. met, no separate accounting adjustments, and no dual accounting to keep bonus money separate. Also, isn't low vig the future?

What do squares prefer?
What do sharps prefer?

Arguments for either?

Doug · Aug 7, 2006

almost always low vig, unless you know you don't want to stay before you sign-up, then maybe a big bonus instead.

Boddie · Aug 7, 2006

Figured as much.

Doug, I also read your post on your 100 accounts, and no offense, but your the poster child for why not to offer bonuses.

I know WWW very well, and they are a solid shop. One vote for LOW VIG.

AlwaysKeen · Aug 8, 2006

low vig will always win out in the long run...

MrJ · Aug 8, 2006

Low vig for main outs, bonus for outs where all you want is the bonus.

Fishhead · Aug 14, 2006

Mr J said:
Low vig for main outs, bonus for outs where all you want is the bonus.

Sums it up rather nicely.

sean1 · Aug 14, 2006

Unless you can select games in a way to beat the vig, your only profitable method is bonuses.

If you can beat the vig with your selections, low vig is more profitable.

-Sean

TTinCO · Aug 15, 2006

Boddie said:
Doug, I also read your post on your 100 accounts, and no offense, but your the poster child for why not to offer bonuses.

True and funny

Doug · Aug 15, 2006

I learned a lot from Sean. I'm sure Fish has just as many,too !

:missingte

sean1 · Aug 15, 2006

I do not request bonuses. I simply accept them.

If two car dealerships offer the same car. One for $60000. The other for 58000, where do you think I am buying?

Likewise, if two books offer the Patriots +7.5 and one offers a 20% bonus and the other no bonus, where do you think I'm buying?

I do not make the rules or offers. I just accept them.

-Sean