Talk:Sports betting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sports betting is part of WikiProject Gambling, an attempt at building a useful gambling resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Contents

[edit] Handy link

I believe the sports betting calculator http://www.betcruncher.com/ would be of considerable use to the users of this topic. Free web-based calculator for many popular multiple bets. While also providing a free downloadable plug-in for Internet Explorer and Firefox.


A handy link for sport bettors: http://www.betting-links.info/

Is it ok to post it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballloverr (talk • contribs) 15:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is gambling on horses covered by the US usage of the term? It seems odd that there is no mention. Morwen - Talk 10:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean 'covered by the US usage of the term'? Are you asking if betting on horses is considered 'sports betting' in the US? BetusSportsbook 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horse race betting

Is there an article on horse race betting? Or is it covered by sports betting? Andjam 12:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigorish

I made a rather poor edit to bring this text into alignment with the text on vigorish It's more a matter of semantics than the vigorish article implies. The bookie would like the bettor to think he is paying $110 to put $100 at risk and have the loser believe when is paid nothing that he lost $100 after a fee off-the-top of $10. However, when you doing the math for a sharp who expects to win p percent of his bets (for some p > 50%) the math is more straightfoward if the money at risk is taken to be $110 and the vig regarded as an amount deducted from the winner on payout. From the bookie's perspective, he doesn't make any money at all except when there are losers, so it seems to him that his vig is coming from his losers. If the bets are placed at fair odds, a mathematician would measure relative to expectation (which construes vig as paid by the winner). If the bookie is shading the odds, it might be more natural to view the vig as deducted up front to place money at risk (which construes vig as paid by the loser).

Here's another example to express that sentiment. There are two bookies, one with a 10/9 line and the other with a 10/8 line. You don't know which is which so you pick one with a coin toss, you bet your $100, and you lose. Do you now care whether you picked the cheap bookie or the expensive bookie? It makes no difference to the loser what rate of vig was charged. The winner, however, will soon discover the difference.

Here's the opposite way to set that up. The bettor is handed one complementary blue token that represents one vig at a rate of vig unknown to him. If he places a bet of $100 plus the blue token and wins, he is paid $200 and gets his blue token back. However, if he loses, he has to go buy another vig token to place his next bet and then he discovers the rate of vig demanded (which accords to the loser pays perspective).

An interesting observation here is that this conceptual vig token is not fungible. You can't buy a vig token (against a $100 bet) one day at the everyday-low-price rate of $10 and a vig token the next day at the discount Tuesday rate of $5 and then go to any bookie and use either vig token to place your bet. It's also pertinent who is floating the equity of these tokens. If the bookie allows you to place your $100 bet and credit the vig, then the loser must later show up to settle accounts on the vig lost.

I finally get it. The natural perspective is determined by the custom adopted toward price elasticity. On Monday a bookie opens shop with the rate $120 to put $100 at risk. Five people take heads. On Tuesday the same bookie decides to discount his rate to $110 to put $100 at risk. Five people take tails. At this point the bookie favours tails, since he must pay $220 to the winners on heads, but only $210 to the winners on tails (who bought at a lower vig). The bookies profit is the vig paid by the losers on whichever day they purchased.

Contrariwise, if the bookie opens on Monday with the proposition to put pay $100 to put $90 at risk and Tuesday with the prop. to pay $100 to put $80 at risk then the bookie naturally views his vig as proportion to the number of winners at the rate in effect when each winning bet was placed.

If the bookie is really screwed up and opens Mon. at 12/10, Tues. at 11/10, Wed. at 10/9 and Thurs. at 10/8 it's no longer natural to view either the winners or losers as paying the vig. He's got to do the math directly in this instance. At this point he has an exposure on heads (what he has to pay out in this case), and exposure on tails, and a revenue take (total amount paid in). Ideally he would like his exposure on both sides to be less than his take (risk free position). MaxEnt 00:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Vigorish is actually taken from the winners of the bet. Quite simple: Bob and Joe bet on a match. Bob bets on team A ($100) and Joe bets on team B ($100). Susan holds the money. It turns out that team B wins, and Joe gets the $200. Suppose, however, that Susan was actually a bookie and the bets were laid at 11-10, (or $110 to win $100), in that case, Joe only gets $191 of the $200 he would have won. Bob's money is gone regardless of Vigorish. Losers do not pay vigorish, it is taken from the winning bets.

[edit] use of the word desultory unclear

I hate to be picky but the seeming misuse of the word desultory just jumped out at me. This was a word I recently added to my vocabulary for standardized testing, but when I saw it in the following sentence "Historically, sports betting has been associated with a number of unsavory characters, which has a lot to do with its desultory legal treatment throughout the world." I lost any point of reference I once had to the meaning of the word desultory. This in itself was quite vexing. But my point is, desultory means aimless, how does this make sense in this sentence? Since unsavory characters are associated with sports betting, why does this imply that the legal treatment is desultory? The bottom line is it's just confusing. I would do something about it myself if it weren't so late at night. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.112.240.21 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] I think the concept of rigirism doesn't make sense at all!

In a simple soccer (British football) match qualifying to the next round in the knock-out stage betting, e.g. France vs. Italy, the price for France to win is 1.6, and the price for Italy to win is 2.4 if one bet for Italy, then he is risking 100 GB pounds to get in total 240 pounds back. The explanation of the rigirism in the text just simply doesn't explain this!! koren 17:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK

I don't bet so don't trust myself to do the relevant editing, but the below might be useful to other editors:

Here in the UK sports betting is either "fixed-odds" (what's called "straight-up" in the text, a term I've never seen used in Britain) or spread betting:

1) Fixed-odds bets are quoted simply as "2/1", "11/2" or whatever: "decimal" odds (such as "1.50") are extremely uncommon here, except to some extent on online betting exchanges (which are entirely legal in Britain). I've never, ever seen decimal odds listed on a High Street bookie's blackboard.

2) The article says "sports such as soccer, baseball and hockey (the scoring nature of which renders point spreads impractical)". It's perfectly possible, and actually very common, to run spread bets on such sports. For example, with a football (soccer) match a spread might be run on the minute in which the first goal was scored, on the number of yellow cards shown, etc.

3) High Street bookies deal in fixed-odds bets only; spread bets, because of their origin in the stock market, are differently regulated (by the Financial Services Authority).

81.158.2.65 16:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odds Comparison

Hi,

Odds Comparison redirects to this page, but nothing seems to be mentioned in the page.

Do you think something should be mentioned about it? --87.194.123.80 08:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel it should warrent some mention that it exists, and also the explination of an arbitrage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.78.222 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legalised Betting!

Sports betting is legal in most of the Europe and america. but in some countries it is still illegal to bet on spots. we in india play only cricket (i mean thatz the one sport in which we are the World Champs). and in india betting is a major crime

Another Legalized web site using ad-sponsored bets making the site 100% free:

http://www.centsports.com/?opcode=100731

[edit] UK Jargon

I marked a section as jargon because it used several terms without defining them:

  • each-way
  • in running
  • pay out on a quarter
  • each way terms
  • Dead heats

As one unfamiliar with the jargon of sports betting, my hope is to learn by reading this article, so I feel clarification is needed on these points. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.101.80 (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)