Discussions about sports betting, page1. Wizard of Vegas uses cookies, this enables us to provide you with a personalised experience Got It! In all sports betting, the odds are on a 'to one' basis. In other words, you always get your bet back, plus winnings, if you win. So, for example, if you must bet $11 to win $10, then you would present $11 at the window and the writer will give you a ticket worth $21 if it wins.
So I got to thinking about the difference between horse racing and sports betting regarding the odds you get.
Sportsbetting you get the odds at the time you place the bet where as horse racing you get the odds based on when the event (race) goes off. This means that you can bet a 4-1 horse only to have some whale dump big money at the last second knocking your bet to even money or less.
Just imagine with sportsbetting, you bet say the Eagles at +7.5, only to have the odds change and by game time you have the Eagles +2.5. Nobody would stand for that. The odds are set by the amount of wagers at the time the wager is placed, so why does horseracing change your odds based on wagered placed after your wager? It doesn't make sense to me and it surely doesn't make sense that two almost identical things horse racing and sportsbetting are handled completely differently.
Any thoughts?
Bookies & vig.
I probably should have used a moneyline sportsbet as my example rather than the Eagles +7.5 (where vig comes into play). Let's change the example to a bet on Eagles at +280 when placed and it moves to +135 by game time.
Nobody would stand for that. Your wager is based on the odds at the time of the wager and those odds are based on what has been bet up until that point. I don't see why horseracing shouldn't be the same way. Why should wagers and the betting pool made after your wager effect your wager?
I am assuming horse racing in the USA uses pari-mutuel because it's pretty much the only way to have a single betting system that is manageable and can still just about guarantee making a profit on each race for the track.
Note that, in England, if you make a bet - even at the track, in the 'betting ring' - you keep the odds you got when you made the bet. However, the track itself is not an interested party in the betting.
Horse racing is parí-mutuel so they collect all bets, take a huge cut, then payout at the final ratio irrespective of what was quoted when the wager was made. They can't lose
I probably should have used a moneyline sportsbet as my example rather than the Eagles +7.5 (where vig comes into play). Let's change the example to a bet on Eagles at +280 when placed and it moves to +135 by game time.
Nobody would stand for that. Your wager is based on the odds at the time of the wager and those odds are based on what has been bet up until that point. I don't see why horseracing shouldn't be the same way. Why should wagers and the betting pool made after your wager effect your wager?
People would stand for it if it was their only way to bet on the games. It is called parimutial betting and the house has no risk. They just take a fixed percentage of the total bet for the house and pay out the rest.
Last night, unable to find anything interesting on TV on 800 channels, I watched a few minutes of the horse racing channel. I am not a big horse racing guy, so maybe it was just total sports withdraw setting in. :(
So I got to thinking about the difference between horse racing and sports betting regarding the odds you get.
Sportsbetting you get the odds at the time you place the bet where as horse racing you get the odds based on when the event (race) goes off. This means that you can bet a 4-1 horse only to have some whale dump big money at the last second knocking your bet to even money or less.
Just imagine with sportsbetting, you bet say the Eagles at +7.5, only to have the odds change and by game time you have the Eagles +2.5. Nobody would stand for that. The odds are set by the amount of wagers at the time the wager is placed, so why does horseracing change your odds based on wagered placed after your wager? It doesn't make sense to me and it surely doesn't make sense that two almost identical things horse racing and sportsbetting are handled completely differently.
Any thoughts?
Hey kewlJ,
Regnis, Keystone, and I gave some responses over at VCT. I defer to regnis on all things horseracing. I gave a couple of reasons as to the why.
The responses over there are actually pretty good. I don't know if you can copy and paste them here, if that's allowed or what, but it was refreshing to actually have a post over there that has some accurate gambling information and history in it. Rare event these days.
I don't know why people got on your case. Why should you know anything about pari-mutuel betting? It's not what you're expert in, so why should you know anything? It would be like asking me about craps or pai gow poker. I know zero, but that means zero. I'm not trying to play craps or pai gow for a living.
Wizard Of Odds Sports Betting
If you can't copy and paste the stuff, I'll see if I have some time tonight to rehash it here. It was probably the best gambling thread at VCT in about six months. As you say, you can usually tell pretty quickly who knows what they're talking about.Wizard Of Odds Sports Betting Picks
It was just a discussion. I understand how it works, I just think it kind of strange. I can't think of any other wager, casino games, sports ect that you are not looked into specific odds when you make the wager. You are a sports guy Redietz. How would you feel betting a line at -120 and when the game goes off you get -210 instead? Your interest was likely at that specific odds of -120. You likely wouldn't have bet at -210.
I mean how would it be if you bet 13 on roulette thinking you would be paid 35-1 and then AFTER you had wagered they inform you the wager will only pay 25-1?
