I had this argument with a friend. He claims that by risking 100 to win 91 instead of risking 110 to win 100 , that he's only paying vig on winners and not paying vig on losers.
My position is that it doesnt matter , 110 to win 100 or 100 to win 91 is still winning 10% less than you lose. ... but he doesnt see it that way , he swears he's only paying juice on winners. hehe
My position is that it doesnt matter , 110 to win 100 or 100 to win 91 is still winning 10% less than you lose. ... but he doesnt see it that way , he swears he's only paying juice on winners. hehe
In the case of bets between a bettor and a bookie, the bettor pays the vig and the bookie collects vig. This is priced in and irrelevant of who wins or loses any particular bet.
In a case of bettor vs bettor, for instance a poker tournament, all bettors pay vig to the host. It's even more obvious in this case because the host always collects the fees no matter who wins.
In a case of bettor vs bettor, for instance a poker tournament, all bettors pay vig to the host. It's even more obvious in this case because the host always collects the fees no matter who wins.
Your friend is correct. If he makes three bets he has the chance of winning zero, one, two or three of them
If he wins zero, he gets nothing; if he wins one his gross payback is $191 (rounding off a little); if he wins two, his gross payback is $382; and if he wins three it is $573;
No compare that to what would happen if he made zero vigorish bets: If he wins zero, the book still pays back the same. But if he wins one, the book pays back $9 more; two wins and they pay back $18 more; win all three when there is no vig and the winner profits by an extra $27. The more he wins, the lower the payback between the -110 and the no vig bets
Consider a bettor who wins 50% of games. If there was no vig, he would break even. But playing -110 lines, over the long run, the book will earn 4.5454...% of all money wagered, for a difference of 4.5454...%. Now consider a bettor who wins 51% of all games. If there was no vig he would earn 2% (51-49). But playing -110 lines he will lose 2.6363% for a difference of 4.6363%
Interested in hearing dissenting opinions
You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't think anybody would argue that a no-vig bet is better than a vig bet.
The question is, is risking 100 to win 91 better than risking 110 to win 100, and in terms of percentages the answer is no, the vig is exactly the same.
However, if the friend is a losing player, he's technically still better off betting 100 to win 91 because overall he will be betting less and therefore losing less.
Not exactly the same. . . ... but even if close enough your friend is still correct that the winner pays the vig
If there is no-vig, no one pays. If there is a vig, the loser gets the same payout and the winner gets a reduced payout. I explain the math above. That's not comparing fruit, that's comparing the cost of the transaction, which is the exact question Chazz asked
I think the winner pays the vig no matter the bet.
If you have a bet between friends with no vig, the loser loses, and the winner keeps all the money. If you have a bet with vig, the loser still loses but the winner only keeps 91% of his winnings.
No , he's not correct , he's still paying juice on losers. He's throwing himself off by trying to claim it's a $100 base and since he doesnt pay 110 he's paying vig on winners. ... but his problem is that it's really a $91 bet and when he loses he owes 100 , therefor he's paying vig.
By his theory i could say i'm risking 110 to win 100 instead of risking 121 to win 110 so i only pay vig on winners. hehe , that's wrong.
Not sure exactly what you're trying to express, but it is true that no matter what you bet, whether $121 or $110, you only pay a vig on the winners. If you lose, the book will pay you back the same, no matter what the vig is. If you win, your payback is reduced by whatever the vig is -- doesn't matter if it's $231 instead of $242 or if it's $210 instead of $220. . .
Yeah , i agree with that. I didnt explain the argument well.
This guy's thinking was that a person risking 110 to win 100 is paying juice on losers , but a person risking 100 to win 91 is paying juice on winners. ... i cant get him to understand that an 11/10 bet , is an 11/10 bet PERIOD ! Changing the win amount with risk amount doesnt change who's paying juice.
I know some of you are not J R Miller fans , but here's a good article on who pays vig and how much vig they actually pay.
http://www.professionalgambler.com/vigorish.html
http://www.professionalgambler.com/vigorish.html
The bookie going 0-100 with lopsided action not covering it ought to find another calling. Bookmaking isn't it, which means he's hanging lines that have no vigorish.
