|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sports betting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Sports||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Gambling||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Mattwass12.|
I think a link to a diverse collection of sports betting tools would be extremely useful in the external links section. To wit: sbrforum.com/Betting+Tools/ Any objections?
I noticed that much of the content in the betting scandals section is already covered in match fixing. Do we really need both sections? I recommend culling most of the betting scandals section and merging any relevant entries to the match fixing article. We could just keep a few brief lines about betting scandals in this page (i.e. include the few examples that aren't relevant to match-fixing) and also refer the reader to the match-fixing article. Any opinions are welcome. This is pretty messy as it is... --Wayniac (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there an article on horse race betting? Or is it covered by sports betting? Andjam 12:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 18.104.22.168 (talk o contribs) 07:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC).
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)
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).
22.214.171.124 16:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Odds Comparison redirects to this page, but nothing seems to be mentioned in the page.
Do you think something should be mentioned about it? --126.96.36.199 08:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I marked a section as jargon because it used several terms without defining them:
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well I can explain these terms & I was just going to go & do that but then I thought I should probably ask about it over here first because I could also quite easily do a whole list of UK betting jargon/terminology along with explanations for each one - if anyone thinks it would be useful?
(sort of an A-Z reference though I can't guarantee there's an entry for every letter, I won't know til I start writing them out :-))
I must also say though that, whilst I do know a bit about this & I am happy to help, I've not done any editing on this sort of scale here before so I really don't know much about that! Therefore, if you do think a list of this sort would be useful, can someone please help me out by suggesting where it ought to go? (meaning should it be on this (main) page - or should I create it as a separate linked page - or would something/somewhere else work better?)
"For example, the above-described Brewers/Cubs baseball "
This reference to an "above-described" game does not follow any such description. Either an example of a Brewers-Cubs game needs to be inserted or the "above-mentioned" reference needs to be removed. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I realize a lot of fine points are covered here, but I'm afraid this article is quite useless for describing anything but the more abstruse forms of sports betting. And it's very murkily written, reeking of jargon and unexplained terminology. It's reminiscent of the awful signage in Massachusetts, where the locals will tell you that if you don't know where you're going, you have no business being there. Can we get a few clear, concise paragraphs on the basic premises, please? NaySay (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
"Most sports bettors are overall losers as the bookmakers odds are fairly efficient. However, there are professional sports bettors that make a good income betting sports, many of which utilize sports information services."
Random reader just stopping by to express amusement that the contention in the first sentence here is something that can be taken on faith but the second (or at least the suggestion that professional sports bettors do, in fact, exist) cannot.
I believe that firstly you need a more comprehensive definition of sports betting to start with. That definition is the most basic of definitions available. Secondly there are a great number of things that can be added to this article because there are so many things that fall under the realm of sports betting that have not been spoken about for example pros and cons of betting. This may seem simplistic but it would make the search more concise. Pictures will also help to enhance what has been said. Overall though i think alot of the major things have been covered. MrCampion10 (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
All I wanted to know was: where is it legal? It only says "some states." The answer should be right in the beginning before this long discussion about New Jersey! The answer seems to be that a 1992 federal law banned betting on sports across the country, but four states were grandfathered in because of previously established activities: Nevada, Oregon, Delaware, and Montana. I don't know how New Jersey is skirting the federal law. I don't have references, but this should be easy to figure out. Aplummer99 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The introduction says: 'Sports bettors place their wagers either legally, through a bookmaker/sportsbook, or illegally through privately run enterprises referred to as "bookies".'
This may or may not be US usage but it's certainly not how the term is used in the UK. A "bookie" is simply an informal term for a legal bookmaker. Someone visiting a high street betting shop might well say "I'm going to the bookie's". Also I note that the most popular form of sports betting in this country is on horse racing, which appears in the introduction only as an afterthought. Should the introduction be rewritten so that it also reflects UK terminology and practice? GDBarry (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)