Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

carcanaques

Bookmaker vigorish--who pays and how much?

Recommended Posts

I'm sure quite a few of you are going to place a bet or two tomorrow on NFL games and I wanted to share the inside scoop on the "vig." Unfortunately, I can't do this in a few short paragraphs and I know you guys like detailed explanations and backup, so I'm going to spend a bit of time getting my thoughts together and post it here, rather than the other forum. I hope to have this done before the games start (not that it will have any bearing on your wagers).

 

Stay tuned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that a suggestion or an order? Maybe you should lock this thread because you deem it to have no value? And all the poker talk should also go somewhere else too? Why do you have a problem with this? It is in the Generral Discussion forum. Let James decide if this is inappropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chances are, if you ask several different sports bettors what percentage they pay their bookmakers you'll get several different answers, and, chances are, most of those answers will not be ringing with confident finality. Even battle-worn veterans who flatly answer "Four-and-a-half percent" are really operating with a false understanding of what's going on. Contrary to what many veteran gamblers believe, almost no one actually pays 4.55% in bookmakers' commissions.

 

Many bettors are also operating under the fallacy that losers pay vigorish. The fact is--as explained below--losing bettors actually play for free. Only winners pay vigorish...And it's not 4.55 percent.

 

The bookmaker's rather unique commission has no precise English definition, but the French word for it is "vignes." American gamblers have long since converted "vignes" to "vigorish," or to just plain "vig." Nevertheless, the bookmaker's fee is as much a commission as a broker's fee for handling a stock transaction or a Realtor's fee for handling a real estate deal. To account for this commission on standard pointspread wagers or over/under wagers, at traditional bookmakers for every $10 a bettor wants to win he is required to risk $11 - to "lay" $11. (Many internet bookmakers now charge less, allowing bettors to risk as little as 10.5 to win 10, but for our purposes here we will use '11-10' bets.) These 'eleven-ten' bets lead many gamblers to conclude that they are paying the bookmaker a commission of 10 percent if they lose a bet, but that they pay nothing if they win.

 

That's not correct. Here's how it actually works: Say two bettors each risk $110 with the same bookmaker on opposite sides of the same proposition, each bettor trying to win $100: The bookmaker receives a total of $220 from the two bettors. One bettor wins, one bettor loses, and the winner picks up a total of $210; - the $110 he put at risk, plus his $100 profit. That leaves the bookmaker with $10 gross profit as his vigorish on the deal. The bookmaker kept $10 of the $220 total amount risked.

 

That's a service charge of 4.55 percent. Had the two bettors each risked $110 against the other without using the services of the bookmaker, the winner would have walked away with $220 instead of $210. The bookmaker kept 4.55 percent of that $220. The amount risked by each bettor was $110; not 100 dollars.

 

($10 divided by $220 = .0455)

 

So the bookmaker does, indeed, charge 4.55 percent of the total amount put at risk by both bettors...But be sure to note which bettor paid both bettors' share of the vigorish. It was not the loser. The loser--since he lost the bet-- would have lost whatever he put at risk, with or without the services of the bookmaker. The winner paid. The winnings, which would have been $110 without using the services of the bookmaker, were shorted by ten dollars - 9.1 percent.

 

($10 divided by $110 = .090909091)

 

The winner got back only 191 percent of the amount he put at risk.

 

($110 x 1.90909091 = $210)

 

This is also the way it works in virtually all other casino games, such as craps, roulette, baccarrat, blackjack, and even slot machines. When a loser loses, he loses what he puts at risk, of course. In roulette, for example, someone betting on an 'even-money' proposition (red or black, high or low, odd or even) and losing, loses his bet, whatever he risked, period. But someone winning an 'even-money' roulette proposition does not get paid the 'fair' odds of 10-to-9. (There are 20 ways to lose an even-money bet at roulette and only 18 ways to win. The odds are 10-9 against you.) The winner only gets paid 1-to-1 odds. In all these table games, the winner pays the vigorish.

 

Of course, in a larger, more philosophical sense losers not only pay the vigorish but also the light bills of the casino and the salaries of the casino employees and all the other expenses of the casino. But we're not addressing philosophy here. We're addressing how the business of gambling actually works. This is no place to play with words and semantics. Vigorish is deducted from winnings.

 

It is important to understand this point. You can be sure most bettors don't. In effect, the bookmaker becomes a partner of the winning bettor. Understanding this point is important when figuring the real cost of various sports betting opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tread lightly. Your threads keep making waves and are borderline inappropriate manner-wise.

 

You show up out of the blue and want to get combative. Seek life elsewhere if that is what you're here for. It doesn't fly around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How dare you call me a clown! I resent that and demand an apology. I have been nothing but courteous and professional here.

 

Doesn't every new member come out of the blue? Is this a private country club or an open forum?

 

And who are you to tell me what to do here? If James has a problem with my posts, I'm sure he'll let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that clown comment was inappropiate. I have no problem with carcanaques' posts on money and risk management. They have been very interesting and can be related to trading.

 

This forum is welcome for all new members. Please keep it this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to make a correction on the word Vigorish, it's actually from Yiddish slang.

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.

 

Vigorish

 

SYLLABICATION: vig·o·rish

PRONUNCIATION: vgr-sh

NOUN: Slang 1a. A charge taken on bets, as by a bookie or gambling establishment. b. The rate or amount of such a charge. 2. Interest, especially excessive interest, paid to a moneylender.

ETYMOLOGY: Yiddish slang, from Russian vyigrysh, winnings : vy-, out; see ud- in Appendix I + igrat', to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea damn guys, chillout. this is really interesting stuff.

 

carcanaques, have to read this a few times to grasp it yet.I would be interested in hearing how you view money management as far as trading goes.

Have you ever read Secrets of Professional Turf Betting? Thats a book I've read alot about but have never payed up for the used price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  carcanaques said:
How dare you call me a clown! I resent that and demand an apology. I have been nothing but courteous and professional here.

 

Doesn't every new member come out of the blue? Is this a private country club or an open forum?

 

And who are you to tell me what to do here? If James has a problem with my posts, I'm sure he'll let me know.

 

You're not getting an apology. Deal with it. I don't say things I don't mean.

 

We'll see how it all pans out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Reaver said:
You're not getting an apology. Deal with it. I don't say things I don't mean.

We'll see how it all pans out.

Suite yourself. For the record, I offered a peace pipe to Reaver in a PM and it was rejected. Apparently, he thinks he owns the place. Oh well, that's between him and James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  darthtrader said:
yea damn guys, chillout. this is really interesting stuff.

 

carcanaques, have to read this a few times to grasp it yet.I would be interested in hearing how you view money management as far as trading goes.

Have you ever read Secrets of Professional Turf Betting? Thats a book I've read alot about but have never payed up for the used price.

Never read that book as I stayed for away from horses.

 

As far as trading goes, my money management is garden variety. I won't risk more than 2% of my capital on any trade and no more than 4% per day, which is to say, if I have two stoputs in a row, I quit for the day and live to trade another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things appear to be quite different to the UK (hence my comment in the other thread about betting being far from zero sum, well at least here).

 

Is this all legislated in th US (how much a bookie can charge and how they set odds)? Lets say your taking bets on a match where the outcome can only be A wins or B wins if you only get $1 on A and $100 on B you would offer odds of 100 to 1 (or maybe a bit less to make your 'vig') In the UK the bookies can set their rate without restriction (as far as I know). What if a bookie can't unload all their risk as bets get taken? They are now in a vulnerable position no longer being win win? Seems reasonable for them to get paid to take this risk.

 

A side question are most bets in the USA settled at 'starting prices' thats the case in the UK though a punter has the option of taking the current price which I guess gives bookies further headaches.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  BlowFish said:
Things appear to be quite different to the UK (hence my comment in the other thread about betting being far from zero sum, well at least here).

 

Is this all legislated in th US (how much a bookie can charge and how they set odds)? Lets say your taking bets on a match where the outcome can only be A wins or B wins if you only get $1 on A and $100 on B you would offer odds of 100 to 1 (or maybe a bit less to make your 'vig') In the UK the bookies can set their rate without restriction (as far as I know). What if a bookie can't unload all their risk as bets get taken? They are now in a vulnerable position no longer being win win? Seems reasonable for them to get paid to take this risk.

 

A side question are most bets in the USA settled at 'starting prices' thats the case in the UK though a punter has the option of taking the current price which I guess gives bookies further headaches.

 

Cheers.

 

Bookmaking is illegal in the US except in jurisdictions where it is legal and operated by a licensed casino. Most of those outfits charge 11 to 10 on all bets that involve a pointspread; for example, football, basketball. Moneyline wagers (betting on the winner straightup) have set odds for payouts, much like the horses and the bookmakers cut is built in to those odds and payouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh OK that's pretty different - things make more sense now. In the UK the bookmakers will take a bet on just about anything and I guess for some things just have to make up a price on the spot with little chance of finding a counter party. Snow at Xmas is a popular one. And every now and then you read about a wierd one in the papers.

 

How does betting on horses work in the US? Obviously no spread there? Horses are probably the most popular for sport betting in the UK. There are still bookies on most high streets. I guess if they use starting prices (final odds given at race start) its easier to set 'fair' prices to a prescribed (and legislated) formula.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  BlowFish said:
Ahh OK that's pretty different - things make more sense now. In the UK the bookmakers will take a bet on just about anything and I guess for some things just have to make up a price on the spot with little chance of finding a counter party. Snow at Xmas is a popular one. And every now and then you read about a wierd one in the papers.

 

How does betting on horses work in the US? Obviously no spread there? Horses are probably the most popular for sport betting in the UK. There are still bookies on most high streets. I guess if they use starting prices (final odds given at race start) its easier to set 'fair' prices to a prescribed (and legislated) formula.

 

Betting on horses here is done by Pari Mutuel wagering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting

 

Bookies, or the legal Off Track betting add a surcharge on top, on payouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link. It just sounds as if things are more regulated in the USA. I may be mistaken about bookies being able to set there prices freely here of course. Pari Mutuel by definition uses starting prices I see.

 

Never been much of a gambler. I'll have a few quid on each race if I have a day at the races or might go to a casino for the odd night out but both of those are rare events, probably 500:1 against!

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad that I don't place bets. If I was a bookie then it would be a great business to get into however we all know that the book making industry is run by the mafia in whatever country you're in, and the only way to get a bookies license is to know people who know people.

 

The Melbroune Cup is going to be run pretty soon (Horse Race). The Bookmakers are going to make a killing. I heard that on average a bookie at the track turns over about $200k per hour, from which he will pay out a substantial amount to the winner, but they can and do leave the day with a lot of profit in their pocket from the vigorish that carcanaques describes.

 

Messy business lol.

 

P.S: I wanna retain all my fingers, toes, and other appendages that I find usefull so I don't wanna make any bets that I can't afford!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.