Winners pay vigorish - not losers

[J. R. Miller]

Losers pay no vigorish, and only those bettors who win precisely 50% of their bets pay 4.55%. Everyone else pays somethig different......For a full explanation of who pays the vigorish, and how much they pay, simply go here:
http://www.professionalgambler.com/vigorish.html

[greg]

sorry jr. your wrong on who pays vig let me explain. All wagers include vig, on winning wagers the vig is returned, on losing wagers the vig is kept. Vig is designed to help the book make a profit no losers no profit all loser all profit if half the action covers the book pays the winners from the losers and keeps the vig for profit it like balance the action for profit ie. vig. Your also wrong to say that 55% winners is better than 60%+winners get real dude your playing games again here you forget to mention that the sample size is much greater for the 55% winners to out profit 60%+ wiining %. You are also wrong to say that all wagers should be for the same % of bankroll guess what some people are actually capable of finding plays that are stronger than others and therefore if true warrants a larger % play.

[mls]

OK, let me get the "Professional Gamblers" secret straight ... it is better to win a higher percent of games than lose ... wait ... wait ... almost got it ...

Brilliant!! Where do I send my check?

[reno]

I went to J.R.'s home page. It has a picture of him with the "legendary" Jack Painter. Yeah, right. Jack was a true legend--in his own mind. I took his courses on sportsbetting at Clark County Community College in the mid 80s, and, in retrospect, there is nothing of value that I derived from them. Jack Painter offered about as much useful information as Jim Barnes. And Bob Mc Cune? Like I said in a Betorswworld post a long time ago, I took all of my old sportsbetting books to a Salvation Army thrift shop, including a Bob McCune book on football handicapping. Then I got to thinking: What if some derelict buys the books and blows the last few dollars of his liquor money on bets inspired by the mis- information in these crummy texts? Well, a guilty conscience overwhelmed me, and I went back to the thrift shop, reclaimed my books, and did the proper thing: I burned them.

If we're going to bring in a Hollywood personalty to explain sportsbetting in Bettorsworld, instead of J.R., I vote for Jimmie "Dynomite" Walker or David Hasselhoff, who I used to see wager with Gene Mayday at Little Caesar's.

[AussieVamp2]

Reno,

Can't say the football handicapping stuff thrilled me - however, some of McCune's baseball articles were of use to me.

Entertaining 'handicapping form' for boxing, too.

[Ronbets]

Reno,

Was one of McCune's books "Handicapping the Effects of Rogaine"? Hum, maybe it was Lem.

[pay2play]

We all pay the vig. But I'm starting to think it's the people who still don't understand that, that pay the BM's bills.

[wintermute]

As I mentioned earlier you can make it look as if the winner pays the vig, the loser pays the vig or both pay. The arguments depend on what you use as your comparison no-vig bet.

If you compare your 110 to win 100 wager with a 110 to win 110 wager as JR does, it looks like the winner pays. If you compare with a 100 to win 100 wager it looks like the loser pays. If as I did you compare with a 105 to win 105 wager it looks like both pay equally.

I believe comparing with the 105 to win 105 bet is the right approach because it's the only scenario of the three that 'is fair' to both the winner and the loser in the sense that they both pay something.

In JR's approach the loser seems to get preferential treatment because he only loses what he bets and no more. This is not logical. He actually loses more than he should because he should have bet 105, not 110.

In the approach where the comparison bet is 100 to win 100 the winner seems to get preferential treatment because he wins 100 whether the wager is 110 or 100. Again, not true. In a perfect no-vig world he would have won 105 so he's out potential winnings.

If you believe JR you have to believe that the winners walking away from the craps tables in Vegas paid for the casinos. If you're going to believe something silly at least believe that the losers pay.

'mute

[wintermute]

JR says

--
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.
--

If you have a fixed mathematical expectation what you say is true. If the expectation varies from wager to wager it is false.

[wintermute]

JR says

--
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.
--

I was simply making the point that any money management scheme that involves changing your bet size no matter how infrequently is at heart a Kelly system.

[greg]

also jr you should know that the better one is at handicapping as evidenced by a higher winning % the greater % of ones bankroll one can risk per wager without taking greater risk on losing entire bankroll, vs a lower winning % smaller % wagers .

[J. R. Miller]

For chrissakes, you guys, wake up. If "Wintermuth" and I bet each other $100 on a ballgame, WITHOUT USING THE SERVICES OF A BOOKMAKER, the winner would walk away with $200.
Got that?
Okay...If we decide to use the services of a bookmaker to "hold the money" the winner walks away with $191.
The WINNER paid for the goddamned bookmaker.

Now, I'm not about to address all the other stuff that's being brought up - especially the nonsense about progressive betting schemes being a good idea - but let me just say this before I give up: If your bet is big enough to break you at 55%, I guarantee you it will sooner or later break you at 60%. Best wishes...

[wintermute]

Agree or disagree, the issue is hardly worth losing your temper over.

'mute

[REALITY]

Originally posted by J. R. Miller:
For chrissakes, you guys, wake up. If "Wintermuth" and I bet each other $100 on a ballgame, WITHOUT USING THE SERVICES OF A BOOKMAKER, the winner would walk away with $200.
Got that?
Okay...If we decide to use the services of a bookmaker to "hold the money" the winner walks away with $191.
The WINNER paid for the goddamned bookmaker.

Now, I'm not about to address all the other stuff that's being brought up - especially the nonsense about progressive betting schemes being a good idea - but let me just say this before I give up: If your bet is big enough to break you at 55%, I guarantee you it will sooner or later break you at 60%. Best wishes...

J.R.
YOU ARE ON THE VERGE OF BECOMING REALITY THE SECOND.

SAVE YOUR BREATH.

IT'S NOT WORTH IT.

TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE WHO KNOWS...

REALITY

[reno]

J.R., the loser is still paying vig. And that is because he is risking $100 to win $91 with the BM instead of $100 to win $100 with his friend. If he were only risking $91 to win $91, then he would not pay vig. In the case of the loser, the juice is "implicit." In the case of the winner, it is "explicit." We are talking about semantics. In reality, on a -110 wager, each party is penalized equally.