[stealthyburrito]

let me say first off that I enjoyed developing intellectual knowledge of sports betting through this subforum. But I have a question: How do sportsbooks develop the -110 line that is so standard for so many books? This is no accident. A history of its development to this point would be very beneficial. Well, a history and an analysis. Any published works on this?

[suicidekings]

let me say first off that I enjoyed developing intellectual knowledge of sports betting through this subforum. But I have a question: How do sportsbooks develop the -110 line that is so standard for so many books? This is no accident. A history of its development to this point would be very beneficial. Well, a history and an analysis. Any published works on this?

How would this be useful knowledge?

[statnerds]

here is some useless knowledge. the term vig, short for vigorish, entered the American Vocabulary courtesy of the mafia. however, the word actually is Yiddish, derived from the Russian word vyigrysh which means gains.

the Books are merely middlemen anyway. nothing more than glorified stock brokers providing investors, both informed and uninformed, a market place.

[raiders72002]

here is some useless knowledge. the term vig, short for vigorish, entered the American Vocabulary courtesy of the mafia. however, the word actually is Yiddish, derived from the Russian word vyigrysh which means gains.

the Books are merely middlemen anyway. nothing more than glorified stock brokers providing investors, both informed and uninformed, a market place.

not all are just middleman. Imagine if you can gamble getting +110 instead of -110. Now put 2 and 2 together.

[Jaug]

Exactly, they are not just middlemen, I would guess a bookie like pinny gets in situations like:

Market line +5.5/-5.5 -105 -105 then pinny has action on the +5.5 effectively at +120 because of their arbs. This bet is of course EV+ and any pro gambler would love to get it.

[sharpcat]

simply put a bookie needs to charge a fee for his service.

[Bluehorseshoe]

simply put a bookie needs to charge a fee for his service.

But why on the loses and not the wins?

[roasthawg]

I'd imagine it was the most profitable price they could charge initially. Simple economics I'd imagine.

[sharpcat]

But why on the loses and not the wins?

Eventually winner or loser we all pay 10% to the book, and theoretically it is the winner who pays the 10% not the loser because you are risking $110 and only winning $100 whereas the loser just loses the $110 that he put up.

[IrishTim]

I'd imagine it was the most profitable price they could charge initially. Simple economics I'd imagine.

This is what I suspect. If they charged more, say 15-20%, people wouldn't bet because even the masses know that would be a virtually insurmountable house edge. But they realized they wouldn't lose many customers with 10% vig vs. 5%, and the extra 5% juice made up for the few that did bail. Now it's just industry standard.

[Jaug]

This is what I suspect. If they charged more, say 15-20%, people wouldn't bet because even the masses know that would be a virtually insurmountable house edge. But they realized they wouldn't lose many customers with 10% vig vs. 5%, and the extra 5% juice made up for the few that did bail. Now it's just industry standard.

I think it was just market competition. I can tell you that people will bet regardless of juice if that's their only option. A lot of countries in Europe have governmental monopolies when it comes to gambling and the juice on sportsbooks is often something like -130/-130, people still bet.

Poland has got a tax so you have to pay 10% of your bet (or something like that) directly as tax and then you get to bet the other 90% on a juiced line. That probably equals something like -130/-130 as well.

[Joe Guy]

They do actually charge for the win.

2 people bet 110 on opposite sides of an event through a book. The winner gets 210 - his 110 back and 100 from the other guy. WITHOUT THE BOOK he would have got 220. The WINNER pays.

[BigdaddyQH]

They do actually charge for the win.

2 people bet 110 on opposite sides of an event through a book. The winner gets 210 - his 110 back and 100 from the other guy. WITHOUT THE BOOK he would have got 220. The WINNER pays.

That is absolutely correct. The fallacy is in the thinking. You get less if you win. You do not pay more if you lose. If you wager 110, and lose, you have lost it. But if you win, you only get your wager plus 100 back. If you are a 50-50 player, it works out to 4.55%.