An old friend told me at one time that the 10% vigorish used to be collected by books from the winner of a sports' bet and not the loser. I thought about this for awhile and said---he probably made that up. But --it does make sense that it would be easier for the "local" to do this--yet I've never heard of it.
Here is a nice article that best explains it..............
http://www.professionalgambler.com/vigorish.html
http://www.professionalgambler.com/vigorish.html
It is sort of like the chicken and the egg argument. Technically you are being shortchanged in your winning bets, but you could easily take the conservative view and worry more about how losses erode your bankroll and are when you feel the effect of the vig. If you don't lose at some point, you may never miss the vig you paid is how one guy I used to talk with said it.
All things being equal (all bets written at same number and same juice) the winners pay the vig. Team A is -4.5 over Team B. Team A draws 50K (risk for book) in action meaning players risked 55K to win 50K - Team B draws 60K (risk for book) in action meaning 66k to win 60k. Team A covers the 4.5 easily costing the book 50K. Team B while losing earns the book eactly what the players risked (66k). Team B by covering cost the book 5k less than the winners risked. The winners risked 55k but only collected 50K - costing themselves 10% vigorish.
wil.
wil.
I remember when I first started betting offshore in 1990 with Bowmans when they were still booking out of Manchester, UK. British law required a 10% WINNERS TAX be taken out of any winning wager. Thus, you were paying DOUBLE VIG on any winning wager. Talk about an impossible beat...I think it was Scotty Bowman himself that got legislation passed a few years later that waived the "winners tax" on foreigners, and Bowmans really took off after that.
I believe British citizens still pay a "winners tax" on any winning wager, just a like a sin tax on cigs, gas, booze, etc. in the US. That example is one compelling argument AGAINST regulating sportsbetting as I am sure the feds will add on all sorts of taxes against our "winning" wagers should sportsbetting ever be legalized and regulated.
I believe British citizens still pay a "winners tax" on any winning wager, just a like a sin tax on cigs, gas, booze, etc. in the US. That example is one compelling argument AGAINST regulating sportsbetting as I am sure the feds will add on all sorts of taxes against our "winning" wagers should sportsbetting ever be legalized and regulated.
by betting 110 all you are doing s betting mre money. No different if you had bet 150instead of 100. It is all relative.
But at least most people are here in the right and agree that winners do 'pay'. But that is a misnomer. They do not pay, they just collect less than they should have collected.
You cannot lose more than you bet, so a guy that loses cannot pay anything, he lost. If loser did in fact pay vig, then the books would go in after they graded the bet and take an additional 10% or whatever the vig line was out of the persons account on every losing wager he had placed.
They do not do that. They simply keep the set amount from the guys that win.
That is also a reason why books lose money in bases for themost part. Because they cannot correlate correct odds between the fave and the dog to make the action equal. Especuially running a dime or 8 cent line. The only money they make in that sports is when they have a 'winner', meaning the team they were lopsded on won.
But they do not lose alot of money, but it is just about the same as going 50/50 at -115 or so looking at it like a guy betting. Because in baseball for the most part the roles are reversed and books are actually in the role of the gambler. Especially when they are adjusting and over adjustinglines and guys are buying back on them left ad right. Those players buying back are now the 'bookmaker' they are risking NOTHING and collecting their VIG no matter who wins. That is what a true book maker should always do. But most don't. Most either do not know how, or figure over the long haul people will lose and so they gamble a little bit.
But in football and basketball it is easy for books to plug in the formula and let guys piss their money away. Because in those sports they are both book maker and gambler. They are gambling but they are also getting their vig on top of it.
But at least most people are here in the right and agree that winners do 'pay'. But that is a misnomer. They do not pay, they just collect less than they should have collected.
You cannot lose more than you bet, so a guy that loses cannot pay anything, he lost. If loser did in fact pay vig, then the books would go in after they graded the bet and take an additional 10% or whatever the vig line was out of the persons account on every losing wager he had placed.
They do not do that. They simply keep the set amount from the guys that win.
That is also a reason why books lose money in bases for themost part. Because they cannot correlate correct odds between the fave and the dog to make the action equal. Especuially running a dime or 8 cent line. The only money they make in that sports is when they have a 'winner', meaning the team they were lopsded on won.
But they do not lose alot of money, but it is just about the same as going 50/50 at -115 or so looking at it like a guy betting. Because in baseball for the most part the roles are reversed and books are actually in the role of the gambler. Especially when they are adjusting and over adjustinglines and guys are buying back on them left ad right. Those players buying back are now the 'bookmaker' they are risking NOTHING and collecting their VIG no matter who wins. That is what a true book maker should always do. But most don't. Most either do not know how, or figure over the long haul people will lose and so they gamble a little bit.
But in football and basketball it is easy for books to plug in the formula and let guys piss their money away. Because in those sports they are both book maker and gambler. They are gambling but they are also getting their vig on top of it.
JJ,
What kind of dumb comment is this???
"if you bet -110 you will get buried long term
math says you cannot beat it"
People were beating the numbers long before they had reduced juice. Not a large percentage, but definitely some people were getting it done, myself included. Are you basically saying no one wins because I highly doubt people are winning much of anything at -105 or -107, but not at -110.
What kind of dumb comment is this???
"if you bet -110 you will get buried long term
math says you cannot beat it"
People were beating the numbers long before they had reduced juice. Not a large percentage, but definitely some people were getting it done, myself included. Are you basically saying no one wins because I highly doubt people are winning much of anything at -105 or -107, but not at -110.
