Vote here for who pays the vig.

[wintermute]

B - both pay

'mute

[sportshobby]

Wintermute, of course you're right.

[greg]

loser pays vig, winner pushes on vig.

[Hamhog]

Tout service clients pay the vig

[reno]

'Mute, you are, of course, correct. I made the same argument when Reality stated that dog players don't pay juice in baseball. Hogwash! If a baseball line is -150 and
+ 140, the true line is 145, and there is 5 cents juice on the dog or favorite, and the dog player is penalized the juice when he wins because he only 1.40 X what he risked rather than 1.45. Your example with the
-110 is the same. The winning player is penalized because he does not receive the same amount back for wining that he risks. And if he bet the same amount at even money with another bookie, his return, as you point out, would be greater.

[rfd]

That sounds good but if the favorite were to win every baseball game for the rest of the season, how many new yachts could the sportsbook owners buy with the juice that the dog players paid?

[pay2play]

mute, of course you're right, the argument is semantical, the net is that both pay it. Some of you guys have taken the time and spelled it out for them on the original thread, so you've done your duty. If a person still doesn't get it, if they really want to believe the earth is flat, I vote...Let them.

[zippy]

Both. (This is not to be understood as their both paying full vig, of course.)

Can’t argue with Hamhog’s analysis.

With Bettorsworld heavy hitters like reno and thedevil siding with wintermute on this one, things are looking bleak for the Miller side.

[irish]

Whatever you say ! Im off to the races,

[rfd]

My last post was in jest but to be serious I'd have to say it really is a question of semantics revolving around the word paying. The one side uses paying, as in whose bottom line is being impacted, which is obviously both. One in the case of a lesser return(dog) and the other in the form of greater risk. The other side who argue that the vig is either being paid by the winner/loser, favorite/dog interpret paying as being the mechanism of transfer so that since actual money only changes hands when the dog wins in baseball,dog players pay no vig.

BTW the best post I saw on the subject was from the guy who said none of it really makes a damn bit of difference anyway.

[SLAM DUNK]

DITTO, RENO AND RFD AND PAY2PLAY. The guy obviously made the statement for some kind of attention, and looks like it is working, look at all the attention he is getting. SMART MOVE.

[wintermute]

I wasn't going to post again but rfd has a very valid point that I seem to be overstating the vig by a factor of 2.

I think the problem can be resolved by noting that the books pay out $210 for every $220 wagered on a 110 to win 100 bet. Therefore I shouldn't be comparing 110 to win 100 with 110 to win 110 but rather with 105 to win 105. In both cases the payout is $210. In the former case the handle is $220 and the books keep a $10 vig. In the latter case the handle is $210 and there is no vig.

Therefore what rfd quoted from my post:

Pete lost an extra $100 because the vig forced him to put down $1100 instead of $1000. Buck lost $100 because the vig lowered his potential profit from $1100 to $1000.

should read:

Pete lost an extra $50 because the vig forced him to put down $1100 instead of $1050. Buck lost $50 because the vig lowered his potential profit from $1050 to $1000.

rfd summed it up best with his last comment.

Good luck to all

'mute

[Ronbets]

'mute,

This is why I hounded you to get back over this side. Your talents were being wasted on picking winners.---Ron