Maths 101 - For all US Sportsbettors

[alec]

mugmoney,

I totally support you. It is amazing how many people, even bookmakers, don't understand the simplest math.

Just several days ago I posted the same opinion: American +/- format is awful and expressions like "dime line" are sensles.

Probably I should have chosen a better title for my thread. Math 101 is a very relevant one.

[buckeye]

mugmoney,
I think that most US bettors do know that a 10 cent line is just another description of the vig %. It is intuitive that a 20 cent line is twice the vig% of a 10 cent one ( at -105 or -110). I actually prefer the 1.95, or 1.91, odds format and thinking of each bet as having 2% or 4% vig ( like Canbet does ) instead of calling them 10 cent or 20 cent lines. Making the vig a flat %, like 2% or 4%, instead of talking about it as 10 cent up to -155 ( or whatever ) seems to make more sense and doesn't impart less vig on some lines than others.

Before you go casting aspersions on the mathematically challenged, check your own work! It should read -130 +120 for the baseball (2%) hold, not -130 +110 as you stated in your example. I know that you KNEW the correct odds, but we all make mistakes!

As for the "who pays", I see both sides. Some feel the vig is inherent in all bets and shared equally ( at 4.54% for 20 cent "spread" lines ) between winner and loser. Others, like Miller, say that it affects the WINNERS returns and he gets 9.1% less than true odds so it is the winner who is affected only. If you won 100% of your bets your ROI is maxed at 90.9% and so Miller states you have paid the vig. I think it comes down to whether you feel the vig is inherent in all bets or only those it affects. I can see both points, I just don't agree with zippy's interpretation of "thinking" of the loser as having risked 100 and then paying 10 more as the vig. First, bookies don't let you do this in practice. Second, it is one $110 bet, not a hundred and then ten conditionally. If the loser paid the vig, then the winner would get $100 for every $100 bet, instead of 100/110. If bookies let you risk 100 to win 100, with a "tax" of ten charged after losing, then I could buy it. But they don't, so it doesn't hold up!

[Alex]

Thanks, Fedya. You've made my life a little easier.

[AussieVamp2]

Alex, just a matter of taking fedya's and an if statement and a formula, and you are done

[AussieVamp2]

although Fedya, again Alex's example a good one for the 'Maths 101' thread - this is incredibly simple arithmetic - bug again causes people to struggle? Good for the bookies again.

[mugmoney]

AV2,

1.9090909 rounded to 2 decimals is 1.91. At least, that’s what they taught me at school.

And anyone who chooses a book where tax impacts should look to other books. Tax should not be an issue in this day and age, especially on US sport, which is what I’m addressing.

Alex,

“IF” functions on XL are good to convert a US line regardless of whether it is + or -. I have pasted a formula from one of my spreadsheets here:

=IF(A6<0,((((A6/100)*-1)+1)/(A6/100))*-1,(A6/100+1)),

A6 being the cell where you input the US line. Hope this helps.

Scott,

I’ll lay that Roo Steak………………sorry mate, ‘ya got the wrong bloke.

Buck,

Sorry, -130, +120 is correct.

I refer to this:

“As for the "who pays", I see both sides. Some feel the vig is inherent in all bets and shared equally ( at 4.54% for 20 cent "spread" lines ) between winner and loser. Others, like Miller, say that it affects the WINNERS returns and he gets 9.1% less than true odds so it is the winner who is affected only. If you won 100% of your bets your ROI is maxed at 90.9% and so Miller states you have paid the vig. I think it comes down to whether you feel the vig is inherent in all bets or only those it affects. I can see both points, I just don't agree with zippy's interpretation of "thinking" of the loser as having risked 100 and then paying 10 more as the vig. First, bookies don't let you do this in practice. Second, it is one $110 bet, not a hundred and then ten conditionally. If the loser paid the vig, then the winner would get $100 for every $100 bet, instead of 100/110. If bookies let you risk 100 to win 100, with a "tax" of ten charged after losing, then I could buy it. But they don't, so it doesn't hold up!”

With all due respect, and I’m sure respect is due, this is just the kind of talk I’m getting at. You are saying you can see “both sides” but there is only one. Ya’ll keep looking at it AFTER the event. The fact is, BEFORE the game is played, you have paid your juice. Just like roulette, if you bet red or black you get paid even money. When black comes up and you win, you’ve still paid juice because the chance of a green 0 coming up was always there before the wheel had been spun. Just like with pointspreads, you pay 11/10 for a 10/10 shot. The juice is paid before the event. Regardless of whether your bet has won or lost, juice has still been paid. That is the bottom line.

Interesting topic though…………

[buckeye]

mug,
The heart of the controversy is whether you look at the vig as present before or after the outcome, as you indicate. I understand both ideas. One could argue that if the vig is present BEFORE an outcome then why do you get all of your money back on a PUSH? I am not saying that it is the correct way to look at it, but a win/loss MUST occur for vig/juice to be taken, so you could interpret it as juice paid only on a decision. I don't actually see it this way, personally, but I understand the interpretation. Your roulette analogy is more akin to three way betting where a tie/green causes both sides to lose. I believe Miller would still argue that the vig is paid by the winner since true odds on black are greater than 1-1.
GL2U

[AussieVamp2]

Originally posted by mugmoney:
AV2,

1.9090909 rounded to 2 decimals is 1.91. At least, that’s what they taught me at school.

And anyone who chooses a book where tax impacts should look to other books. Tax should not be an issue in this day and age, especially on US sport, which is what I’m addressing.

What I mean is you are calculating stuff to greater degrees of accuracy when you are rounding than you should (which they taught me in school)

All legal sportsbooks in general pay tax of some sort in most places, not necessarily the ripoff UK or Europe ones no, where they make the punter pay, but it could the the 0.25% or thereabouts in Darwin, Vegas, or whatever - which was explained as being an issue on moneylines, and whether they are even offered at certain levels...



[This message has been edited by AussieVamp2 (edited 07-25-2000).]

[mugmoney]

Buckeye,

Fair enough, I could go on about it all day but I think enough said on the juice.

AV2,

Turnover tax is a business expense. Juice is revenue for a business. This revenue pays for expenses. Tax comes in the form of vig no more than employee wages or rent on premises. The higher the expenses, the higher the vig. It just so happens that in this particular industry, tax is usually the biggest single expense. But this really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about......just trying to put you on the right track mate

[Alex]

AV,

I don't think translating American odds to European is "incredibly simple arithmetic." It may be for someone with a background in math, but not for the general public.

To infer that, because I can't do this alone, I'm easy prey for books is wrong.

I think bettors' lack of curiosity about such things is the bigger issue here.

[AussieVamp2]

I never said it would make you easy prey

but if this obfuscated line format gives American punters trouble, that can't be a good thing for them?

Solving the above is something you get taught in primary school though....

[AussieVamp2]

of course, helping people with stuff is good

[Alex]

They teach you about betting odds in elementary school in Australia?

[Fedya Fussball]

Alex:

Betting odds are part and parcel of the Australian subculture...

I remember in 10th grade I ran a betting book for the Melbourne Cup using such odds as 6/1.

Our math classes do have elementary probability and statistics..
This includes understanding p(x) if odds are 2/1, Even money and 4/6on.
This was around 9th-11th grade. These were excellent classes and Maths was really enjoyable.
Maybe OZVamp can give a current rundown because I've been away from the school system in OZ a long time now. Also I went often to the racetrack, and I started going with my father when I was 10YO.

FF

[MarkDel]

MugMoney,

I do not mean to give offense, mainly because your explanation at the beginning of this post is right on target, but you have a truly "dizzying" intellect. Your math is excellent, but you could have said the same thing in about half the words, plus it was unnecessary to hurl the not so subtle insults at us yanks. As someone who has a pretty fair background in math, I am comfortable with the American system and the metric system, though I much prefer the former despite the greater consistency of the latter.

But getting back to one of the key arguments in this thread, you are correct in stating that you "pay the vig" when the bet is made. While it's true that only "losing bets pay vig" when you are laying 110-100, from a "math" standpoint, you have already paid that when the probability changed.

God, this is awful, can't we get back to simple gambling talk rather than this math geek garbage, I feel like I'm back at friggin' Princeton!