Winners pay vigorish - not losers

[zippy]

Quality, thoughtful analysis by wintermute.

As for Mr. Miller: if wintermute and you bet each other $100 on a ballgame, WITHOUT USING THE SERVICES OF A BOOKMAKER, the winner would walk away with $200. Yes, I’ve got that.

Okay…if you decide to use a bookmaker to “hold the money,” the winner will still walk away with $200 and the loser will have to cough up an additional $10 fee for the bookmaker. When you bet with a bookmaker, you have to risk an extra 10% on top of what your wager would have been without a bookmaker. At least this is just as accurate as your way of looking at it.

What would be the “vig version” of an even money bet where you risk $100 to win $100? Miller can stamp his foot all he wants and insist that the only answer is a bet where you risk $100 to win $91 (winner pays). But it makes at least as much sense to compare that even money bet with one where you risk $110 to win $100 (loser pays), or one where you risk $104.50 to win $95 (pay half vig whether you win or lose).

This round goes to wintermute.

[J. R. Miller]

Un-effing believable....And do you fellows also believe that when you play a $100 10-team parlay paying 850-for-1 that the loser pays the vigorish?
The "fair" pay-off on a 10-teamer is 1,023-to-1, which would make the vigorish $174 dollars...I guess the bookmaker sends the losers a bill for $74 more dollars.
Keep betting, men...Somebody has to pay those light bills.

[zippy]

To win $85,000 at 1,023 to 1, you would have to risk approximately $83. Why do you think the book collects $100 from you instead of $83 if your parlay loses? It’s called vig.

Care to try again?

[reno]

Now...regarding bringing in a Hollywood personality other than J.R. to explain sportsbetting in this forum, I vote for David Hasselhoff. Why? He no doubt can bring Pamela Anderson, sans Tommy Lee, into Bettorsworld. Whereas J.R. only talks about "juice," Pamela actually makes "juice" flow.

[J. R. Miller]

"Zippy", "Reno", "Greg" and "Wintermuth":
Fellows, my father J. W. told me to never argue with fools; - people watching can't tell which is which.
To anyone else reading this unfortunate exchange, I can promise you that whether it is craps, roulette, sports betting, or even slot machines, the "house" collects it's vigorish by paying back less than the "fair" amount to winners - not by adding charges to losers.
Moreover, I guarantee that such silliness as the old "1-star, 2-star, 3-star" system, or the so-called "Kelly criterion" will cost you money when the odds are in your favor. You can prove it for yourself at http://www.professionalgambler.com/debunking.html.

[Scott Landau]

Reno, Isn't Pammy a little old and fair complected for your tastes?

[zippy]

Mr. Miller:

I'll take your advice not to argue further with you, though I think referring to yourself as a fool might be a bit excessive.

reno:

I fully endorse the notion of bringing Pamela Anderson into Bettorsworld. (I'm also looking forward to hearing Miller debunk the myth that Pamela-with-silicone is bigger than Pamela-without-silicone, because a true expert in such matters would realize instead that Pamela-without-silicone is smaller than Pamela-with-silicone.)

[REALITY]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by J. R. Miller:
[B]"Zippy", "Reno", "Greg" and "Wintermuth":
Fellows, my father J. W. told me to never argue with fools; - people watching can't tell which is which.

J.R.
WITH THIS STATEMENT,YOUR A POST AWAY FROM OFFICIALLY BECOMING REALITY THE SECOND...

THIS IS YOU LAST CHANCE...

TAKE MY ADVICE...

YOU CAN'T WIN...

SORRY TO SAY THIS IS THE R-E-A-L-I-T-Y OF THE SITUATION...

REALITY

[reno]

Scott, I simply have to make do until I return to Asia. And Pamela is one of the few blondes that knocks my socks off.

Zippy, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Hang a picture of pre-silicone Pam next to a picture of post-silicone Pam. Then gaze at each picture until you determine which gets your "juice" flowing more intensely. But whatever you do, don't get "juiced" out. The wifey or girlfriend would not appreciate that.

[reno]

Reality, how do you reconcile the statement you made in the post thread "Moving on Air" regarding "juice" with what J.R. says?

According to you: "In baseball there is no "juice" unless the dogs wins."

According to J.R. "Losers pay no vigorish (juice)."

[irish]

Just cant stop laughing at this tread,I really felt sorry for J.R.Miller.Guys maybe it is semantics or whatever but do you have to be so synical in addressing anyone that may have a different oppinion than you pros,. Take Care fellas and have a great weekend Sincerely Irish.........

[SLAM DUNK]

JR.

If I bet my friend $100 a game on a hundred games and win them all I win $10,000. The way I and most others bet $100 a game is by RISKING 110 to win 100, with the understanding that if we lose we will pay a vig of $10. So if I bet the same $100 with a bookmaker and 110/100 for the same 100 games and win all 100 games I make the same $10,000. No losers, no juice. If you do not think it is semantics, I will take your advice and NOT ARGUE WITH A FOOL. The bottom line is that at a flat bet rate, if I hit over 52.38% winners I will win, if not I will not. If you want to aspire for 55% winners, be my guest, I will apsire for 100%.

As far as your advice about betting equal amounts on each game, the only one who would benefit from that is my BOOKIE. Year in and year out my stronger plays completely outperform my weaker plays. Because you and your circle of sportsbettors haven't reached that skill level, DO NOT ASSUME OTHERS HAVE NOT. If you are going to give advice, at least have somewhat of an open mind to the fact that others might have a different
(perhaps HIGHER) skill level than yourself.



[This message has been edited by SLAM DUNK (edited 07-09-2000).]

[SLAM DUNK]

Irish, Jr comes in here and insists that his interpretation is the only correct interpretation. He insists that nobody can make more money by betting more on 1 game than another. He comes in here like he is a genious and we are all idiots wearing blinders. We are supposed to idly sit by while misinformation is being brought forth as if it is the bible of sportsbetting? The bottom line is he is promoting his website, and using a little controversy to do it.

[J. R. Miller]

Someone calling himself "Slam Dunk" has accused me of "coming in here and promoting my website," and I don't like unfounded accusations. If whomever this fellow really is would have bothered to check, I came here only after I was notified via email that people had been attacking me here.

I definitely am guilty of believing there is only one right way to do things, depending upon the individual's situation, bankroll, expertise, etc. In virtually all cases, that "way" is flat-betting, and risking no more than 2% of your bankroll on any single bet. I have quickly learned there are people on this posting board who disagree, and that's okay; the industry needs losers for the rest of us to make a living. There are also people who disagree that you should hit a two-card 16 against a dealer's 10 when the deck is neutral. These people think it's a matter of "opinion," but it's not; - there is only one "right" thing to do with a 2-card 16 against a dealer's 10. Everything else is wrong.

One last question: Why do you guys all hide behind phony names?

[AussieVamp2]

Guys,

Do yourselves a favor. Buy a copy of Barb Wire. An all time classic movie.