Who pays the vig !

[zippy]

irish:

If the loser paid the vig instead, wouldn’t you still get 91c when you win and drop $1 when you lose for those wagers, and wouldn’t you still end up in the black if you achieve a win percentage over 53%? Where’s the difference?

rfd:

You’re right that you have to be careful not to word it in such a way that it sounds like double vig is being paid. So it can be a little misleading to say that both sides pay vig. One side foregoes a potential win, and one side pays extra for a loss. You can count either one of those things as the “vig,” but not both.

Your last sentence is one of my favorite things that’s been said in this thread.

[buckeye]

Though I'm not trying to flip-flop here, I am starting to question the terminology. I have always heard, and thought, that the VIG on spread betting is 4.55% ( a -110 line assumed ) since the bookie keeps 10/220=4.55% of the action, assuming it is balanced . If it is the same for winner and loser, and the 4.55% is inherent in the bet, then wouldn't it be 5/110=4.55% FOR EACH? The reason I am not sure about this is that a PUSH results in each side getting back 110, not 105, but I guess you consider a push as noaction, and therefor no vig. So I am thinking that the vig is only present when there is a win/loss. CAN we consider the results as 0/110 for the loser and 10/110 for the winner? Some would say no, but that's the way I have been interpreting it, and Miller is!

What I can't figure is 10/110 for the loser and 0/110 for the winner ( or 0/100 which makes no sense since he bet 110 ), which is the way my dense skull is interpreting zippy's example. If it were 0/110 for the winner then he would have gotten paid 220, right? I guess I am stuck on the "results" aspect.

I would concede that 5/110 could be a fair interpretation of the vig before you know the outcome, assuming there is one, so I admit I am not sure that that isn't more "proper"! I am open minded to a "shared vig" view, but I can't get a grasp on the "loser's" pay argument. I am not sure that it could be a "half empty/half full" as some are suggesting though!

[zippy]

buckeye:

You say you’re stuck on the “loser pays” way of interpreting vig. I’ll try a slightly different angle on it. Maybe this will make more sense. Think of the “loser pays” perspective like this: Say you want to wager $100 on Notre Dame. The book requires you to put up not only the $100 for your wager, but an additional $10 as vig just in case you lose. If Notre Dame beats the spread, your $100 becomes $200, and the $10 is refunded to you, since winners don’t have to pay vig. If Notre Dame loses to the spread, you not only lose your $100 wager, but they confiscate that $10 as well, since losers do have to pay vig.

So don’t think of it as a $110 wager. Think of it as a $100 wager. The $10 is something you’re putting up separately as a potential fee for the book if and only if you lose your wager.

Again, the “winner pays” interpretation is just as valid, as is the “each pays half” interpretation.

Hope this helps.

[J. R. Miller]

First, let me assure everyone that I do NOT use any form of the so-called "Kelly criterion" as the fellow on this posting board calling himself "Wintermute" claims.
Second, for a full explanation of who pays the vigorish, simply read this article: http://www.professionalgambler.com/vigorish.html.
Third, anyone espousing the use of progressive betting schemes such as the "Kelly criterion" or the "1-star, 2-star, 3-star" system may be well-meaning, but he is clearly not a professional-level player. I know of no full-time player who still believes he can use the size of his bets as some sort of pry-bar to make more than he deserves.

[zippy]

Not surprisingly, the article gives a perfectly plausible interpretation of vig that shows it as being paid by the winner. However, the article fails to invalidate "loser pays" and "each pays half" interpretations of vig. Thus the article fails in its efforts to show that "winner pays" is the only correct understanding of vig.

It is, indeed, just semantics.

[sportshobby]

J.R., welcome to the forum. I hope you can share other insights and opinions in the future.

Don't get frustrated into trying to win THIS debate, though.