How Would You Calculate "YOUR" Expected Break Even Point in A Sports Season?

[Kramer]

MATH QUESTION -

Doobie thought
:)


HOW WOULD YOU MATHEMATICALLY
CALCULATE YOUR EXPECTED BREAK EVEN POINT ?

Losing bettors actually play for free ,
winners play the vig

Lets explain

Suppose Kramer and Rome each place a $110
bet on the same game .$110 to risk $ 100
Kramer loses , Rome wins
The sportsbook takes $ 220


Well Kramer loses his $110
Rome “pays” $110 for his win .
THE BOOKIE KEEPS $ 10 PROFIT


Now $10/220 = .0455 VIG



However each gambler risked $110 ,, not $100
In effect Rome pays $10/$100 = .09 % vig for the win.
(ROME DIDN’T WIN $ 220)

The more you win the higher vig you pay
the more you lose less vig just more bets .

IF YOU WON 100% OF YOUR BETS AND QUIT
YOU PAY 9% VIG ON 11/10 ODDS


Rome didn’t get $ 220 back but $210 ( $110 + $100)
$110 x 1.909 = $210 so Rome gets back 91% of his bet

This is impt to understand when a gambler says
the bookies had a bad week when 10 favs win and 6 lose .

Sure they had to pay on the public ten favs , but note the winners also
has to pay their juice .

The 6 losses were just money in their pocket .

In effect when you win you are a “partner”
with the sportsbook ..
The book was paid by both the 6 losses AND
Vig on the 10 wins ..



Just like roulette if you place an even money bet ,
the odds are more than even money your bet will pay out

so in effect when you win you’re paying a vig on house edge ..
The loser just loses ..




If you win HALF your bets or 50/100 your vig on 11/10
is 4.55% but you’ll go broke ..

If you wager 5 nfl games x 17 weeks = 85 games
and expect to win say 60% , your vig would be 5.45%
85 x 60% = 51 winners
now subtract 5.5% vig
= 48 games
48/85 = 56.47 % winning rate ...




ASSUMING THE SAME $ 100 BET , -110 ODDS

"I’m not sure how to do this" ,

ROME ? ?


Lets assume 60% expected win rate for all gamblers,
flat $100 bet at - $110 odds ?

Thoughts?

EVERY GAMBLERS WOULD BE DIF’/T DEPENDING
ON NUMBER OF GAMES BET PER YEAR ...






.

[Romanowski]

I have zero idea what you are talking about

flat bettors, at -110 must hit 54.45% to break even

at 60% like you suggest you are way up

[uva3021]

Suppose Kramer and Rome each place a $110
bet on the same game .$110 to risk $ 100
Kramer loses , Rome wins
The sportsbook takes $ 220


Well Kramer loses his $110
Rome “pays” $110 for his win .
THE BOOKIE KEEPS $ 10 PROFIT


Now $10/220 = .0455 VIG

Unless I'm reading this wrong, this entire measure of calculation is inherently wrong to absurd degrees

[Kramer]

Here’s another way to look at it

Lets say you run your gambling like an Inc. Business./

There’s only debit/credits involved for accounting purposes .

You debit $110 dollar bet

you’re credited $100 with a win .
(note you didn’t win $220)


There’s no other side bets involved. Just YOU

What vig are you paying for the $100 bet now?

You risk $110 and lose . Its just a $ 110 debit
Your accountant isn’t interested in how much you
“Might”?
Have won is he?

[Romanowski]

you cant really have an expected return unless you use your winning/losing from years past

but on the surface with -10 vig, the break even point is 54.45% and that does not change no matter how many play you make

if in the past you hit an average of 58% over a 5 year period, then I guess you could use that as a minimum goal

[Kramer]

Good points Rome ,
Heres one for you I'm just reading

The difference between a gambler and sportsbook
Break even :
One example :


FROM A SPORTSBOOK POINT OF VIEW

Suppose $ 11,000 is wagered by gamblers on a fav to win
$ 10,000
$ 5,500 is wagered on the under dog

If underdog wins , they profit $ 6,000
(Keeps 11,000 ,pays out 5,000)


If fav wins loses $4,500 (pays 10,000 keeps 5,500)
They are risking only $4,500 to win $6,000
They can break even with 43% underdog wins!

For the gamblers ,
We’d have to wager $ 6,600
to make the $ 6000 profit ..

Kind of same topic ,
but from the bookies advantage

[IrishTim]

Originally Posted by Romanowski

you cant really have an expected return unless you use your winning/losing from years past

but on the surface with -10 vig, the break even point is 54.45% and that does not change no matter how many play you make

if in the past you hit an average of 58% over a 5 year period, then I guess you could use that as a minimum goal

I think you meant 52.38% (not 54.45%). My guess is you were mistaking the 4.55% (the Bookmaker's hold) for the break-even percentage. Simple mistake.

And if anyone could hit 58% over a 5 year period, they should be rolling around in the dough.

[GFootsXtreme]

The GIANT flaw in this anaylsis is not the computations, it is the theory itself. The books cannot make any money off of anybody unless THEY LOSE. They do not make money off winners!

Take these examples. If you own a sportsbook and take in 10 bets, let's analyze what happens to the book:

1) If 100% of the action is on the winning side, the book takes in $1100, and pays out $2100 resulting in a net loss of $1000. If that means to you they "made" $100 then that would be news to the books.

2) If 100% of the action is on the losing side, the book takes in $1100 and keeps it all. It keeps the extra 10% that was bet because that is the only way they make money - when someone loses.

3) if it's 50-50, we have $1100 coming in, and $1050 paid back out to the 5 winners. That's a $50 profit, made only because people lost.

You are counting money as lost when it was never lost in the first place...A winning wager of $110 paying $100 is not a casino profit of $10...think about it. Place one bet at $110 and win, the book keeps nothing, it only pays you.

Understanding this fully explains why books want balanced action...they cannot forsee who loses, but must insure that 50%+ of the money bet loses.

The easiest and simplest way to do this is to balance the action.

Thus the savvy bettor looks for low juice opportunities, either a book with .05 lines or an exchange which may be even better.

he does this so that when he LOSES, he minimizes his losses.

[Kramer]

Here's another way to look at it :

When laying 11 to win 10, approximately how much
vigorish is paid by losing bettors?
The answer is ...

IT’S A LOADED QUESTION


Losers don't pay any vigorish at all.

Vigorish is always deducted from winnings.

Here's a brief explanation:
If two bettors were to bet $110 against one another without
using the services of a spoortsbook, the winner would walk away with $220.



The loser would lose whatever he put at risk.
(After all, he lost the bet.)

Using a bookie the winner walks away with only $210...

The winner was charged 9.1 percent of his winnings by the bookie

[GFootsXtreme]

Technically vig is considered to be taken from "winners"

But think about it...you wager $110 and win $100...you get all your money back and win at a 91% rate of your original bet.

you wager $110 trying to win $100 and lose, you lose the $100 you were trying to win AND an additional $10 which is the additional cost of placing a bet that loses

from a cashflow standpoint winners never give away anything, only losers
just my 2c but it's backwards to view winning as losing, and losing as a "free bet"

[Kramer]

good discussion G foots
here's one :

Even with a 57%-58% expectation on each and every bet,
you will have less bankroll than you've had at one time or another
in the past more than 95 percent of the time.