Lets presume I'm a book if I have two guys and the bet opposite sides The perspective vig is 10%. One guy loses he give me 110. He did not give me a dime to start. The other guy wins I give him 100 he also did not give me a dime. My 10% comes from the guy who lost the wager.
You are spelling it out right in front of your face and you are still getting it wrong. Instead of getting 110 back, the winner gets 100 back, and that is where your $10 profit is, from the winner. AIYAAAAAHH!
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bluefin:
Lets presume I'm a book if I have two guys and the bet opposite sides The perspective vig is 10%. One guy loses he give me 110. He did not give me a dime to start. The other guy wins I give him 100 he also did not give me a dime. My 10% comes from the guy who lost the wager.
You are spelling it out right in front of your face and you are still getting it wrong. Instead of getting 110 back, the winner gets 100 back, and that is where your $10 profit is, from the winner. AIYAAAAAHH!
I think the widespread problems understanding the concept of who pays the vig is inherit in the US odds system, where you are expressing the amount you have to stake in order to win a set amount, 100 units. It's not transparent and it's not very easy to keep your head straight when you're primarily always adjusting the stake in your mind. -110 = 1.91 in decimal odds and -105 = 1.95 (rounded some). I then immediately see that if I place a wager of 1 unit where the juice is lower and win, my net profit is 0.95 units. At the higher juice my net profit is only 0.91 units. When the bet loses the juice is (as thoroughly exhausted in the thread by now) irrelevant, 1 unit was the bet and that's of course the loss regardless of juice. Very easy to see using decimal, you should try it. It's also spreadsheet friendly since that's the normal way of doing math and expressing numbers. In school you learned that 6/4 = 1.25, not -400, right?
Haha 5/4 that is, typo
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bermax:
I think the widespread problems understanding the concept of who pays the vig is inherit in the US odds system, where you are expressing the amount you have to stake in order to win a set amount, 100 units. It's not transparent and it's not very easy to keep your head straight when you're primarily always adjusting the stake in your mind. -110 = 1.91 in decimal odds and -105 = 1.95 (rounded some). I then immediately see that if I place a wager of 1 unit where the juice is lower and win, my net profit is 0.95 units. At the higher juice my net profit is only 0.91 units. When the bet loses the juice is (as thoroughly exhausted in the thread by now) irrelevant, 1 unit was the bet and that's of course the loss regardless of juice. Very easy to see using decimal, you should try it. It's also spreadsheet friendly since that's the normal way of doing math and expressing numbers. In school you learned that 6/4 = 1.25, not -400, right?
Lets presume I'm a book if I have two guys and the bet opposite sides The perspective vig is 10%. One guy loses he give me 110. He did not give me a dime to start. The other guy wins I give him 100 he also did not give me a dime. My 10% comes from the guy who lost the wager.
Google is your friend. I explained in the most SIMPLE terms, a question that seemed complex on the surface, but obviously to no avail.
Keep trying to prove your point to someone else, with your illogical assertions, as I won't clutter this thread any more with this topic.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bluefin:
Lets presume I'm a book if I have two guys and the bet opposite sides The perspective vig is 10%. One guy loses he give me 110. He did not give me a dime to start. The other guy wins I give him 100 he also did not give me a dime. My 10% comes from the guy who lost the wager.
Google is your friend. I explained in the most SIMPLE terms, a question that seemed complex on the surface, but obviously to no avail.
Keep trying to prove your point to someone else, with your illogical assertions, as I won't clutter this thread any more with this topic.
Scal tell everyone your on computer 24/7 Because your profilaxi says you dont work. On Disabilty,( yeah its your Brain) You know so thing about Clippers . Month ago Cg like t'hem sT home as dog.They do have Good bench. Instead s'avingui Good Pick.You Ramble your crap Month later. How about last night best OKC on road, 7 point Dog. No Griffin or Crawford . I had them didn't need 7. They do have good bench Chris Paul, been on fire. Know shut up about.Concentrate on Today.God we been listing your B.S for weeks .I live in OCC , follow Clippers & Lakers . Have great day. Now go get your Welfare or Disabilty check .I hear your mail man out there. Get JOB
So many absurd things with this post, too many to even count.
Will be waiting for you to tell me "take hike."
0
Quote Originally Posted by baronman:
Scal tell everyone your on computer 24/7 Because your profilaxi says you dont work. On Disabilty,( yeah its your Brain) You know so thing about Clippers . Month ago Cg like t'hem sT home as dog.They do have Good bench. Instead s'avingui Good Pick.You Ramble your crap Month later. How about last night best OKC on road, 7 point Dog. No Griffin or Crawford . I had them didn't need 7. They do have good bench Chris Paul, been on fire. Know shut up about.Concentrate on Today.God we been listing your B.S for weeks .I live in OCC , follow Clippers & Lakers . Have great day. Now go get your Welfare or Disabilty check .I hear your mail man out there. Get JOB
So many absurd things with this post, too many to even count.
So many absurd things with this post, too many to even count.
Will be waiting for you to tell me "take hike."
I thought for sure he was trolling everyone with his repeated run on sentences of complete garble. But now I'm not so sure. If it is just an act, then...............but if not........oh dear.......
0
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
So many absurd things with this post, too many to even count.
Will be waiting for you to tell me "take hike."
I thought for sure he was trolling everyone with his repeated run on sentences of complete garble. But now I'm not so sure. If it is just an act, then...............but if not........oh dear.......
Oh boy semantics, every bet is won there are no losing tickets make the same argument without the losing ticket.Yes in theory ROI is obviously 5% on cashed plays
Van violation is Rico Act if you establish a residence for the purpose of evading an existing US law you are continuing a criminal enterprise that is why cash into the country from outside is issue with offshore books. If you do not maintain occupancy for a certain period of time you are not a resident.If you are not a resident in residency then you are evading US law by being a US resident and maintaining a residence outside the US for the express purpose of evading an existing US law. Anyway I believe it's some such nonsense.Its all about the money. Bitcoin solves this issue completely.
Part of the reason also why many guys who gamble and win have a lot of associates.
But there is no US law against being a sports bettor.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bluefin:
Oh boy semantics, every bet is won there are no losing tickets make the same argument without the losing ticket.Yes in theory ROI is obviously 5% on cashed plays
Van violation is Rico Act if you establish a residence for the purpose of evading an existing US law you are continuing a criminal enterprise that is why cash into the country from outside is issue with offshore books. If you do not maintain occupancy for a certain period of time you are not a resident.If you are not a resident in residency then you are evading US law by being a US resident and maintaining a residence outside the US for the express purpose of evading an existing US law. Anyway I believe it's some such nonsense.Its all about the money. Bitcoin solves this issue completely.
Part of the reason also why many guys who gamble and win have a lot of associates.
But there is no US law against being a sports bettor.
I thought for sure he was trolling everyone with his repeated run on sentences of complete garble. But now I'm not so sure. If it is just an act, then...............but if not........oh dear.......
It's not an act, it's his real life personality.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bk1374:
I thought for sure he was trolling everyone with his repeated run on sentences of complete garble. But now I'm not so sure. If it is just an act, then...............but if not........oh dear.......
CG has a brother from what I have read, is CG the youngest sibling? What was his first car?
I haven't read through the entire thread but how much is his car payment? Insurance?
And how does a kid from New Jersey decide to go to college in Alabama and pay out-of-state tuition?
This thread is highly entertaining and I hope it continues but I'm afraid CG will end up back home before long. Luckily for him, I expect it to be a soft landing...and who knows, maybe Mommy and Daddy cover his rent for the year and CG will get to chug Tall Boys and chase MILF's for 8 more months after he blows through his 30K he earned through "gambling"
0
Quote Originally Posted by Laroja:
Unsolved mysteries.
CG has a brother from what I have read, is CG the youngest sibling? What was his first car?
I haven't read through the entire thread but how much is his car payment? Insurance?
And how does a kid from New Jersey decide to go to college in Alabama and pay out-of-state tuition?
This thread is highly entertaining and I hope it continues but I'm afraid CG will end up back home before long. Luckily for him, I expect it to be a soft landing...and who knows, maybe Mommy and Daddy cover his rent for the year and CG will get to chug Tall Boys and chase MILF's for 8 more months after he blows through his 30K he earned through "gambling"
The ups and downs in this thread and how everyone reacts to them are great. 7 game losing streaks followed by 7 game win streaks will provide fantastic drama.
Can you tell how boring Feb to Aug is for me?
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
It is going to be great if Louisville wins.
The ups and downs in this thread and how everyone reacts to them are great. 7 game losing streaks followed by 7 game win streaks will provide fantastic drama.
Funny thing is, that the orchestrator of this thread, College Gambler is virtually oblivious to all the commentary and chirping going on.
Whether his bets win or lose, has almost become an insignificant side note.
I was thinking that earlier today with all of the good debate around vig and who pays it - all stuff you rarely see on covers but great discussions. Usually it is all "pick" centered here.
But I was also thinking that CG isn't involved at all - that this thread has become the bar where everyone is hanging out - and CG is sometimes here and sometimes not - but the bar keeps on going either way....
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wizardofroz:
Funny thing is, that the orchestrator of this thread, College Gambler is virtually oblivious to all the commentary and chirping going on.
Whether his bets win or lose, has almost become an insignificant side note.
I was thinking that earlier today with all of the good debate around vig and who pays it - all stuff you rarely see on covers but great discussions. Usually it is all "pick" centered here.
But I was also thinking that CG isn't involved at all - that this thread has become the bar where everyone is hanging out - and CG is sometimes here and sometimes not - but the bar keeps on going either way....
The base unit in the betting empire has clearly moved to 1k.
Which will we see first? The base unit back at 500, or the base unit to 1,500?
I would say 1,500 is a -150 favorite.
I'd say you put a bad line out there Van. Under what scenario would he lower his bet size back to 500? If he goes on a good stretch, he'll stay or raise. And if he goes on a bad stretch, the same will apply. (may even result in another monster tilt) This is like one of those coin toss bets in the superbowl where you can't lose based on each teams tendency to defer/receive.
-150 for the max.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Here is an interesting CG prop:
The base unit in the betting empire has clearly moved to 1k.
Which will we see first? The base unit back at 500, or the base unit to 1,500?
I would say 1,500 is a -150 favorite.
I'd say you put a bad line out there Van. Under what scenario would he lower his bet size back to 500? If he goes on a good stretch, he'll stay or raise. And if he goes on a bad stretch, the same will apply. (may even result in another monster tilt) This is like one of those coin toss bets in the superbowl where you can't lose based on each teams tendency to defer/receive.
The base unit in the betting empire has clearly moved to 1k.
Which will we see first? The base unit back at 500, or the base unit to 1,500?
I would say 1,500 is a -150 favorite.
He already said he was going back to $500 bets, if the Kings lost versus the Hawks. And he obviously had no intention of doing so, so his minimum bet point will continue to rise.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Here is an interesting CG prop:
The base unit in the betting empire has clearly moved to 1k.
Which will we see first? The base unit back at 500, or the base unit to 1,500?
I would say 1,500 is a -150 favorite.
He already said he was going back to $500 bets, if the Kings lost versus the Hawks. And he obviously had no intention of doing so, so his minimum bet point will continue to rise.
I'd say you put a bad line out there Van. Under what scenario would he lower his bet size back to 500? If he goes on a good stretch, he'll stay or raise. And if he goes on a bad stretch, the same will apply. (may even result in another monster tilt) This is like one of those coin toss bets in the superbowl where you can't lose based on each teams tendency to defer/receive.
-150 for the max.
You're right. My aversions to favorites skewed my rationale.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
I'd say you put a bad line out there Van. Under what scenario would he lower his bet size back to 500? If he goes on a good stretch, he'll stay or raise. And if he goes on a bad stretch, the same will apply. (may even result in another monster tilt) This is like one of those coin toss bets in the superbowl where you can't lose based on each teams tendency to defer/receive.
-150 for the max.
You're right. My aversions to favorites skewed my rationale.
I'd say you put a bad line out there Van. Under what scenario would he lower his bet size back to 500? If he goes on a good stretch, he'll stay or raise. And if he goes on a bad stretch, the same will apply. (may even result in another monster tilt) This is like one of those coin toss bets in the superbowl where you can't lose based on each teams tendency to defer/receive.
-150 for the max.
I would say there is a point where he will get scared - the thought of having to move back to Joisy would be too strong - and he would reduce. Maybe if his bankroll got to 15k.
But that is just one scenario - and maybe at that point he would double up too.
Based on feedback, I am moving the line on air!!! New line:
1,500 -200 500 +160
(Im going to take Vegas vig on this one, if you could find it offshore you would find it at -200, +185 but FU to all of you offshore bettors)
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rangerz2478:
I'd say you put a bad line out there Van. Under what scenario would he lower his bet size back to 500? If he goes on a good stretch, he'll stay or raise. And if he goes on a bad stretch, the same will apply. (may even result in another monster tilt) This is like one of those coin toss bets in the superbowl where you can't lose based on each teams tendency to defer/receive.
-150 for the max.
I would say there is a point where he will get scared - the thought of having to move back to Joisy would be too strong - and he would reduce. Maybe if his bankroll got to 15k.
But that is just one scenario - and maybe at that point he would double up too.
Based on feedback, I am moving the line on air!!! New line:
1,500 -200 500 +160
(Im going to take Vegas vig on this one, if you could find it offshore you would find it at -200, +185 but FU to all of you offshore bettors)
I would say there is a point where he will get scared - the thought of having to move back to Joisy would be too strong - and he would reduce. Maybe if his bankroll got to 15k.
But that is just one scenario - and maybe at that point he would double up too.
Based on feedback, I am moving the line on air!!! New line:
1,500 -200 500 +160
(Im going to take Vegas vig on this one, if you could find it offshore you would find it at -200, +185 but FU to all of you offshore bettors)
It's possible but in the "declines" scenario, I'd still say it's less than 50-50 it would apply. In the "upswing" scenario, there's a 0% chance he'd lower it.
Therefore, the line has to be -300 at a minimum IMO. I'll still take the -200 for another max.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
I would say there is a point where he will get scared - the thought of having to move back to Joisy would be too strong - and he would reduce. Maybe if his bankroll got to 15k.
But that is just one scenario - and maybe at that point he would double up too.
Based on feedback, I am moving the line on air!!! New line:
1,500 -200 500 +160
(Im going to take Vegas vig on this one, if you could find it offshore you would find it at -200, +185 but FU to all of you offshore bettors)
It's possible but in the "declines" scenario, I'd still say it's less than 50-50 it would apply. In the "upswing" scenario, there's a 0% chance he'd lower it.
Therefore, the line has to be -300 at a minimum IMO. I'll still take the -200 for another max.
The Wire Act Of 1961 And It's Effect On Legal Sports Betting In The U.S.A.
The Wire Act of 1961 was meant to prohibit certain methods of placing sports bets. Mainly the use of telephones since at the time Las Vegas was the only legal place to wager on sports. The law was meant to outlaw bookies who operated outside Las Vegas. While the official wording of the document states, and I quote;
"The term "wire communication facility" means any and all instrumentalities, personnel, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, or delivery of communications) used or useful in the transmission of writings, signs, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission."
It is clearly difficult to understand what constitutes the use of a wire placed wager. Back in 1961 there was no internet so it obviously was not meant to ban this specific method. Since it is unclear on whether or not this act applies to betting sports online in the U.S., it has never been used to go after sports bettors. It is argued in circles that this is only used to prosecute owners and operators of sites. Recently the Department of Justice released a statement saying that the Wire Act of 1961 does not apply to online poker rooms. This is good news for poker players and can be considered good for sports bettors as well.
0
The Wire Act Of 1961 And It's Effect On Legal Sports Betting In The U.S.A.
The Wire Act of 1961 was meant to prohibit certain methods of placing sports bets. Mainly the use of telephones since at the time Las Vegas was the only legal place to wager on sports. The law was meant to outlaw bookies who operated outside Las Vegas. While the official wording of the document states, and I quote;
"The term "wire communication facility" means any and all instrumentalities, personnel, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, or delivery of communications) used or useful in the transmission of writings, signs, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission."
It is clearly difficult to understand what constitutes the use of a wire placed wager. Back in 1961 there was no internet so it obviously was not meant to ban this specific method. Since it is unclear on whether or not this act applies to betting sports online in the U.S., it has never been used to go after sports bettors. It is argued in circles that this is only used to prosecute owners and operators of sites. Recently the Department of Justice released a statement saying that the Wire Act of 1961 does not apply to online poker rooms. This is good news for poker players and can be considered good for sports bettors as well.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
.....but if not........oh dear.......
Hot Forum Topics
