I keep reading and discussing this topic and many have different definitions and concepts of these terms.
I have always thought vig was the book's theoretical edge on the bet assuming balanced action - like 4.545% for spread betting's 20 cent lines. For every $22 of balanced action the book keeps $1, assuming no ties/middles/moves etc. I have always thought juice was the extra amount layed, like -110 has 10 cents juice since you have to lay 110 to win 100.
I know that some state juice as a %, like 10 %, which is consistent but gets some mixed up thinking it is 10% vig which would be -125 or 50 cent lines, aka 25 cent juice.
So where am I wrong in my definitions? I read conflicting applications of these terms often!
On a similar topic isn't the break-even mark 52.38% for standard spread bets, in order to counteract the 4.545% vig?
So isn't it CORRECT to say that a three team parlay at 6-1 has less vig than a straight bet because the break-even is 52.28% for the individual picks in it? Along with the fact that compounding three straights only gives 5.96-1, I think this is absolutely correct. This seems to be a fact that "parlay bashers" are very ignorant about! The break even for 13-5 two teamers is 52.7% so that is worse than straights but not "magnitudes" worse as most think. There are plenty of reasons to avoid parlays, but more vig isn't really one of them for 2 and 3 teamers!!!!!!
I have always thought vig was the book's theoretical edge on the bet assuming balanced action - like 4.545% for spread betting's 20 cent lines. For every $22 of balanced action the book keeps $1, assuming no ties/middles/moves etc. I have always thought juice was the extra amount layed, like -110 has 10 cents juice since you have to lay 110 to win 100.
I know that some state juice as a %, like 10 %, which is consistent but gets some mixed up thinking it is 10% vig which would be -125 or 50 cent lines, aka 25 cent juice.
So where am I wrong in my definitions? I read conflicting applications of these terms often!
On a similar topic isn't the break-even mark 52.38% for standard spread bets, in order to counteract the 4.545% vig?
So isn't it CORRECT to say that a three team parlay at 6-1 has less vig than a straight bet because the break-even is 52.28% for the individual picks in it? Along with the fact that compounding three straights only gives 5.96-1, I think this is absolutely correct. This seems to be a fact that "parlay bashers" are very ignorant about! The break even for 13-5 two teamers is 52.7% so that is worse than straights but not "magnitudes" worse as most think. There are plenty of reasons to avoid parlays, but more vig isn't really one of them for 2 and 3 teamers!!!!!!
