Talk:Vigorish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think this is unnecessarily complicated. Vigorish is commission paid to the bookie, but in reality it's sort of like left over money after the payout. Exemplar:
Assume your bookie takes 11-10 bets, that means you have to put down 11 to make 10. So, say you want to win $100 bucks on "the game". You'd have to put down $110 to make $100. So lets say there are two guys that want to bet on the game with the same bookie on opposite sides. Each puts down $110, that means there's $220 in the bookie's pot. The guy that wins gets back his money ($110) and in addition gets his winnings ($100). That's $210 paid to the winner, and the remaining $10 goes to the bookie for being a cool guy. So, nobody "pays the vig", in reality. As the winner you get back exactly what you were promised. 11 got you 10, in this example. Varying the betting ratio allows the bookie to always make money, no matter who wins the event. All the money he doesn't pay out he keeps. Vigorish.
This is my understanding, anyway. I'm not actually a gambler, I just play one on tv. I didn't want to post this in the main article until someone checks it out, so I put it here in talk. If it looks right, anyone can add it in whatever form seems fitting to them. -AMichel
---
The "Examples" and the other parts of this page explaining that only the winner pays the vig are not only awkwardly worded but some parts of them are just flatly wrong.
Only if you consider that two people who place opposing bets with the same bookmaker are competing for one another's money does this make any sense. This is, of course, wrong. They are competing for the bookie's money. Each of their wagers exists in a vaccum.
This also seems to assume that all people are betting $110 on things. The only way you get the number $110 is if you assume a base wager of $100 (like all bookies do) and factor in a 10% vig. To assume that the loser would have bet $110 had he not needed to pay vigorish is patently ridiculous.
Bettors are, in reality, WAGERING $100 of the money they give to bookmakers and paying $10 in commission. This situation is unchanged by the outcome of the bet.
I am going to correct this.
Contents |
[edit] plagerism
eventhough the article cites a website at the bottom, it does not change the fact that most of this article is a direct lift from the other website.
[edit] Mafia Interest slang
Isn't vigorish also a slang word used by the Mafia in the U.S. to mean interest on an (illegal) loan?
[edit] Of course the winner pays the vig
The vigorish is the commission--the fee paid to the bookie for using his services.
If you and I bet $110 each on a sporting event, the loser ends up -$110 and the winner ends up +$110.
But if we go to a bookie and bet on opposite outcomes, the loser still ends up -$110, but the winner ends up only +$100.
So who pays the vig? The winner. He is the one who is out ten dollars because he used a bookie's services. The loser is out nothing for the use of a bookie.
67.185.114.32 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
No. He's out $110, let's say because the Jets lost. The fact that he lost the bet means that the bookie COULD HAVE counted on the Jets losing and pocketed $110 in theory! In reality, the bookie keeps only 10 of those dollars for his profit, just as he put away $10 of the other guy's money, and uses the rest to protect himself from any outcome. Also, the fact that the loser could have won only $100 from the bet, means that $10 was being held by the bookie. So, both winner and loser have paid the vig.
[edit] Question
Am I understanding this right? If you convert the odds from one bookie to percentages, the total percentage of all outcomes is above 100% so they make a profit. The amount that this is over 100% by is the vig? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.208.14 (talk • contribs).
