I'm getting sick of the freakig vig that's any I took Spurs ML. In case others were wondering. Scal I would be shocked if they didn't win at home tonight. U trust this Cavs team who is basically a group of guys just learning to play one another in SA tonight against a team who is on fire? I don't. Spurs large
Spurs beat Sac Phoe Sac Den Chi Tor. Don't be shocked. But good luck on this one.
0
Quote Originally Posted by collegegambler:
I'm getting sick of the freakig vig that's any I took Spurs ML. In case others were wondering. Scal I would be shocked if they didn't win at home tonight. U trust this Cavs team who is basically a group of guys just learning to play one another in SA tonight against a team who is on fire? I don't. Spurs large
Spurs beat Sac Phoe Sac Den Chi Tor. Don't be shocked. But good luck on this one.
Lets fuckk the books tonight CG. Good luck on the plays. Get that big fuggin salad in you belly for good mojo. And have a couple tall boys to wash it down
0
Lets fuckk the books tonight CG. Good luck on the plays. Get that big fuggin salad in you belly for good mojo. And have a couple tall boys to wash it down
There are unlimited possibilities for how the presence of vigorish could affect the amount wagered by a bettor, since a bettor is free to bet in any arbitrary way based on the odds. There are, however, several natural options to consider which give different results on how vigorish affects a bettor.
The gambler has a target amount he wants to win, which is independent of the presence or absence of vigorish. As an example, for an even match we would have -100 vs. +100 for fair odds and the gambler wagers 100 to win 100. Under proportional vigorish the odds would become -110 vs. +100 and so gamblers must wager 110 to win 100. In this case, losers lose 110 under the juiced odds compared to 100 under fair odds, so the loser pays 10 extra. The winner gets back his 110 plus 100 profit, compared to getting back his 100 plus 100 profit under fair odds. The winner has no net difference since he is up 100 either way. So the loser pays the full vigorish of 10 under this assumption.
The gambler has a given amount he is willing to risk, independent of vigorish. Under fair odds the gambler risks 100 to win 100. Under vigorish, the gambler still risks 100 to win 100 × (100 ÷ 110) = 90.9. Under this behavior, the loser loses 100 in both cases, so pays no vigorish. The winner wins 100 net under fair odds and 90.9 net under vigorish, so he pays 9.1 in vigorish. The winner pays the full vigorish under this assumption.
The gambler bets more when he has a greater edge (better payout for a given chance of winning). A Kelly gambler is one such gambler, who seeks to maximize his rate of bankroll growth in the limit of infinite bets placed over time. This type of gambler will bet more when the payout reflects a bigger advantage for him. The fact that he bets at all indicates that he thinks he has an advantage in the bet, so the presence of vigorish reduces this edge by reducing the payout for a given amount wagered. Therefore, these gamblers on either side of the wager will both bet less than they would have at fair odds (assuming proportional vigorish). The losers therefore lose less than they would have under fair odds, so counter-intuitively these losers do better with vigorish. The winners not only receive a lower payout factor on their bet, but they also risked less than they would have at fair odds, so they pay the full rake of the bookmaker, plus the amount saved by the losers, since (amount cost by winners) - (amount saved by the losers) = (full vigorish raked by the bookmaker). So for these gamblers, the losers pay negative vigorish, while the winners pay more than the full vigorish raked in by the bookie.
These are three examples of possible gambler behaviors that all give different answers to the distribution of vigorish fees amongst winners and losers. One therefore cannot say precisely whether winners or losers or both are paying the vigorish until the gamblers' behaviors with respect to the fair odds and juiced odds is defined.
PM for the skinny on the down low
0
There are unlimited possibilities for how the presence of vigorish could affect the amount wagered by a bettor, since a bettor is free to bet in any arbitrary way based on the odds. There are, however, several natural options to consider which give different results on how vigorish affects a bettor.
The gambler has a target amount he wants to win, which is independent of the presence or absence of vigorish. As an example, for an even match we would have -100 vs. +100 for fair odds and the gambler wagers 100 to win 100. Under proportional vigorish the odds would become -110 vs. +100 and so gamblers must wager 110 to win 100. In this case, losers lose 110 under the juiced odds compared to 100 under fair odds, so the loser pays 10 extra. The winner gets back his 110 plus 100 profit, compared to getting back his 100 plus 100 profit under fair odds. The winner has no net difference since he is up 100 either way. So the loser pays the full vigorish of 10 under this assumption.
The gambler has a given amount he is willing to risk, independent of vigorish. Under fair odds the gambler risks 100 to win 100. Under vigorish, the gambler still risks 100 to win 100 × (100 ÷ 110) = 90.9. Under this behavior, the loser loses 100 in both cases, so pays no vigorish. The winner wins 100 net under fair odds and 90.9 net under vigorish, so he pays 9.1 in vigorish. The winner pays the full vigorish under this assumption.
The gambler bets more when he has a greater edge (better payout for a given chance of winning). A Kelly gambler is one such gambler, who seeks to maximize his rate of bankroll growth in the limit of infinite bets placed over time. This type of gambler will bet more when the payout reflects a bigger advantage for him. The fact that he bets at all indicates that he thinks he has an advantage in the bet, so the presence of vigorish reduces this edge by reducing the payout for a given amount wagered. Therefore, these gamblers on either side of the wager will both bet less than they would have at fair odds (assuming proportional vigorish). The losers therefore lose less than they would have under fair odds, so counter-intuitively these losers do better with vigorish. The winners not only receive a lower payout factor on their bet, but they also risked less than they would have at fair odds, so they pay the full rake of the bookmaker, plus the amount saved by the losers, since (amount cost by winners) - (amount saved by the losers) = (full vigorish raked by the bookmaker). So for these gamblers, the losers pay negative vigorish, while the winners pay more than the full vigorish raked in by the bookie.
These are three examples of possible gambler behaviors that all give different answers to the distribution of vigorish fees amongst winners and losers. One therefore cannot say precisely whether winners or losers or both are paying the vigorish until the gamblers' behaviors with respect to the fair odds and juiced odds is defined.
Ugh, I missed some of that sweet action @ +300, Van. Unfortunately, I was stuck in traffic on my way over.
I think you should do a cumulative $1,500 or $550 bets over the next, say, 75K of bets. I think there is value in -180 right now for a $1,500 bet, simply because he made that $550 bet and will keep that "K" average. With the cumulative, you can still change your lines as you see fit, but won't be as frequent, so not expose your Operation to loss.
But, in the long run, I'll take more lower bet amounts than the higher, (stated by you earlier) because of the terrifying thought of going back. I think when he hits his Mendoza line, of say 12-15K bankroll, he will throttle back to keep his "journey" alive.
"Ya never now" - Anonymous
All the smart money here on the over.
I am the only square on the under.
Who believes in CG now??? Who is a HATER now???
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by toastmaster20:
Ugh, I missed some of that sweet action @ +300, Van. Unfortunately, I was stuck in traffic on my way over.
I think you should do a cumulative $1,500 or $550 bets over the next, say, 75K of bets. I think there is value in -180 right now for a $1,500 bet, simply because he made that $550 bet and will keep that "K" average. With the cumulative, you can still change your lines as you see fit, but won't be as frequent, so not expose your Operation to loss.
But, in the long run, I'll take more lower bet amounts than the higher, (stated by you earlier) because of the terrifying thought of going back. I think when he hits his Mendoza line, of say 12-15K bankroll, he will throttle back to keep his "journey" alive.
There are unlimited possibilities for how the presence of vigorish could affect the amount wagered by a bettor, since a bettor is free to bet in any arbitrary way based on the odds. There are, however, several natural options to consider which give different results on how vigorish affects a bettor.The gambler has a target amount he wants to win, which is independent of the presence or absence of vigorish. As an example, for an even match we would have -100 vs. +100 for fair odds and the gambler wagers 100 to win 100. Under proportional vigorish the odds would become -110 vs. +100 and so gamblers must wager 110 to win 100. In this case, losers lose 110 under the juiced odds compared to 100 under fair odds, so the loser pays 10 extra. The winner gets back his 110 plus 100 profit, compared to getting back his 100 plus 100 profit under fair odds. The winner has no net difference since he is up 100 either way. So the loser pays the full vigorish of 10 under this assumption.The gambler has a given amount he is willing to risk, independent of vigorish. Under fair odds the gambler risks 100 to win 100. Under vigorish, the gambler still risks 100 to win 100 × (100 ÷ 110) = 90.9. Under this behavior, the loser loses 100 in both cases, so pays no vigorish. The winner wins 100 net under fair odds and 90.9 net under vigorish, so he pays 9.1 in vigorish. The winner pays the full vigorish under this assumption.The gambler bets more when he has a greater edge (better payout for a given chance of winning). A Kelly gambler is one such gambler, who seeks to maximize his rate of bankroll growth in the limit of infinite bets placed over time. This type of gambler will bet more when the payout reflects a bigger advantage for him. The fact that he bets at all indicates that he thinks he has an advantage in the bet, so the presence of vigorish reduces this edge by reducing the payout for a given amount wagered. Therefore, these gamblers on either side of the wager will both bet less than they would have at fair odds (assuming proportional vigorish). The losers therefore lose less than they would have under fair odds, so counter-intuitively these losers do better with vigorish. The winners not only receive a lower payout factor on their bet, but they also risked less than they would have at fair odds, so they pay the full rake of the bookmaker, plus the amount saved by the losers, since (amount cost by winners) - (amount saved by the losers) = (full vigorish raked by the bookmaker). So for these gamblers, the losers pay negative vigorish, while the winners pay more than the full vigorish raked in by the bookie.These are three examples of possible gambler behaviors that all give different answers to the distribution of vigorish fees amongst winners and losers. One therefore cannot say precisely whether winners or losers or both are paying the vigorish until the gamblers' behaviors with respect to the fair odds and juiced odds is defined.
Good explanation !
0
Quote Originally Posted by smacksmiter:
There are unlimited possibilities for how the presence of vigorish could affect the amount wagered by a bettor, since a bettor is free to bet in any arbitrary way based on the odds. There are, however, several natural options to consider which give different results on how vigorish affects a bettor.The gambler has a target amount he wants to win, which is independent of the presence or absence of vigorish. As an example, for an even match we would have -100 vs. +100 for fair odds and the gambler wagers 100 to win 100. Under proportional vigorish the odds would become -110 vs. +100 and so gamblers must wager 110 to win 100. In this case, losers lose 110 under the juiced odds compared to 100 under fair odds, so the loser pays 10 extra. The winner gets back his 110 plus 100 profit, compared to getting back his 100 plus 100 profit under fair odds. The winner has no net difference since he is up 100 either way. So the loser pays the full vigorish of 10 under this assumption.The gambler has a given amount he is willing to risk, independent of vigorish. Under fair odds the gambler risks 100 to win 100. Under vigorish, the gambler still risks 100 to win 100 × (100 ÷ 110) = 90.9. Under this behavior, the loser loses 100 in both cases, so pays no vigorish. The winner wins 100 net under fair odds and 90.9 net under vigorish, so he pays 9.1 in vigorish. The winner pays the full vigorish under this assumption.The gambler bets more when he has a greater edge (better payout for a given chance of winning). A Kelly gambler is one such gambler, who seeks to maximize his rate of bankroll growth in the limit of infinite bets placed over time. This type of gambler will bet more when the payout reflects a bigger advantage for him. The fact that he bets at all indicates that he thinks he has an advantage in the bet, so the presence of vigorish reduces this edge by reducing the payout for a given amount wagered. Therefore, these gamblers on either side of the wager will both bet less than they would have at fair odds (assuming proportional vigorish). The losers therefore lose less than they would have under fair odds, so counter-intuitively these losers do better with vigorish. The winners not only receive a lower payout factor on their bet, but they also risked less than they would have at fair odds, so they pay the full rake of the bookmaker, plus the amount saved by the losers, since (amount cost by winners) - (amount saved by the losers) = (full vigorish raked by the bookmaker). So for these gamblers, the losers pay negative vigorish, while the winners pay more than the full vigorish raked in by the bookie.These are three examples of possible gambler behaviors that all give different answers to the distribution of vigorish fees amongst winners and losers. One therefore cannot say precisely whether winners or losers or both are paying the vigorish until the gamblers' behaviors with respect to the fair odds and juiced odds is defined.
There are unlimited possibilities for how the presence of vigorish could affect the amount wagered by a bettor, since a bettor is free to bet in any arbitrary way based on the odds. There are, however, several natural options to consider which give different results on how vigorish affects a bettor.
The gambler has a target amount he wants to win, which is independent of the presence or absence of vigorish. As an example, for an even match we would have -100 vs. +100 for fair odds and the gambler wagers 100 to win 100. Under proportional vigorish the odds would become -110 vs. +100 and so gamblers must wager 110 to win 100. In this case, losers lose 110 under the juiced odds compared to 100 under fair odds, so the loser pays 10 extra. The winner gets back his 110 plus 100 profit, compared to getting back his 100 plus 100 profit under fair odds. The winner has no net difference since he is up 100 either way. So the loser pays the full vigorish of 10 under this assumption.
The gambler has a given amount he is willing to risk, independent of vigorish. Under fair odds the gambler risks 100 to win 100. Under vigorish, the gambler still risks 100 to win 100 × (100 ÷ 110) = 90.9. Under this behavior, the loser loses 100 in both cases, so pays no vigorish. The winner wins 100 net under fair odds and 90.9 net under vigorish, so he pays 9.1 in vigorish. The winner pays the full vigorish under this assumption.
The gambler bets more when he has a greater edge (better payout for a given chance of winning). A Kelly gambler is one such gambler, who seeks to maximize his rate of bankroll growth in the limit of infinite bets placed over time. This type of gambler will bet more when the payout reflects a bigger advantage for him. The fact that he bets at all indicates that he thinks he has an advantage in the bet, so the presence of vigorish reduces this edge by reducing the payout for a given amount wagered. Therefore, these gamblers on either side of the wager will both bet less than they would have at fair odds (assuming proportional vigorish). The losers therefore lose less than they would have under fair odds, so counter-intuitively these losers do better with vigorish. The winners not only receive a lower payout factor on their bet, but they also risked less than they would have at fair odds, so they pay the full rake of the bookmaker, plus the amount saved by the losers, since (amount cost by winners) - (amount saved by the losers) = (full vigorish raked by the bookmaker). So for these gamblers, the losers pay negative vigorish, while the winners pay more than the full vigorish raked in by the bookie.
These are three examples of possible gambler behaviors that all give different answers to the distribution of vigorish fees amongst winners and losers. One therefore cannot say precisely whether winners or losers or both are paying the vigorish until the gamblers' behaviors with respect to the fair odds and juiced odds is defined.
Thank you! It's honestly funny how dumb and pathetic some people in this thread are. Saying only winners lose on juice, when it goes both ways. Although, normally with the way the majority of gamblers bet, the loser pays the juice. No wonder CG doesn't listen to these guys. They're quick to put people down and all have a superiority complex, upset they can't satisfy their wives or selves with their 3 inch peckers.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smacksmiter:
There are unlimited possibilities for how the presence of vigorish could affect the amount wagered by a bettor, since a bettor is free to bet in any arbitrary way based on the odds. There are, however, several natural options to consider which give different results on how vigorish affects a bettor.
The gambler has a target amount he wants to win, which is independent of the presence or absence of vigorish. As an example, for an even match we would have -100 vs. +100 for fair odds and the gambler wagers 100 to win 100. Under proportional vigorish the odds would become -110 vs. +100 and so gamblers must wager 110 to win 100. In this case, losers lose 110 under the juiced odds compared to 100 under fair odds, so the loser pays 10 extra. The winner gets back his 110 plus 100 profit, compared to getting back his 100 plus 100 profit under fair odds. The winner has no net difference since he is up 100 either way. So the loser pays the full vigorish of 10 under this assumption.
The gambler has a given amount he is willing to risk, independent of vigorish. Under fair odds the gambler risks 100 to win 100. Under vigorish, the gambler still risks 100 to win 100 × (100 ÷ 110) = 90.9. Under this behavior, the loser loses 100 in both cases, so pays no vigorish. The winner wins 100 net under fair odds and 90.9 net under vigorish, so he pays 9.1 in vigorish. The winner pays the full vigorish under this assumption.
The gambler bets more when he has a greater edge (better payout for a given chance of winning). A Kelly gambler is one such gambler, who seeks to maximize his rate of bankroll growth in the limit of infinite bets placed over time. This type of gambler will bet more when the payout reflects a bigger advantage for him. The fact that he bets at all indicates that he thinks he has an advantage in the bet, so the presence of vigorish reduces this edge by reducing the payout for a given amount wagered. Therefore, these gamblers on either side of the wager will both bet less than they would have at fair odds (assuming proportional vigorish). The losers therefore lose less than they would have under fair odds, so counter-intuitively these losers do better with vigorish. The winners not only receive a lower payout factor on their bet, but they also risked less than they would have at fair odds, so they pay the full rake of the bookmaker, plus the amount saved by the losers, since (amount cost by winners) - (amount saved by the losers) = (full vigorish raked by the bookmaker). So for these gamblers, the losers pay negative vigorish, while the winners pay more than the full vigorish raked in by the bookie.
These are three examples of possible gambler behaviors that all give different answers to the distribution of vigorish fees amongst winners and losers. One therefore cannot say precisely whether winners or losers or both are paying the vigorish until the gamblers' behaviors with respect to the fair odds and juiced odds is defined.
Thank you! It's honestly funny how dumb and pathetic some people in this thread are. Saying only winners lose on juice, when it goes both ways. Although, normally with the way the majority of gamblers bet, the loser pays the juice. No wonder CG doesn't listen to these guys. They're quick to put people down and all have a superiority complex, upset they can't satisfy their wives or selves with their 3 inch peckers.
Belated "congrats" on your move to Las Vegas, the Pantheon of the Sports Betting World!
Regardless of the outcome, your braveness (and possible naivety) to take this leap of faith, to follow your dream of becoming a professional sports investor, and to chronicle your events via youtube is something *EVERYONE* should commend, regardless.
I've been a sports investor for about 5 years, now. I've been a casual gambler for at least a decade before that. I have no advice for you. And honestly, neither does anyone else (unless you ask for it), considering that any suggestions...in this chosen field of profession...has to be propelled by *steam* (experience). You're in the city that holds the best of the best around the world in sports investing, in one of the most distraction-filled cities in the world. More than likely, you'll get chewed up and spit out. If that happens, you wouldn't be the first, and you won't be the last. But as I said earlier...challenge was accepted by you, collegegambler. Which deserves tremendous commendation alone. Alot of us (probably the ones criticizing you the most) wouldn't have the heart to make that type of leap of faith, to throw themselves wholeheartedly into the lion's den. For that alone...you should be proud.
Good luck to you on your journey, collegegambler. I'll be rooting for you...
0
@collegegambler
Belated "congrats" on your move to Las Vegas, the Pantheon of the Sports Betting World!
Regardless of the outcome, your braveness (and possible naivety) to take this leap of faith, to follow your dream of becoming a professional sports investor, and to chronicle your events via youtube is something *EVERYONE* should commend, regardless.
I've been a sports investor for about 5 years, now. I've been a casual gambler for at least a decade before that. I have no advice for you. And honestly, neither does anyone else (unless you ask for it), considering that any suggestions...in this chosen field of profession...has to be propelled by *steam* (experience). You're in the city that holds the best of the best around the world in sports investing, in one of the most distraction-filled cities in the world. More than likely, you'll get chewed up and spit out. If that happens, you wouldn't be the first, and you won't be the last. But as I said earlier...challenge was accepted by you, collegegambler. Which deserves tremendous commendation alone. Alot of us (probably the ones criticizing you the most) wouldn't have the heart to make that type of leap of faith, to throw themselves wholeheartedly into the lion's den. For that alone...you should be proud.
Good luck to you on your journey, collegegambler. I'll be rooting for you...
Me and cousin pounding TB's!!! Before my 3 LP- late plays.
WHAT???? No vid? Say it aint so,
I strongly recommend that you reconsider this. i think there's a real strong chance of making gambling video youtube history tonight. You gotta get your cousin Vinny with you
we're all set out here... and none of this 2-1 or 1-2 BS it needs to be a sweep either way,,, I'll root for you to win,, those vids are almost as good
GL you nutty bastardd
0
Quote Originally Posted by collegegambler:
Me and cousin pounding TB's!!! Before my 3 LP- late plays.
WHAT???? No vid? Say it aint so,
I strongly recommend that you reconsider this. i think there's a real strong chance of making gambling video youtube history tonight. You gotta get your cousin Vinny with you
we're all set out here... and none of this 2-1 or 1-2 BS it needs to be a sweep either way,,, I'll root for you to win,, those vids are almost as good
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.
you degenerate miserable clown. drown in youre sorrows u fuckkin pansey. 
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
