Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??

[plus_man]

Bump.
Does this question belong in science,math, philosophy?

[knicknut]

You're "paying" with negative expectation. Both bettors have equally negative expectation (assuming the line is sharp).

[BoxLiquid]

Wow.. I posted here like 300 days ago. This thread is still alive????

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
You're "paying" with negative expectation. Both bettors have equally negative expectation (assuming the line is sharp).

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one person actually pays though. I have never paid theoretical vig, only actual vig on winning bets.

There are plenty of gamblers who make 1 or 2 big bets, lose 100% of them, and never bet again on a Super Bowl or Final Four. They never pay the vig.

Naj

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
You're "paying" with negative expectation. Both bettors have equally negative expectation (assuming the line is sharp).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people assume that "negative EV" and "vig" are almost synonymous. They are not. The EV in roulette is roughly -5.2% (can't remember exactly). If I bet $100 on 32 and the number hits, they don't pay me off at 37:1, but, I think (I have never played roulette before) 35:1 (the amount of the actual payoff doesn't mean anything in this example). I paid $200 in vig on that bet. All of the losers just lost their original bet. EV and Vig are completely seperate. If a football bet of +4 -110 is +EV and I lose, I just lose my original bet. If I win, I only get paid off $100 (if I risked $110). So, if I have +ev, I am still paying vig. They are not related.

craig

[Mr_J]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people assume that "negative EV" and "vig" are almost synonymous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody is, I'm definately not. I'm talking about EV, not -EV specifically. Vig is always included in the EV value of the bet, which is why I say that both the winner and loser really pay. I understand your perspective, and it is also true if you only think of things in $ terms.

[Mr_J]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never paid theoretical vig

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you have. You seem to only see things in cash terms, and from that perspective only winners paying is true. People shouldn't be able to look at this from just one perspective though.

[daryn]

what a funny conversation... especially for this site. i'd like to hear what sklansky has to say about this.

[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
what a funny conversation... especially for this site. i'd like to hear what sklansky has to say about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be willing to guess that Sklansky would say that the winner pays the vig.

craig

[Performify]

Actually if DS gave this question a serious answer I'd like to think it would look a little something like this:


Ultimately I think the crux of the "argument" is not the definition of the word "vigorish".

This debate comes down to the semantics of the term "pays".

If you mean who actually physically hands over the money that we identify as being dedicated to pay the bookmaker's fee, its the winner every time and you cannot realistically argue otherwise, and its not even close. Do you see why?

The bookmaking example sets this off perfectly. John and Mary both wager on opposite sides of the same game, both placing a $100 wager. The bookmaker Ben tells them both he'll be charging a 5% vigorish (effectively a -110 line). When Mary's team wins. John tries to hand Mary his $100. However, Ben intercedes, grabbing John's $100 bill. Ben reaches in to his pocket and makes quick change: he counts out four $20 bills, plus an extra $10 bill an a $1 dollar bill (because he's a nice guy and is rounding up), and hands the stack of $91 to Mary. Ben has taken his 5% fee (in this case $9) and he's physically taken the money from the winner.

Its the exact same thing with a rake or with a roulette bet or anything else. When a poker pot is raked, that money is literally coming out of the stack of the person who drags the pot - the dealer reaches in to the pot and physically removes the rake prior to handing the pot to the winner. This money is literally being paid by the winner.

In a statistical, expected value type defination of the term "pays", then it can be argued that metaphysically speaking both sides "pay" the vig by entering in to a -110 proposition thus costing themselves ~5% vig.

however I think the reasonable defination of "pays" is "whose pocket does the vig come out of" and in that defination it literally comes out of the pocket of the winner. The loser loses 100% of their initial bet, the winner gets the bookmaker's 5% fee (the vigorish) taken out of the amount they expect to be paid. Likewise anyone getting dealt a hand of poker at that raked table "pays", virtually speaking, a portion of the rake every hand they're dealt whether they play or not.

However, I believe any attempt to define "pays" as such is distorting the original question. And as such is incorrect.

But with the rake example, I think there's another scenario that helps to spell this out even better.

If you sit down at a poker table and fold every hand for three orbits, how much rake did you pay? Let's assume you folded every hand, including your blinds.

If you're playing online, open a table, fold for two orbits, and then go in to poker tracker and look at your stats for that session, what is it going to say under the "rake paid" column?

It's going to say zero.

Because you haven't literally paid any rake.

Because.... drumroll... you haven't won any pots.

PS: I know this is true. I read it on the internets.
http://www.dragonbets.com/sports-bet...-explained.php