View New Posts
12
1. Bear...bottom line, winners pay the vig, not losers. Losers just lose their bet. The winner pays both his and the loser's share.

So when someone says there's no juice if you win...

If you don't know now you know.

2. Originally Posted by CappinTerp
KVB some really interesting stuff...good job. I have been betting for a long time and learned the hard way by correcting my mistakes. I like to take risk but am risk adverse, will not lay more than -135 on anything and even at that price it's rare and I cringe. A question for you...math/risk. You talk about 2 team parlay, I never do them I would rather do a 2 team reverse. At 11-10 odds on both games what is the vig.?? Years ago I remember books took them but were not happy I was doing them.? Is there a lesson to be learned here??

Thanks for chiming in Terp. We learn best from our mistakes and I think the lessons stick better. You’ll probably get where I’m coming from more often than not.

Here’s my take…

Essentially the reverse parlay becomes a series of bets at normal vigorish. In most cases “If” bets are just consecutive bets with no extra odds, just normal vigorish. A reverse is just both ways of the “if” bet. I suppose over time the win percentage would dictate the amount of vig paid.

I see the protection offered in what appears to lessening the downside risk by making the extra bet which might be annoying the casino. Truth be told, if you are a winning bettor, you probably don’t need them.

One reason to use the reverse is if your bankroll is small. But it’s still not the best approach here.

Another reason, I think, could be psychological. Fear of losing too much on a bet. That may not be you but it's true for some. Remember the Tarkenton quote in the original post about winning being unafraid to lose.

Depending on your win percentage you will probably see more profit using the two pick or even the straight bet. Of course, this all then depends on how you reach your conclusions and how you handicap. And, again, it all depends on your win percentage.

3. Originally Posted by KVB
Bear...bottom line, winners pay the vig, not losers. Losers just lose their bet. The winner pays both his and the loser's share.

So when someone says there's no juice if you win...

If you don't know now you know.

good stuff very deep

4. Originally Posted by KVB
Thanks for chiming in Terp. We learn best from our mistakes and I think the lessons stick better. You’ll probably get where I’m coming from more often than not.

Here’s my take…

Essentially the reverse parlay becomes a series of bets at normal vigorish. In most cases “If” bets are just consecutive bets with no extra odds, just normal vigorish. A reverse is just both ways of the “if” bet. I suppose over time the win percentage would dictate the amount of vig paid.

I see the protection offered in what appears to lessening the downside risk by making the extra bet which might be annoying the casino. Truth be told, if you are a winning bettor, you probably don’t need them.

One reason to use the reverse is if your bankroll is small. But it’s still not the best approach here.

Another reason, I think, could be psychological. Fear of losing too much on a bet. That may not be you but it's true for some. Remember the Tarkenton quote in the original post about winning being unafraid to lose.

Depending on your win percentage you will probably see more profit using the two pick or even the straight bet. Of course, this all then depends on how you reach your conclusions and how you handicap. And, again, it all depends on your win percentage.

Thanks for your response KVB, no disrespect but I dont think you fully understand a reverse. For there is really no downside protection(as you say) and when my roll is low is not the time to do them. For ex. on a \$200 reverse you go 1-1(11-10 on both) you loose -\$ 240...going 1-1.!There are 5 possible out comes on a 2 team reverse,lets review them. We will use \$ 100 base: #1 L + L = - \$ 220. #2) W + W = +\$ 400 , #3) W +L = -\$ 120, #4) L +PUSH = - \$ 220 #5) W + PUSH = +\$ 200...So you see as per your ex. over time the win percentage would dictate the amt. of vig paid on a parlay or reverse.....so going back to your ex of a parlay.....what is it for the reverse??......It is not a reverse parlay, I think this is your misconception...What is the vig?? Thank you for you time.......And yes if bets are cons.bets with no extra odds but bet with a reverse a push on a bet will go to the other "A" or "B"

5. Originally Posted by KVB
Thanks JJ. When I post, I usually try to make it helpful.

It’s true enough that many gamblers don’t really know much about gambling.

What’s even more true is how much gamblers do know that is just plain wrong; gambling myths are pervasive.

That’s really no big deal, a little education will surely bring all of us more winners and less losers or simply a bit more profit or even less of a loss through management and discipline.

The problem is that is isn’t in us gamblers’, nature and psychology to be willing to learn. Most bettors swing their picks around like it’s their dick size. Ego gets in the way.

you mean, the type of ego that starts a condescending thread with this sentence...

"Ok losing bettors, I could say you have a couple of advantages over us winners"

6. Also KVB....IMO..every winning bettor should do reverses from time to time....been doing this 40 + years...it is by far the best way to gorge your bankroll. Doing parlays with 4 + teams time after time will slowly bleed you. Think of it this way...not unreasonable for one to win 6 games in a row?...is it.....Now start with a \$ 200 reverse (win)...+ \$ 800....another for \$ 300 (win)...+\$ 1,200 lastly one more \$ 400(win)...+ 1,600...................Add it all up + \$ 3,600​!!!!......................nice and can be done after 1st hit you are not risking more than you won..and there after!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So for you to say " if you are a winning bettor, you probably don't need them".......has me scratching my head.!

7. Originally Posted by milwaukee mike
you mean, the type of ego that starts a condescending thread with this sentence...

"Ok losing bettors, I could say you have a couple of advantages over us winners"

Nah, that wasn’t meant to be condescending. I was simply distinguishing between winning bettors and losing bettors, most are losing bettors. If you fail to profit you are a losing bettor. Out of context it does sound bad, but it’s only an insult to someone’s ego, because it’s just stating some obvious facts. I apologize if you’re hurt.

Sometimes I might sound condescending but my ego is checked at log-in. I haven’t let ego force me off of a good bet or onto a bad bet in a long, long time.

And I sure as hell haven’t let my ego stop me from learning something new.

8. Originally Posted by CappinTerp
Thanks for your response KVB, no disrespect but I dont think you fully understand a reverse. For there is really no downside protection(as you say) and when my roll is low is not the time to do them. For ex. on a \$200 reverse you go 1-1(11-10 on both) you loose -\$ 240...going 1-1.!There are 5 possible out comes on a 2 team reverse,lets review them. We will use \$ 100 base: #1 L + L = - \$ 220. #2) W + W = +\$ 400 , #3) W +L = -\$ 120, #4) L +PUSH = - \$ 220 #5) W + PUSH = +\$ 200...So you see as per your ex. over time the win percentage would dictate the amt. of vig paid on a parlay or reverse.....so going back to your ex of a parlay.....what is it for the reverse??......It is not a reverse parlay, I think this is your misconception...What is the vig?? Thank you for you time.......And yes if bets are cons.bets with no extra odds but bet with a reverse a push on a bet will go to the other "A" or "B"

You are by no means disrespecting, I said before I don’t it all and am always willing to learn. I think I might be missing something in our example but let me hit a few points.

When I mentioned lessening downside risk I meant it in a sense that if you go 1-1, you don’t lose your full bet, unlike in a 2 pick parlay. Another way to put would be that, at 50-50, the Return on Investment of a 2 pick parley paying +260 is -10% (at +265 it’s about -8.88%).

But the ROI on the reverse, at 50-50, seems to work out to about -6.82%. It’s less loss if you are a 50-50 bettor, something to note.

Of course all that changes if your win percentage changes.

Vigorish is often a different story than ROI.It still seems, ties or not, that the bookie never faces a bet on any game that would warrant anything other than normal juice. On each game, no matter the order, there is only a regular bet at 11-10. From the bookmaker’s perspective, it seems that’s all he is seeing.

9. Originally Posted by CappinTerp
Also KVB....IMO..every winning bettor should do reverses from time to time....been doing this 40 + years...it is by far the best way to gorge your bankroll. Doing parlays with 4 + teams time after time will slowly bleed you. Think of it this way...not unreasonable for one to win 6 games in a row?...is it.....Now start with a \$ 200 reverse (win)...+ \$ 800....another for \$ 300 (win)...+\$ 1,200 lastly one more \$ 400(win)...+ 1,600...................Add it all up + \$ 3,600​!!!!......................nice and can be done after 1st hit you are not risking more than you won..and there after!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So for you to say " if you are a winning bettor, you probably don't need them".......has me scratching my head.!

I may have this wrong but this is what I’m seeing. A \$220 reverse that could win \$800 means you are betting at total of \$440, \$220 on each if bet. In total, if you did win both, you would have bet \$440 on each game.

If I were to bet \$440 on a game, then \$440 on another game, and one both, I too would win \$800. If I have this right, then this is why a say a high enough winning percentage would essentially negate the safety of the “if” bet.

And don’t get me wrong, there could be plenty of uses for the “if” and reverses. Like I said before it depends not just on your percentage, but how it is that you reach your conclusions. Certain handicapping methods could easily lend themselves to the reverse strategy.

It heavily depends on how you reach your conclusions.

As far as a 6 game run goes, it looks a bit like a progressive betting strategy. While it might not affect win percentage, changing you bet size like that will most certainly change your breakeven point. Dangerous waters over the long term.

Think of it this way, your first to plays were at \$200, the last two plays were at \$400. Are you saying that those last two plays were twice as good as the first two plays? After all, you doubled your risk. And if so, why even bet the first two plays?

10. If you do not get good numbers you have zero shot to win

11. You’re right JJ but there are many ways to skin the cat; so many ways to handicap. Different numbers can be good to different people for different reasons. It’s a dynamic marketplace and I think it could be another thread.

12. Originally Posted by KVB
Nah, that wasn’t meant to be condescending. I was simply distinguishing between winning bettors and losing bettors, most are losing bettors. If you fail to profit you are a losing bettor. Out of context it does sound bad, but it’s only an insult to someone’s ego, because it’s just stating some obvious facts. I apologize if you’re hurt.

Sometimes I might sound condescending but my ego is checked at log-in. I haven’t let ego force me off of a good bet or onto a bad bet in a long, long time.

And I sure as hell haven’t let my ego stop me from learning something new.
i'm not hurt, and i'm way up lifetime, won't live long enough to lose all the money i made in the neteller days with bonus whoring 4 accounts at every bonus book...

13. Suppose there are two teams that you like this week. One of them is -\$1.30 and the other is -\$1.40. You have to bet a total of \$2.70 to win \$2.00. If one of them loses, say the \$1.30, you win \$.71, which in anybody's bookkeeping system, is a loss. Turn it around and say you lose the -\$1.40 play. Your winner brings you \$.77. Either way, you have lost money. If you lost both games, you're out the full \$2.70.

Instead, let's say you parlay those same two favorites for \$1.00, and they both win, you win \$1.95, which is just a nickel short of what you'd win in the first example except you've put up way less money. If one of your teams loses, which is going to happen 6 times out of ten, you lose only \$1.00 on each parlay bet.

In a recent year, 41 games closed at -\$2.00 on the money line. Of these games, the favorite won 25 times, or 61 percent. Had you bet on these favorites, you would have lost money.

Let's see what happens when we apply our new knowledge of parlay wagering to the sample of 25 favorites winning (out of 41 plays) at -\$2.00. If you bet these games \$2.00 to win \$1.00, you would have cashed 25 tickets at \$1.00 per ticket, but you would have lost 16 times at \$2.00 per ticket. That works out to \$25 won, less \$82 bet, equals -\$57 net loss.

If you had parlayed those bets, the results would most likely be different. We say "most likely" because we have to assume some percentages. The first, and most noticeable, effect is that you only need to bet \$41 instead of \$82. Assuming that the percentages play out, you should win 16 of these 41 wagers. good new is that you only had to wager half as much money to lose less than you would have with flat betting. With the parlay bet, you would have bet \$41 and returned \$20, for a net loss of \$21.

14. Originally Posted by milwaukee mike
there are plenty of people that think the winners pay all the juice, plenty of others that think losers pay it, and still more that think the juice is split.

all a matter of perception

if you think a 110-100 is a \$100 bet then you think the loser pays the juice. if you think it is a \$110 bet then you think the winner pays the juice.

i think it's shared, both sides pay it. none of the choices are "wrong", it's a matter of perception.

and the juice on a 13-5 parlay is 10% - you get 360 back for every 400 bet.

I'm typically in for a little debate about this kind of stuff but what are we exactly accomplishing here? Seems like 2 pages of 30 line posts for nothing else but arguing semantics.

I didn't read everything so I could be wrong. Anyway everyone can talk about whatever pleases them.

15. what is the vig for a two team parlay that pays 280\100 and for a three team parlay that pays 650\100 thanks

16. Nothing wrong with arbing for better odds, but make no mistake vig is built into both of those bets.