Originally Posted by
Dark Horse
Ganch, how does the loser pay more with a bookmaker?
a) 100 bet between you and me. Loser loses 100, winner wins 100.
b) Same bet at bookmaker with -110 juice. Loser loses 100, winner takes 91.
b') Bet to win the same amount at bookmaker with -110 juice. Loser loses 110, winner takes 100.
So is a) the analogue of b) or is it the analogue of b')? There's really no strictly "correct" answer -- it all just comes down to convention and/or betting style.
In
Fixed Odds Sports Betting: Statistical Forecasting and Risk Management, for example, Joseph Buchdahl demonstrates how a bettor engaging in "fixed profits" staking can reduce both his standard deviation and risk-of-ruin versus a flat bettor with the same average bet size. In the case of such a wagering structure, b') clearly provides a more appropriate description of that bettor's reality than b).
As I wrote before:
Originally Posted by
Ganchrow
Do you place a bet to risk a specified amount or do you place a bet to win a specified amount?
If the former, then you can nominally say that the winner is "paying" the juice in that he wins less on any given unit bet won.
If the latter, then you can nominally say that the loser is "paying" the juice in that he loses more on any given unit bet lost.
Just two sides of the same coin.
And of course, TLD posed a rather apt question:
Originally Posted by
TLD
Let’s say you decided to open a book that charges the loser juice and not the winner (i.e., reverses the way books supposedly do it now). Explain to me, with examples, how your book would differ from current practice.