For example, do you prefer to bet 110 to 100 or bet a 100 to win 91? Does it make a difference, is there an advantage or disadvantage either way long term?
-
-
Sup, Nate? Remember when you were on fire on those NFL plays? We almost hit 58% ATS that year as a group!
I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to your question. But it's a fair question. My answer:
*If you're betting live at a book, it's so customary to lay $110 to win $100 on -110 odds.
...If you lay $100, you're technically going to get back $91 and some change. I'd keep it in round #s. That
Where's the fuckin power box, Carol? -
That's really what the Vig was created for. To separate your base bet plus the 10% Vig.
As for Online betting, I've come to prefer Decimal odds. It's so much easier to think in terms of $100 risk. Then you adjust according to the Decimal. 1.91 odds produce $100 base + $91 profit = $191 gross return.Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment
-
Sup Chuck. Ya that makes sense if your going to the counter. I guess it doesn't really matter because your unit size might fluctuate from time to time(no Diddy) lolComment
-
Ex: I do to win a 100 on chalk and risk a 100 on dogs.Comment
-
This is a great reply. Yes, this ties out to my comment above.
Over-the-counter, I always thought it was a mess to deal with change. -130: 130 to win 100 makes sense.
+120 Dog: 100 to win 120 is good. So many bettors are used to playing -110 ATS. 11-to-10 is standard.Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment
-
Proper is the %''edge'' you assume your wager has (52%-risk $52). For high volume, more outside chance dogs ect. ect. find a comfortable median, which will be flat betting each wager. GLComment
-
This discussion has been had on here a few times.
As a foreigner the first time I came across US odds one of the most puzzling things was why people bet $110 if it's -110 and $100 if it is +100
When I googled it the only explanation I found was that it was a "courtesy to the bookmaker" to cover the vig in the bet. Which made zero sense to me still at the time.
I would argue that there is no sensible math based reason to ever vary your bet based on the odds you see alone.
Why risk 10% more if you do not a have a reason to think you have 10% extra edge against the books odds?
Others will argue that chalk faves are more likely to win, so that justifies betting more. But if the odds are sharp it doesn't matter what the expected most likely outcome is. It's about how many times you can beat the odds More than the offered odds imply you should.
It feels like someone like PT Barnum designed US odds to trick people into doing this to me..Comment
-
It feels like someone like PT Barnum designed US odds to trick people into doing this to me.
Opti, you make a good point. When I first got into gaming, the Vig jumped out at me. I soon figured out that the Player was getting the short-end of the stick.
American punters just fell for it. People have enough desire to bet, so they've come to accept -110 as standard.Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment
Comment