Who are you playing against?

[Sandra_hakeem]

Even before I started reading your post (from the topic title), I had the idea that gamblers play against each other on bets. You confirmed my suspicions with your explanation. I have the impression that the bookmaker acts as a "cunning dealer, an intermediary, profiting from both sides of the bets, meanly pitting gamblers against each other" (figuratively speaking, of course). That is, against each bet of one gambler, the bookmaker "places" a bet of another gambler. The bookmaker is not ready to risk his money, otherwise, his business would not succeed. Therefore, he risks the money of gamblers. And this simple strategy brings him results.

Gamblers wager against themselves?? And a casino acts like an intermediary type of shit? Did I just read this right?
TBH, I just had to re-read everything you wrote but, I think it went over my head and I wouldn't wanna say anything more or less.

I'm wondering if you've ever thought about the huge task that's involved in switching up play lines for these bets to be placed against each other? Why would anyone develop a system that works like that instead of making them selections and regenerating them randomly until the game is time?
Edit:

Bookie is using their bankroll to match every player bet on each side. They are successful because of the house edge which means even if the bet is 50% winning chance rate they will pay less while they get 100% of bets when the bet lose.

This makes a little bit of sense, but I still doubt this is how it works... I dunno.
Hold on a second, in cases where a gambler wagers on more than one ticket at time, or in different sessions of the game, being that all of his games are unsettled, how's that being matched?

[dimonstration]

Even before I started reading your post (from the topic title), I had the idea that gamblers play against each other on bets. You confirmed my suspicions with your explanation. I have the impression that the bookmaker acts as a "cunning dealer, an intermediary, profiting from both sides of the bets, meanly pitting gamblers against each other" (figuratively speaking, of course). That is, against each bet of one gambler, the bookmaker "places" a bet of another gambler. The bookmaker is not ready to risk his money, otherwise, his business would not succeed. Therefore, he risks the money of gamblers. And this simple strategy brings him results.

Gamblers wager against themselves?? And a casino acts like an intermediary type of shit? Did I just read this right?

You read right. Although I personally doesn't know the whole picture here but I believe this is not the case and misleading especially what the OP written on this post.

If his assumption is correct then the odds of prematch bets should be dynamic since every bet should change the odds in proportion to the total bets made both side in able to conclude that it’s all about player vs player money yet you will notice that odds doesn’t change if you place bet rather it only change depending on the situation of the game meaning the odds is not related to money placed on each betting option.

Bookie is using their bankroll to match every player bet on each side. They are successful because of the house edge which means even if the bet is 50% winning chance rate they will pay less while they get 100% of bets when the bet lose.

[SquallLeonhart]

Let's discuss the question of who we play against in sports betting and betting in general, that is, in disputes on sports and non-sports events.

If you're a sport betting gambler, then you may have to choose between betting on the player or the team, this is because you will have to rely on your skills and experience in making a bet, there is more to understand by sport betting and the need to make it a conservative game within what we already know, this is not like the casino games we often play as against the system, in so many cases, it may not really matter about what or who we are playing against, but the things which constitutes what we know and understand about the bet we are playing.

In sports betting, I think it is also possible to bet against other people or so-called PVP. In Freebitco for example. They called their system parimutuel betting. The one you said there is only normal on sports betting. They are the ones who are playing the game anyway, although we are also being gamed by the owners but it is wrong if we say that we are betting on the owners side. I know there is bankroll investing but that is another story anymore.

You said we need to rely on our skills and experience but it is funny that we still root on the players that are playing the game, although we still can do analysis if we which we think among them performs better. This is still the other definition of relying on our skill and experience. Indeed, there is still more in sports betting. It is more complex than the casino games even though the system of the casino game also looks complex.

There are mathematics involved on them and then they now use the technology called as Blockchain and Provably Fair. PVP does exist in casino games but yeah that many of us still plays on the non-PVP ones. Guess they are more fun and much faster, only with the cost of some things though like the odds or chances of winning.

[mindrust]

On freebitco.in, you are indeed playing against the other bettors because the casino uses parimutuel betting. Player A bets against Player B, no matter who wins, the casino takes 5%. I don’t really know if any other casino offers that kind of stuff (polymarket is too doing it probably now I realized) but I like it tbh. To make it work the casino has to have lots of active players though, so it is not going to work on newly established casinos. The others casinos have usually get their rates from some other choice and I don’t like that.

[KTChampions]

I agree with you. When I bet on sports, I am playing against other players (not the bookmaker).

My winnings depend on how much better my analytical skills are than the other players. Or how much more informed I am than the other players.

In order to win in the long run, I need a competitive edge. In analogy with poker, this is called "picking the right table to play". In order to win, I need to pick a table where there are weaker players than me. If there are stronger players than me at the table, then I am doomed to lose.

Having a bookmaker who claims a commission on each game reduces my potential winnings / increases my potential losings. But I am playing against other players.

Ok. Let's assume you're right. Then you should be able to figure out how your game "against other players" in sports betting differs from playing roulette or slots.
The input data is the same: the game organizer takes his margin in any case, the rest is decided randomly. Only the players' money is at stake (all the casino's money is the players' money). So what's the difference?

[Hirose UK]

I'm not sure who I'm playing against in a game on a platform, sometimes it could be that we're only playing against the computer, not an individual, in this case whoever the opponent is in a game on a casino platform, at least there's a rhythm of winning, not consecutive losses. for me

Of course our opponent is program in the game itself, each provider will have program that we can't guess what it will be like and how it will end because basically we play online and don't really face dealer or game machine directly.
Unless we play in live game, we can see casino teller dealing cards or spinning ball like in roulette, unlike sports bet where we can really only predict and see the course of the match even though sometimes it is match that runs randomly or not as expected.

[junder]

Of course our opponent is program in the game itself, each provider will have program that we can't guess what it will be like and how it will end because basically we play online and don't really face dealer or game machine directly.
Unless we play in live game, we can see casino teller dealing cards or spinning ball like in roulette, unlike sports bet where we can really only predict and see the course of the match even though sometimes it is match that runs randomly or not as expected.

For online gambling, of course, what we are fighting is the system, with bookies who have arranged everything so that they can win more often than lose, so why do many people experience defeat in online gambling, of course because it is not easy to beat the system that has been set by bookies so that they can make a profit.
In my opinion, all games that are categorized as gambling have in common that the chances of winning are uncertain, even though in sports betting or others there are those who can use that skill, it does not guarantee that we will win, bookies can still twist the facts.

[Darker45]

Generally, sports betting is played against other players. Yeah, that also includes the prediction market like Polymarket. Discrepancies in the bets shall be reflected in the odds. I guess the general rule is that the loser pays both the winner and the bookie for the vigorish.

In the unlikely event, however, that all bets are placed on one side only, the bookie will have to face possible loss. After all, they can't just close the line and mark all existing bets void simply because there are no opposing bettors.

[Jawhead999]

In the unlikely event, however, that all bets are placed on one side only, the bookie will have to face possible loss. After all, they can't just close the line and mark all existing bets void simply because there are no opposing bettors.

Did they have a right to void the bettor bets just because no one bet on opposed players/teams?

If all the bets are placed on one side, it means the odds would be as low as @1.01, some casinos even have 3 decimal points. Even someone bet $1K which make they earn $10, but if they want to withdraw the money, the casinos will charge additional fees.

[freedomgo]

I guess the general rule is that the loser pays both the winner and the bookie for the vigorish.

This is quite a little tricky, but I think that is wrong, because vigorish is already incorporated into the betting odds, both the winner and the loser effectively pay the vigorish.

I'm using a  50-50 odds (as an example) with a standard 10% vigorish, it looks like this: Team A (-110) vs. Team B (-110). The odds mean the bettor only gets a 90% return on their wagered amount, regardless of who wins. This is how the bookmaker ensures they profit.

[Darker45]

In the unlikely event, however, that all bets are placed on one side only, the bookie will have to face possible loss. After all, they can't just close the line and mark all existing bets void simply because there are no opposing bettors.

Did they have a right to void the bettor bets just because no one bet on opposed players/teams?

That's certainly an unfair gambling practice. That could even be illegal. But even if it's stipulated in their terms and conditions that they have the right to void bets on such grounds-- which I highly doubt-- it's more or less suicide on their part. No bettor likes a platform that voids bets every now and then. I'd avoid such a platform, too. 

If all the bets are placed on one side, it means the odds would be as low as @1.01, some casinos even have 3 decimal points. Even someone bet $1K which make they earn $10, but if they want to withdraw the money, the casinos will charge additional fees.

Oh yeah, of course, if the bet is already placed and you want to cash it out, you'd be charged.

I guess the general rule is that the loser pays both the winner and the bookie for the vigorish.

This is quite a little tricky, but I think that is wrong, because vigorish is already incorporated into the betting odds, both the winner and the loser effectively pay the vigorish.

I'm using a  50-50 odds (as an example) with a standard 10% vigorish, it looks like this: Team A (-110) vs. Team B (-110). The odds mean the bettor only gets a 90% return on their wagered amount, regardless of who wins. This is how the bookmaker ensures they profit.

It's probably a different explanation of the same thing. Bettor A places a bet of $100 on Team A. Bettor B places the same amount of bet on Team B. Better A wins, therefore, he/she's not paying. Bookie doesn't take his/her money. Bettor B loses. He/she pays $100. Bookie takes $10 from Bettor B's payment and releases the remaining amount to Bettor A.

[Julien_Olynpic]

I agree with you. When I bet on sports, I'm betting against other players (not the bookmaker).

My winnings depend on how much better my analytical skills are than other players. Or how much more informed I am than other players.

To win in the long run, I need a competitive edge. Similar to poker, this is called "picking the right table to play at." To win, I need to pick a table where there are weaker players than me. If there are stronger players at the table, I'm doomed to lose.

Having a bookmaker who takes a commission on every game reduces my potential wins / increases my potential losses. But I play against other players.

Okay. Let's assume you're right. Then you should be able to understand how your "against other players" game in sports betting differs from playing roulette or slots.

The input data is the same: the organizer of the game takes his margin in any case, the rest is determined randomly. Only the players' money is at stake (all the casino's money is the players' money). So what's the difference?

Let me answer instead of Smartprofit. Sports betting is actually very different from playing roulette. When playing roulette, the player actually plays against the casino, and not indirectly and partially, as in sports betting. But in roulette there is no and cannot be any reasonable strategy. Therefore, although in the moment the casino can really lose to the player and for large amounts, in the long run due to a small advantage the casino takes money from the players.
In sports betting, everything is different. The bookmaker's task is only to balance the cash flows within the line. In most cases, the bookmaker succeeds in this. In this case, he simply pays the winners' profit from the losers' money. The bookmaker takes a small commission from the winner's money. In the standard case, this is a win-win game for the bookmaker even in the moment, not to mention the distance. This is how sports betting differs from roulette, in which the casino can actually lose to the player in the moment.
In a non-standard case, when there is an imbalance of cash flows, the bookmaker must either compensate the winner's winnings with his own money or cancel the line and return everyone's money.
In other words, the bookmaker loses money when he is unable to perform his main function - to balance the cash flows within the betting line.

[viljy]

In my opinion, this is obvious to anyone. In the casino you play against the casino, but betting you play against other players. In this sense, sports betting is somewhat similar to playing poker against other players. The bookmaker acts as the "arbiter" of the bet, which charges a certain fee for services. Poker tables are also functioning.
Thus, the Bookmaker himself is not a participant in the game, and does not bear the corresponding risks. But the casino is a participant in gambling and carries the risks of losing. That is why gambling is initially designed so that the casino has an advantage.

[mak013]

Let's discuss the question of who we play against in sports betting and betting in general, that is, in disputes on sports and non-sports events. We are accustomed to thinking that in centralized bookmakers we play against the bookmaker, and on prediction platforms like Polymarket we play against other players. But is this really true? This is a question that is not discussed enough and not understood correctly by everyone. Imagine a sports match where the bookmaker gives one side high odds and the other side low odds. Most players are confident that the favorite who is given the high odds will win and they start betting big money on this outcome. Very few players bet money on another outcome of the match (let's imagine for simplicity that the match is tennis and therefore it has only 2 outcomes) and the question arises: from what money will the winnings of the winners be paid out if the favorite wins? The bookmaker will basically have to pay out of its own funds. Therefore, he changes the odds to make the distribution of money on the outcome of the match more even. That is, he lowers the odds for the favorite and increases them for the underdog. If even in this case they do not bet money on the outsider, then in this case the bookmaker will have to pay the winnings from their own funds. It turns out that every time you play sports betting, you are not playing against the bookmaker at all, but in some sense against other players. The 20th century bettor J.R. Miller wrote about this well in one of his books. I have already cited his quotes in other topics. This is a fairly long quote from his book, but it explains this thesis in great detail.

We can see it during the online betting. The bookie gives first odds and after it we can see how he correct it. I don`t sure, but i think that it is scripts calculates the odds due to betted sums. And i regularly see how the bookie even closes from betting one or two results in the line. So you are right that we are betting against other gamblers and the bookie always win.
PS. I don`t sure that the bookie bet themselves, but it is possible way for some small casinos to increase their bank fast.

[Maslate]

In other words, the bookmaker loses money when he is unable to perform his main function - to balance the cash flows within the betting line.

I think sportsbooks don’t need to worry about handling that manually, as most systems they purchase are already automated to handle such tasks. This protects both the casino’s reputation and its cash flow. If there’s any manual intervention required, it should be very minimal.

We’re just discussing the concept here, both within the operation and externally, but systems are designed to simplify processes and enhance security. Both ease of use and security should go hand in hand.

[Japinat]

In other words, the bookmaker loses money when he is unable to perform his main function - to balance the cash flows within the betting line.

I think sportsbooks don’t need to worry about handling that manually, as most systems they purchase are already automated to handle such tasks. This protects both the casino’s reputation and its cash flow. If there’s any manual intervention required, it should be very minimal.

We’re just discussing the concept here, both within the operation and externally, but systems are designed to simplify processes and enhance security. Both ease of use and security should go hand in hand.

Of course, with thousands of bets and probably millions flowing into the casino, they need a system that works seamlessly, something highly reliable. That’s why running a sportsbook requires significant capital. You also need to pay the odds provider to supply odds for various games. A broader market attracts more bettors, which can translate into potentially bigger profits for the sportsbook.

[Eternad]

In my opinion, this is obvious to anyone. In the casino you play against the casino, but betting you play against other players. In this sense, sports betting is somewhat similar to playing poker against other players. The bookmaker acts as the "arbiter" of the bet, which charges a certain fee for services. Poker tables are also functioning.
Thus, the Bookmaker himself is not a participant in the game, and does not bear the corresponding risks. But the casino is a participant in gambling and carries the risks of losing. That is why gambling is initially designed so that the casino has an advantage.

Nope it’s different on Poker. Poker is literal PVP games which you are directly against player while the casino just deducts fee on the pot while Sportsbook act differently since they pay with their bankroll to match the the other side of the bets in case the winner has more bets placed compared to the other side.

Sportsbook offer almost thousand to 10 thousand betting option which means not all betting option has bet both ways to balance in able for the casino to not pay wuth their bankroll.

Only decentralized sportsbook fits your description as player versus player.

[freedomgo]

It's probably a different explanation of the same thing. Bettor A places a bet of $100 on Team A. Bettor B places the same amount of bet on Team B. Better A wins, therefore, he/she's not paying. Bookie doesn't take his/her money. Bettor B loses. He/she pays $100. Bookie takes $10 from Bettor B's payment and releases the remaining amount to Bettor A.

I’ve also read another explanation before, that the winning bettor pays the vigor, which is the opposite of what you believe or posted. Thinking about it, I realized it makes sense because vigorish is sometimes referred to as a commission, and typically, only those who profit pay the commission.

But we needed some clarification from online definitions, and it turns out that vigorish is indeed deducted from the winning bet.
So, in short, the winner pays it.

[D ltr]

I'm not sure who I'm playing against in a game on a platform, sometimes it could be that we're only playing against the computer, not an individual, in this case whoever the opponent is in a game on a casino platform, at least there's a rhythm of winning, not consecutive losses. for me

We could actually know whom we are playing against in gambling, this will be known by us from the kind of game we are playing, like for instance, if you're playing sport bettings, then know that you're only playing base on your experience and such is a live event which your input towards football soccer is highly appreciated, if you're playing other virtual games like the casinos, then you know you're playing with the computer, because everything has been programmed on how to function, same appli8to every game we are playing while gambling.

Yes, I see now, betting on sports is different from playing online casinos, where when we bet on sports we really look for predictions and the chances of winning for the club or person we are betting on.

[viljy]

In my opinion, this is obvious to anyone. In the casino you play against the casino, but betting you play against other players. In this sense, sports betting is somewhat similar to playing poker against other players. The bookmaker acts as the "arbiter" of the bet, which charges a certain fee for services. Poker tables are also functioning.
Thus, the Bookmaker himself is not a participant in the game, and does not bear the corresponding risks. But the casino is a participant in gambling and carries the risks of losing. That is why gambling is initially designed so that the casino has an advantage.

Nope it’s different on Poker. Poker is literal PVP games which you are directly against player while the casino just deducts fee on the pot while Sportsbook act differently since they pay with their bankroll to match the the other side of the bets in case the winner has more bets placed compared to the other side.

Sportsbook offer almost thousand to 10 thousand betting option which means not all betting option has bet both ways to balance in able for the casino to not pay wuth their bankroll.

Only decentralized sportsbook fits your description as player versus player.

I agree with your note, because, of course, betting is a little more complicated than in my example, since I only outlined the main thing. Naturally, the bookmaker can also participate more actively in his system, as a corrective element and in order to maximize profits. However, its risks are still less than the risks of the casino. If he doesn't make mistakes himself.