VIGORISH

Vigorish, or simply the vig, also known as juice or the take, is the amount charged by a bookmaker, or bookie, for his services. In the United States it also means the interest on a shark's loan. The term is Yiddish slang originating from the Russian word for winnings, выигрыш vyigrysh. Bookmakers use this practice to make money on their wagers regardless of the outcome. To minimize their risk, bookmakers do not want to have an interest in either side winning in a given sporting event. They are interested, instead, in getting equal betting on both outcomes of the event. In this way, the bookmaker minimizes his risk and always collects a small commission from the vigorish. The bookmaker will normally adjust the odds or the line, to attract equal action on each side of an event.
The concept is also sometimes referred to as the overround, although this is technically different, being the percentage the event book is above 100% whereas the vigorish is the bookmaker's percentage profit on the total stakes made on the event. For example, 20% overround is vigorish of 16 2⁄3%. The connecting formulae are v =  o⁄(1 + o) and o =  v⁄(1 − v) where o is overround.
It is simplest to assume that vigorish is factored in proportionally to the true odds, although this need not be the case. Under proportional vigorish, a moneyline odds bet listed at −100 vs. −100 without vigorish (fair odds) could become −110 vs. −110 with vigorish factored in. Under disproportional vigorish, it could become −120 vs. +100.

Example
A fair odds bet: Two people want to bet on opposing sides of an event with even odds. They are going to make the bet between each other without using the services of a bookmaker. Each person is willing to risk $100 to win $100. After each person pays his $100, there is a total of $200 in the pot. The person who loses receives nothing and the winner receives the full $200.
By contrast, when using a sportsbook with the odds set at −110 vs. −110 (10 to 11, 1.9090..) with vigorish factored in, each person would have to risk or lay $110 to win $100 (the sportsbook collects $220 "in the pot"). The extra $10 per person is, in effect, a bookmaker's commission for taking the action. This $10 is not in play and cannot be doubled by the winning bettor; it can only be lost. A losing bettor simply loses his $110. A winning bettor wins back his original $110, plus his $100 winnings, for a total of $210. From the $220 collected, the sportsbook keeps the remaining $10 after paying out the winner.

Discussion
In the above example, the bookmaker has taken a rake, or scaled commission fee, of $10 ÷ $220 = 4.55%. Since the winning bettor got his full $110 wager back, plus $100 in winnings, many observers will assert that only the losing bettor paid the vigorish. Others would attest that the winner — who had risked $110 and only received $210 in the end, instead of doubling his money to $220 — is the only bettor who paid the vigorish. To discuss how the bettors are affected by the vigorish, we must first define what they would have bet at fair odds (without the presence of vigorish) or else there is no way to compare how much tax is placed on the winner or loser due to the vigorish. There are unlimited possibilities for how the presence of vigorish could affect the amount wagered by a bettor, since a bettor is free to bet in any arbitrary way based on the odds. There are, however, several natural options to consider which give different results on how vigorish affects a bettor.
   1. The gambler has a target amount he wants to win, which is independent of the presence or absence of vigorish. As an example, for an even match we would have −100 vs. +100 for fair odds and the gambler wagers 100 to win 100. Under proportional vigorish the odds would become −110 vs. +100 and so gamblers must wager 110 to win 100. In this case, losers lose 110 under the juiced odds compared to 100 under fair odds, so the loser pays 10 extra. The winner gets back his 110 plus 100 profit, compared to getting back his 100 plus 100 profit under fair odds. The winner has no net difference since he is up 100 either way. So the loser pays the full vigorish of 10 under this assumption.
   2. The gambler has a given amount he is willing to risk, independent of vigorish. Under fair odds the gambler risks 100 to win 100. Under vigorish, the gambler still risks 100 to win 100 × (100 ÷ 110) = 90.9. Under this behavior, the loser loses 100 in both cases, so pays no vigorish. The winner wins 100 net under fair odds and 90.9 net under vigorish, so he pays 9.1 in vigorish. The winner pays the full vigorish under this assumption.
   3. The gambler bets more when he has a greater edge (better payout for a given chance of winning). A Kelly gambler is one such gambler, who seeks to maximize his rate of bankroll growth in the limit of infinite bets placed over time. This type of gambler will bet more when the payout reflects a bigger advantage for him. The fact that he bets at all indicates that he thinks he has an advantage in the bet, so the presence of vigorish reduces this edge by reducing the payout for a given amount wagered. Therefore, these gamblers on either side of the wager will both bet less than they would have at fair odds (assuming proportional vigorish). The losers therefore lose less than they would have under fair odds, so counter-intuitively these losers do better with vigorish. The winners not only receive a lower payout factor on their bet, but they also risked less than they would have at fair odds, so they pay the full rake of the bookmaker, plus the amount saved by the losers, since (amount cost by winners) − (amount saved by the losers) = (full vigorish raked by the bookmaker). So for these gamblers, the losers pay negative vigorish, while the winners pay more than the full vigorish raked in by the bookie.
These are three examples of possible gambler behaviors that all give different answers to the distribution of vigorish fees amongst winners and losers. One therefore cannot say precisely whether winners or losers or both are paying the vigorish until the gamblers' behaviors with respect to the fair odds and juiced odds is defined.

Vigorish percentage
Vigorish percentage can be defined in a way independent of the outcome of the event and of bettors' behaviors by defining it as the percentage raked in a risk-free wager. This definition is the rake of the bookie as a percentage of total bets received if the bookie has balanced the wagers so that he makes equal profit regardless of the outcome of the event.
For a two outcome event, the vigorish percentage, v is

where the p and q are the decimal payouts for each outcome. This should not be confused with the percentage a bettor pays due to vigorish. No consistent definition of the percentage a bettor pays due to vigorish can be made without first defining the bettor's behavior under juiced odds and assuming a win-percentage for the bettor. These factors are discussed under the debate section.
For example, −110 side pricing of an even match is 4.55% vigorish, and −105 side pricing is 2.38% vigorish.

Other kinds of vigorish
Casino games
Vig may generically refer to the built-in house advantage on most bets on any game in a casino. The term may also refer to, and be applied in specific ways to, particular casino games.
    * Baccarat, in the house-banked version of baccarat (also mini-baccarat) commonly played in North American casinos, vigorish refers to the 5% commission (called the cagnotte) charged to players who win a bet on the banker hand. The rules of the game are structured so that the banker hand wins slightly more often than the player hand; the 5% vigorish restores the house advantage to the casino for both bets. In most casinos, a winning banker bet is paid at even money, with a running count of the commission owed kept by special markers in a commission box in front of the dealer. This commission must be paid when all the cards are dealt from the shoe or when the player leaves the game. Some casinos don't keep a running commission amount, and instead withdraw the commission directly from the winnings; a few require the commission to be posted along with the bet, in a separate space on the table.
    * Backgammon, the recube vig is the value of having possession of the doubling cube to the player being offered a double.
    * Craps, vigorish refers to the 5% commission charged on a buy bet, where a player wishes to bet that one of the numbers — 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 or 10 — will be rolled before a 7 is rolled. The commission is charged at the rate of $1 for every $20 bet. The bet is paid off at the true mathematical odds, but the 5% commission is paid as well, restoring the house advantage. For many years, this commission was paid whether the bet won or not. In recent years, many casinos have changed to charging the commission only when the bet wins, which greatly reduces the house advantage; for instance, the house advantage on a buy bet on the 4 or 10 is reduced from 5% to 1.67%, since the bet wins one-third of the time (2:1 odds against). In this case, the vig may be deducted from the winnings (for instance, a $20 bet on the 4 would be paid $39 — $40 at 2:1 odds, less the $1 commission), or the player may simply hand the commission in and receive the full payout. This rule is commonplace in Mississippi casinos, and becoming more widely available in Nevada.
    * Poker
          o In pai gow poker, a 5% commission charged on all winning bets is referred to as vigorish. Unlike baccarat, the commission is paid after each winning bet, either by the player handing in the amount from his stack of chips, or by having the vig deducted from the winnings.
          o In table poker, the vigorish, more commonly called the rake, is a fraction of each bet placed into the pot. The dealer removes the rake from the pot after each bet (or betting round), making change if necessary. The winner of the hand gets the money that remains in the pot after the rake has been removed. Most casinos take 5-10% of the pot, typically capping the total rake at $3 or $4.
    * Slot machines - the payouts and winning combinations available on most slot machines and other electronic gambling systems are often designed such that an average of between 0.1% to 10% (varying by machine and facility) of funds taken in are not used to pay out winnings, and thus becomes the house's share. Machines or facilities with a particularly low percentage are often said to be loose.

Other uses
    * In investment banking, "vig" is sometimes used to describe profits from advisory and other activities.
    * In sports, Pittsburgh Pirates announcer Bob Prince coined the term "hidden vigorish" to describe an underdog's ability to beat the odds in a given situation.
    * The term is also used in reference to an auction house's buyers and sellers fees.

SPORTSBOOK

In the United States a sportsbook (sometimes abbreviated as book) or a race and sports book is a place where a gambler can wager on various sports competitions, including golf, football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, horse racing, boxing, and mixed martial arts. The method of betting varies with the sport and the type of game. There are roughly 150 licensed sportsbooks in the United States, all located in Nevada casinos, as such operations are illegal in the other 49 states[citation needed]. Sports betting is fully legal in many countries: for general coverage of the topic see sports betting. In English-speaking countries other than the United States terms such as betting shop or bookmakers are used rather than sportsbook. This article is restricted to sportsbooks in the United States and the impact of internet sports betting on the U.S. market.

Winning bets are paid when the event finishes, or if not finished, when played long enough to become official; otherwise all bets are returned. This policy can cause some confusion since there can be a difference between what the sportsbook considers official and what the sports league consider official. Customers should carefully read the sportsbook rules before placing their bets.

The betting volume at sportsbooks varies throughout the year. Bettors have more interest in certain types of sports and increase the money wagered when those sports are in season. Some major sporting events that don't follow a specific schedule, like boxing, can create peaks of activity for the sportsbooks.

Odds

In the mid 1930s, Leo Hirschfield started a company in Minneapolis, Minnesota called Athletic Publications, Inc., that published and distributed odds to bookies across the country by telephone and telegraph. He had a team of handicappers analyzing the matchups who also studied newspapers across the country. The company was a major provider of odds and prices until it finally disbanded, under fear of prosecution from the Federal Wire Act of 1961.

Today most sportsbooks get their opening prices from other sportsbooks as well as private companies like Las Vegas Sports Consultants. They adjust prices based on the bets coming in, news, injury, and weather information, and the price movement by other sportsbooks.

Nevada sportsbooks

Today there are roughly 150 licensed sportsbooks in the United States, all located in Nevada casinos. Now that many casinos share the same parent company, they offer the exact same wagering choices and odds, which is a disadvantage to the astute gambler who in the past could do more shopping for better prices.

In the 1950s the first Nevada sportsbooks, called Turf Clubs, opened. They were independent from the casinos, and had an informal agreement with the hotels that they would stay out of the casino business as long as the hotels stayed out of the sportsbook business. The sportsbooks had to pay a 10 percent tax so they charged a high vigorish to gamblers, but they still brought in a lot of business.

In 1974 the tax was lowered to 2 percent, (it was lowered to 0.25 percent in 1983), and in 1975 Frank Rosenthal, who ran the Stardust Casino, convinced legislators to allow them in the casinos, and soon nearly all of the casinos added them. The turf clubs were no longer able to compete and eventually all closed.

At Nevada casino sportsbooks you will find:

    * Betting windows

    * Big screen televisions

    * Interactive betting stations

    * Odds boards, usually computerized

    * Papers with different odds for the day

    * Places to sit and watch games & races

Sports betting on the internet

While internet sportsbooks lack face-to-face transactions, they can handle more customers than physical sportsbook shops and operate more cost effectively. They pass lower costs on to customers in the form of reduced vigorish (cheaper prices) or bonus incentives. They can also offer similar products, such as casino games, bingo, and poker to their existing clients.

While Internet sportsbooks take bets online, normally they are licensed in some jurisdiction. Taxation and regulation vary greatly by country.

Internet sportsbooks range from fraudulent operations with no intention of paying their customers to multi-billion dollar publicly traded companies. Furthermore, many internet sites have been reported for questionable customer service practices and withholding money from customers. Internet sportsbooks range in focus, as some primarily cater to American sports, while others focus on European soccer. Some sportsbooks handle large wagers while others have low wagering limits. Some offer many exotic proposition wagers, where others have limited choices. Payment methods are not universally accepted at all sportsbooks.

Costa Rica is home to a large number of offshore sportsbooks, as it caters to many of the needs of the industry with an open regulatory environment and a large, capable workforce. A number of sportsbooks are also located in Isle of Man, Jamaica, Gibraltar, Antigua, Curaçao, Australia, United Kingdom, Philippines and many other countries around the world.

The United States Justice Department claims that wagering at offshore sportsbooks is a violation of the 1961 Federal Wire Act. Jeffrey Trauman of Harwood, North Dakota, was the first player ever to be prosecuted for online sports betting in the United States. The former car salesman, who quit his job to become a professional gambler, was cited under a North Dakota state law.

In separate incidents in 2006, two executives of internet-based sportsbooks were arrested in the United States. On July 16, 2006 David Carruthers of BetonSports was arrested at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in Texas while changing planes. On September 7 of that same year, Peter Dicks of Sportingbet Plc was detained in similar fashion at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Both men await separate charges on gambling-related offenses.

SP BOOKMAKING

Starting price or SP bookmaking literally refers to taking bets at fixed odds, i.e. a fixed starting price, as opposed to the totalisator model of betting. This form of gambling was only legal in Australia for bookmakers operating on the course or racetrack, and so a large telephone based SP bookmaking industry started, leading to the term SP bookie or "turf accountant" to more affluent customers, becoming synonymous with a criminal bookmaker operating off-course in competition with the authorized on-course bookmakers and the totalisator (or tote). SP quickly became a large area of vice, intimately associated with police corruption and racetrack rigging. Several Royal Commissions investigated the practice, and there were many attempts to eradicate it. Once a common sight in suburban pubs and bars, the introduction of telephone and internet betting at fixed prices by licenced on-course bookmakers has made them largely redundant.

POINT SHAVING

In organized sports, point shaving is a type of match fixing where the perpetrators try to prevent a team from covering a published point spread. Unlike other forms of match fixing, sports betting invariably motivates point shaving. A point shaving scheme generally involves a sports gambler and one or more players of the sports team favored to win the game. In exchange for a bribe, the player or players agree to ensure that their team will not "cover the point spread". The gambler then wagers against that team.
General Use In Sports
Basketball
Basketball is a particularly easy medium for shaving points because of the scoring tempo of the game and the ease by which one player can influence key events. By deliberately missing shots or committing well-timed turnovers or fouls, a corrupt player can covertly ensure that his team fails to cover the point spread, without causing them to lose the game (or to lose so badly that suspicions are aroused). Although the NCAA has adopted a zero tolerance policy with respect to gambling activity by its players, some critics believe it unwittingly encourages point shaving due to its strict rules regarding amateurism, combined with the large amount of money wagered on its games. The NCAA has produced posters warning of this, the most notable being an athlete sitting alone on a bench with his face buried in his hands (although this may also look like the athlete suffered a tremendous defeat) with the caption "DO NOT BET ON IT" with warnings as to what could happen if they are involved in such a plan (as well as an athlete being caught gambling himself).
Famous examples of this are the CCNY Point Shaving Scandal of the 1950-51 and the Boston College basketball point shaving scandal of 1978-79, which was perpetrated by gangsters Henry Hill and Jimmy Burke.
Other Sports
The technique has been used by both amateur and professional athletes in many other sports. The intention is to manipulate scoring so that the final score results in a predetermined outcome. A typical sports game should always tend to behave in a nondeterministic manner. In other words, the exact final score of a game exists in a set which can contain more than a thousand possible combinations. Furthermore, nondeterminism suggests that the final score of a sports game is practically unpredictable.
Many variables can influence the outcome. Such variables include weather, fatigue, and human error. However, amateur and professional athletes who are very skilled in the technique of point shaving can consistently create unlikely outcomes in bad weather and other challenging conditions. These unlikely outcomes tend to create huge financial gains/losses in prediction markets.
The deviation from the mean, otherwise known as the expected value, is what makes these outcomes so unlikely. In many cases of point shaving, the expected value is equivalent to a scoring differential; and, this scoring differential is most commonly known as a point spread. Additionally, the deviation in the final outcome can be quite large. Many times, the deviation is so large that athletes on opposing teams must cooperate in order to achieve the desired result. In this particular case, the final outcome is commonly referred to as a thrown game.
Current Use
In the past, small bookies saw large profits in small point shaving schemes; however, the conspiracy has reached new levels in present day sports. According to the 1999 Gambling Impact Study, an estimated $80 billion to $380 billion was illegally bet each year on sporting events in the United States. This estimate dwarfed the $2.5 billion legally bet each year in Nevada.
Unfortunately, such an enormous amount of illegal activity makes organized sports a likely candidate for corruption. On August 15, 2007, an NBA referee, Tim Donaghy, plead gulity to two felonies related to wagering on games that he officiated. And despite providing strict regulations for its participants, organized sports has shown little to no interest in legalizing the sports gambling industry which continues to remain highly unregulated and illegal for the most part in the United States.
In Popular Culture
In Season 5, Episode 2 of The Sopranos ("The Rat Pack"), Bobby Baccalieri stated that point shaving had been invented by fictional mob boss Carmine Lupertazzi during a 1951 game between CCNY and Kentucky.

PARLAY

A parlay or accumulator is a single bet that links together two or more individual wagers and is dependent on all of those wagers winning together. The benefit of the parlay is that there are much higher payoffs than placing each individual bet separately since the difficulty of hitting it is much higher. If any of the bets in the parlay loses, the entire parlay loses. If any of the plays in the parlay ties, or "pushes", the parlay reverts to a lower number of teams with the odds reducing accordingly.

Odds and payout
Parlay bets are paid out at odds higher than the typical single game bet, but still below the "true" odds. For instance, a common 2-team NFL parlay generally has a payout of 2.6:1 if both picks are correct.[citation needed] In reality, however, if one assumes that each single game bet is a coin flip and would be expected to pay out at 1:1, the true payout should instead be 3:1, a substantial difference.
Examples

Example 1
Alex places a three-team NFL parlay on the Packers, Bears and Bengals. If any one of those teams fail to cover the spread, Alex loses his parlay bet. But if all three teams beat the spread, Alex gets paid $600 for every $100 bet.
If Alex pushes on one of those picks, he then has a two-team parlay. If he pushes on two picks, he would then have a straight bet.

Example 2

Winning example
You wager $1,000 on Arsenal/Manchester United to draw, Chelsea to win and Liverpool to win. You win $6,072 as you correctly predicted all three results.
The calculation is: $1,000 × 3.2 × 1.7 × 1.3 = $7,072, less the stake of $1,000.

Losing example
You wager $1,000 on Manchester United to win, Chelsea to win and Liverpool to win. You lose the wager as Manchester United did not win.

MATCH FIXING

In organised sports, match fixing, game fixing, race fixing, or sports fixing occurs as a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result, violating the rules of the game and often the law. Where the sporting competition in question is a race then the incident is referred to as race fixing. Games that are deliberately lost are sometimes called thrown games. When a team intentionally loses a game, or does not score as high as it can, to obtain a perceived future competitive advantage (for instance, earning a high draft pick) rather than gamblers being involved, the team is often said to have tanked the game instead of having thrown it. In pool hustling, tanking is known as dumping. In sports where a handicap system exists and is capable of being abused, tanking is known as sandbagging.
Thrown games, when motivated by gambling, require contacts (and normally money transfers) between gamblers, players, team officials, and/or referees. These contacts and transfer can sometimes be found, and lead to prosecution, by law or by the sports league(s). In contrast, tanking is internal to the team and very hard to prove. Often, substitutions made by the coach designed to deliberately increase the team's chances of losing (frequently by having one or more key players sit out, often using minimal or phantom injuries as a public excuse for doing this), rather than ordering the players actually on the field to intentionally underperform, were cited as the main factor in cases where tanking has been alleged.

Motivations and causes
The major motivations behind match fixing are gambling and future team advantage.
Agreements with gamblers
There may be financial gain through agreements with gamblers. The most infamous example of this in North America was the Black Sox Scandal of 1919, in which several members of the Chicago White Sox conspired with gamblers to fix the World Series.
Getting a better draft pick

In the National Hockey League (NHL), National Basketball Association (NBA) and Australian Football League, teams near the bottom of the standings have sometimes been accused of throwing games at the end of the season to finish with the worst record in the league—thereby gaining the first draft pick. To deter this behavior, these leagues now use a draft lottery which does not guarantee the first pick to the team at the bottom of the standings. Other leagues such as the Australian Football League and the National Football League (NFL) do not make use of a lottery, which leads to suspicions of match fixing, especially since top draft picks can have top careers. Like the NFL, Major League Baseball (MLB) does not conduct a draft lottery, but credible allegations of thrown games in the MLB are uncommon due to the historically weak correlation between draft order and major-league success (baseball draftees generally do not play immediately for their major league club, but rather start playing for a farm team).

Better playoff chances
In the NBA (but not in the NHL, which re-seeds teams after the first playoff round), there have also been allegations of teams tanking games in order to finish in sixth rather than fifth place in the conference standings, thus enabling the team in question to evade a possible playoff match with the conference's top seed until the final round of playoffs in that conference (for more details see single-elimination tournament). For example, the 2006 Los Angeles Clippers allegedly tanked late season games so they could finish with the 6th seed and play the 8th-ranked team in the league's Western Conference, the Denver Nuggets, who were the 3rd seed by way of winning their division. Another quirk in the league's playoff system gave the Clippers even more of an incentive to tank. The NBA is the only one of the four major professional sports leagues of the United States in which home advantage in the playoffs is based strictly on regular-season record without regard to seeding. If the Clippers had finished with the 5th seed in the West, they would have had to face the Dallas Mavericks, who despite being the 4th seed had the second-best record in the conference, which would give the Mavericks home advantage. However, the Clippers would have home advantage in a series against the Nuggets by virtue of a better overall record. If tanking was indeed their strategy, it worked, as the Clippers easily won their first round series. Following the 2006 season, the NBA changed its playoff format so that the best second-place team in each conference would be able to obtain up to the #2 seed should it have the second-best conference record. On occasion, an NFL team has also been accused of throwing its final regular-season game in an attempt to "choose" its possible opponent in the subsequent playoffs. For example, in the closing game of the 2004 season, the Indianapolis Colts faced the Denver Broncos. With a win, the Broncos would advance to the playoffs as a wild card and face the Colts as their first round playoff opponent. It would seem the Colts had little incentive to win as their loss would ensure that they would play a team they dominated in the 2003 Wild Card game. Sure enough, the Colts rested their starters, lost the game, and went on to blow out the Broncos the following week in the playoffs.
Perhaps the most notable example of this was when the San Francisco 49ers, who had clinched a playoff berth, lost their regular-season finale in 1988 to the Los Angeles Rams, thereby keeping the New York Giants (who had defeated the 49ers in the playoffs in both 1985 and 1986, also injuring 49er quarterback Joe Montana in the latter year's game) from qualifying for the postseason; after the game, Giants quarterback Phil Simms angrily accused the 49ers of "laying down like dogs."
A more recent example of possible tanking occurred in the ice hockey competition at the 2006 Winter Olympics. In Pool B, Sweden was to face Slovakia in the last pool match for both teams. Sweden coach Bengt-Åke Gustafsson publicly contemplated tanking against Slovakia, knowing that if his team won, their quarterfinal opponent would either be Canada, the 2002 gold medalists, or the Czech Republic, 1998 gold medalists. Gustafsson would tell Swedish television "One is cholera, the other the plague." Sweden lost the match 3–0; the most obvious sign of tanking was when Sweden had a five-on-three powerplay with five NHL stars—Peter Forsberg, Mats Sundin, Daniel Alfredsson, Nicklas Lidström, and Fredrik Modin—on the ice, and failed to put a shot on goal. (Sports Illustrated writer Michael Farber would say about this particular powerplay, "If the Swedes had passed the puck any more, their next opponent would have been the Washington Generals.") If he was seeking to tank, Gustafsson got his wish; Sweden would face a much less formidable quarterfinal opponent in Switzerland. Canada would lose to Russia in a quarterfinal in the opposite bracket, while Sweden went on to win the gold medal, defeating the Czechs in the semifinals.


More favorable schedule next year
NFL teams have been accused of tanking games in order to obtain a more favorable schedule the following season; this was especially true between 1977 and 1993, when a team finishing last in a five-team division would get to play five of its eight non-division matches the next season against other last-place teams.

Match fixing by referees
In addition to the match fixing that is committed by players, coaches and/or team officials, it is not unheard of to have results manipulated by corrupt referees. Since 2004, separate scandals have erupted in prominent sports leagues in Portugal, Germany (Bundesliga scandal), Brazil (Brazilian football match-fixing scandal) and the United States (see Tim Donaghy), all of which concerned referees who fixed matches for gamblers. Many sports writers have speculated that in leagues with high player salaries, it is far more likely for a referee to become corrupt since their pay in such competitions is usually much less than that of the players.

Match fixing to a draw or a fixed score
Match fixing does not necessarily involve deliberately losing a match. Occasionally, teams have been accused of deliberately playing to a draw or a fixed score where this ensures some mutual benefit (e.g. both teams advancing to the next stage of a competition.) One of the earliest examples of this sort of match fixing in the modern era occurred in 1898 when Stoke City and Burnley intentionally drew in that year's final "test match" so as to ensure they were both in the First Division the next season. In response, the Football League expanded the divisions to 18 teams that year, thus permitting the intended victims of the fix (Newcastle United and Blackburn Rovers) to remain in the First Division. The "test match" system was abandoned and replaced with automatic relegation.
A more recent example occurred in the 1982 FIFA World Cup, West Germany played Austria in the last match of group B. A West German victory by 1 or 2 goals would result in both teams advancing; any less and Germany was out; any more and Austria was out (and replaced by Algeria, who had just beaten Chile). West Germany attacked hard and scored after 10 minutes. Afterwards, the players then proceeded to just kick the ball around aimlessly for the remainder of the match. Algerian supporters were so angered that they waved banknotes at the players, while a German fan burned his German flag in disgust. By the second half, the ARD commentator Eberhard Stanjek refused any further comment on the game, while the Austrian television commentator Robert Seeger advised viewers to switch off their sets. As a result, FIFA changed its tournament scheduling for subsequent World Cups so that the final pair of matches in each group are played simultaneously.

Abuse of tie-breaking rules
On several occasions, "creative" use of tie-breaking rules have allegedly led teams to play less than their best.
An example occurred in the 2004 European Football Championship. Because unlike FIFA, UEFA takes "head-to-head" play into consideration before overall goal difference when ranking teams level on points, a situation arose in Group C where Sweden and Denmark played to a 2-2 draw, which was a sufficiently high scoreline to eliminate Italy (which had lower-scoring draws with the Swedes and Danes) regardless of Italy's result with already-eliminated Bulgaria. Although Italy beat Bulgaria by only one goal and would hypothetically have been eliminated using the FIFA tie-breaker too, some Italian fans bitterly contended that the FIFA tie-breaker would have motivated their team to play harder and deterred their Scandinavian rivals from, in their view, at the very least half-heartedly playing out the match after the score became 2-2.
But the FIFA tie-breaker, or any goal-differential scheme, can cause problems, too. There have been incidents (especially in basketball) where players on a favored team have won the game but deliberately ensured the quoted point spread was not covered (see point shaving). Conversely, there are cases where a team not only lost (which might be honest) but lost by some large amount, perhaps to ensure a point spread was covered, or to grant some non-gambling related favor to the victor. Perhaps the most famous alleged example was the match between Argentina and Peru in the 1978 FIFA World Cup. Argentina needed a four goal victory to advance over Brazil, an enormous margin at this level of competition, especially since Argentina had a weak offense (6 goals in 5 games) and Peru a stout defence (6 goals allowed in 5 games). Yet somehow, Argentina won 6-0. Much was made over the fact that the Peruvian goalkeeper was born in Argentina, and Peru was dependent on Argentinian grain shipments, but nothing was ever proven.
Although the Denmark-Sweden game above led to calls for UEFA to adopt FIFA's tiebreaking formula for future tournaments, it is not clear if this solves the problem - the Argentina-Peru game shows a possible abuse of the FIFA tie-breaker. Proponents of the UEFA tie-breaker argue that it reduces the value of blow-outs, whether these be the result of a much stronger team running up the score or an already-eliminated side allowing an unusually large number of goals. Perhaps the most infamous incident occurred in December 1983 when Spain, needing to win by eleven goals to qualify for the Euro 1984 ahead of the Netherlands, defeated Malta by a score of 12-1 on the strength of nine second half goals. Especially in international football, such lopsided results are seen as unsavoury, even if they are honest. If anything, these incidents serves as evidence that the FIFA tie-breaker can cause incentives to perpetrate a fix in some circumstances, the UEFA tie-breaker in others.

Individual performance in team sports
Bookmakers in the early 21st century accept bets on a far wider range of sports-related propositions than ever before. Thus, a gambling-motivated fix might not necessarily involve any direct attempt to influence the outright result, especially in team sports where such a fix would require the co-operation (and prerequsitely, the knowledge) of many people, and/or perhaps would be more likely to arouse suspicion. Fixing the result of a more particular proposition might be seen as less likely to be noticed - for example, scandalized former National Basketball Association referee Tim Donaghy has been alleged to have perpetrated some of his fixes by calling games in such a manner as to ensure more points than expected were scored by both teams, thus affecting "over-under" bets on the games whilst also ensuring that Donaghy at least did not look to be outright biased. Also, bets are increasingly being taken on individual performances in team sporting events, which in turn has seen the rise of a phenomenon known as spot-fixing, although it is currently unlikely that enough is bet on an average player to allow someone to place a substantial wager on them without being noticed.

One such attempt was described by retired footballer Matthew Le Tissier, who in 2009 admitted that while he was playing with Southampton FC back in 1995 he tried (and failed) to kick the ball out of play right after the kick-off of a Premier League match against Wimbledon FC so that a group of associates would collect on a wager made on an early throw-in. Similarly, in 2010 Pakistani cricket players were accused of committing specific no ball penalties for the benefit of gamblers.

Effect of non-gambling-motivated fixing on wagering
Whenever any serious motivation for teams to manipulate results becomes apparent to the general public, there can be a corresponding effect on betting markets as honest gamblers speculate in good faith as to the chance such a fix might be attempted. Some bettors might choose to avoid wagering on such a fixture while others will be motivated to wager on it, or alter the bet they would otherwise place. Such actions will invariably affect odds and point spreads even if there is no contact whatsoever between teams and the relevant gambling interests. The rise of betting exchanges has allowed such speculation to play out in real time. For example, the average payout on bets backing the 2004 2-2 result between Sweden and Denmark were much lower than would normally be expected, as heavy betting on that result depressed the odds despite the fact that both teams vehemently denied they would intentionally attempt to manipulate the result. There has never been any evidence produced to suggest that the betting patterns witnessed before that match was anything more than honest speculation from honest bettors.

History
Since gambling pre-dates recorded history it comes as little surprise that evidence of match fixing is found throughout recorded history. The Ancient Olympics were almost constantly dealing with allegations of athletes accepting bribes to lose a competition and city-states which often tried to manipulate the outcome with large amounts of money. These activities went on despite the oath each athlete took to protect the integrity of the events and the severe punishment sometimes inflicted on those who were caught. Chariot racing was also dogged by race fixing throughout its history.

By the end of the 19th century gambling was illegal in most jurisdictions, but that did not stop its widespread practice. Boxing soon became rife with fighters "taking a dive" - probably because boxing is an individual sport which makes its matches much easier to fix without getting caught. Baseball also became plagued by match fixing despite efforts by the National League to stop gambling at its games. Matters finally came to a head in 1919 when eight members of the Chicago White Sox threw the World Series (see Black Sox Scandal). In an effort to restore confidence, Major League Baseball established the office of the Baseball Commissioner, and one of Kenesaw Mountain Landis's first acts was to ban all involved players for life. Strict rules prohibiting gambling persist to this day (See Pete Rose).

Japan
Yaochō (八百長 , やおちょう?) is a Japanese word meaning a cheating activity which is committed at places where a match, fight, game, competition, or other contest, is held, where the winner and loser are decided in advance by agreement of the competitors or related people. It is believed that the word "Yaocho" came from the name ("Chobei") of the owner of a vegetable stand (yaoya) during the Meiji period. Created from the first syllable of "Yaoya" and "chobei", the word "yaocho" was created for a nickname of Chobei. Chobei had a friend called "Isenoumi Godayu" (7th Isenoumi stablemaster) with whom he played the game Igo, who had once been a Sumo wrestler "Kashiwado Sogoro" (former shikona: "Kyonosato") and now was a "Toshiyori" (a stablemaster of Sumo). Although Chobei was a better Igo player than Isenoumi, he sometimes lost games on purpose to please Isenoumi, so that Isenoumi would continue to buy merchandise from his shop. Afterward, once people knew of his cheating, they started to use "Yaocho" as a word meaning any decision to win/lose a match in advance by negotiation etc. with the expectation of secondary profit, even though the match seems to be held seriously and fairly.
Most of the motive for match fixing is helping each other's ranking to keep their salary higher according to Keisuke Itai, who disclosed how it goes. For example, wrestlers in Juryo desperately try to avoid makekoshi and exchange or buy the match result otherwise their salary would be nothing, literally 0 yen, with the participation wage of 150,000 yen every two month if they get makekoshi and their ranking would go down to Makushita, the lesser ranking from Juryo in which you can earn 1,036,000 yen monthly with some prizes.
Economists, using statistical analysis, have shown very strong evidence of bout fixing in Sumo wrestling. (See also 2011 in sumo)
Match fixing and gambling today
Influenced by baseball's experiences, the NFL and NBA have followed MLB's lead and adopted a hard line against gambling on its games, especially by those directly involved in the league. The NCAA takes an even harder line:
    * It prohibits athletes, coaches, and athletics administrators at member schools, plus staff of member conferences, from gambling on any sport in which the NCAA holds a championship or any sport classified by the NCAA as an "emerging sport" for women. The prohibition includes professional competition in all of the aforementioned sports, and also specifically includes Division I FBS football, in which the NCAA does not sponsor an official championship.
    * It also prohibits venues in championship play from carrying advertising for any form of gambling, including state lotteries.
Each of these organizations was, and may still be influenced by fears that their games could come under the influence of gamblers in the absence of these tough measures. Critics of such hard line measures note that in spite of such policies, such influence nonetheless does occur.
In Britain the authorities in both government and sport have taken a softer line on gambling. Following decades of relatively lax, intermittent and ineffective enforcement of laws prohibiting gambling, sports betting was finally legalized and regulated in the 1960s. Organizations such as The Football Association seem to have taken the stance that gambling on their events is inevitable. The FA only prohibits betting on a match by those directly involved in the game in question. Footballers (or coaches, managers, etc.) are not prohibited from betting on matches that do not involve their own team.
Match fixing in football (soccer) remains a major concern. In Turkey more than 30 players and staff have been convicted of game fixing. In South Korea, more than 50 professional soccer players have been indicted and ten players have received lifetime bans. In Finland, two Zambian players were convicted and more than a dozen people are under investigation. Other investigations are continuing in China, El Salvador, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Thailand, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.
The integrity of horse racing remains an ongoing concern since gambling is an integral part of this sport. Recent allegations of race fixing have centered around the recently-formed betting exchanges which unlike traditional bookmakers allow punters to lay an outcome (that is, to bet against a particular runner). Leading exchange Betfair has responded to the allegations by signing Memorandums of Understanding with the Jockey Club, The FA, the International Cricket Council, the Association of Tennis Professionals and other sporting authorities. These memoranda of understanding are evidence of the vast difference between British and American attitudes[citation needed] — as of 2008 it would be almost unthinkable for an American sports league to sign such an agreement with a bookmaker or

betting exchange.
It should be noted that while British football has never been rocked by match fixing allegations on the scale of the Black Sox scandal (the aforementioned incidents involved league matches, not major championships), football match-fixing has become a serious problem in parts of Continental Europe.
Cricket has been scandalized by several gambling and match fixing allegations in recent years, particularly the case of Hansie Cronje in the late 1990s, culminating in the World Cup investigations of 2007. These highly publicised enquiries were prompted by the surprise defeat of Pakistan in the Cup by Ireland and the subsequent murder investigation into the sudden death, straight after the match, of Pakistan's head coach Bob Woolmer. According to the head of the ICC's anti-corruption unit Paul Condon, cricket is the most bet on sport in the world, and fixing is found at every level of the sport and is a significant problem.
The high salaries of some of today's professional athletes likely serves to insulate their leagues from player-instigated match fixing. In the NCAA and in leagues where the salaries are comparatively less (or, in the case of the amateur NCAA, zero), match fixing by players remains a serious concern.
Match fixing incidents

    * In 1919, gamblers bribed several members of the Chicago White Sox to throw the World Series. This became known as the Black Sox Scandal and was recounted in book and movie form as Eight Men Out.
    * In 1951, District Attorney Frank Hogan indicted college basketball players for point shaving from four New York schools, including CCNY, Manhattan College, New York University and Long Island University.
    * In 1964, the great British football betting scandal of the 1960s was uncovered. A betting ring organized by Jimmy Gauld and involving several Football League players had been fixing matches. The most famous incident involved three Sheffield Wednesday players, including two England international players, that were subsequently banned from football for life and imprisoned after it was discovered they had bet against their team winning in a match against Ipswich Town. A similar scandal had occurred in 1915.
    * In 1978, mobsters connected with the New York Lucchese crime family, among them Henry Hill and Jimmy Burke, organized a point shaving scheme with key members of the Boston College basketball team.
    * On August 24, 1989, former baseball player Pete Rose voluntarily accepted a permanent ban from Major League Baseball for allegedly betting on Cincinnati Reds games while managing the team. Rose would later confirm the truth of the allegations in his 2004 autobiography, My Prison Without Bars. However, no evidence of actual match-fixing was shown.
    * In 1994, a comprehensive point shaving scheme organized by campus bookmaker Benny Silman and involving players from the Arizona State University men's basketball team was uncovered with the assistance of Las Vegas bookmakers, who grew suspicious over repeated large wagers being made against Arizona State.
    * In February 1999 a Malaysian-based betting syndicate was caught attempting to install a remote-control device to sabotage the floodlights at FA Premier League team Charlton Athletic's ground with the aid of a corrupt security officer. If the match had been abandoned after half-time, then the result and bets would have stood. Subsequent investigations showed that the gang had been responsible for previously unsuspected "floodlight failures" at West Ham's ground in November 1997, and again a month later at Crystal Palace's ground during a home match of Palace's groundsharing tenant Wimbledon.
    * In 2000 the Delhi police intercepted a conversation between a blacklisted bookie and the South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje in which they learnt that Cronje accepted money to throw matches. The South African government refused to allow any of its players to face the Indian investigation unit, which opened up a can of worms. A court of inquiry was set up and Cronje admitted to throwing matches. He was immediately banned from all cricket. He also named Saleem Malik (Pakistan), Mohammed Azharuddin and Ajay Jadeja (India). Jadeja was banned for 4 years. They too were banned from all cricket. As a kingpin, Cronje exposed the dark side of betting, however with his untimely death in 2002 most of his sources also have escaped law enforcement agencies. Two South African cricketers, Herschelle Gibbs and Nicky Boje, are also wanted by the Delhi police for their role in the match fixing saga. A few years before in 1998, Australian players Mark Waugh and Shane Warne were fined for revealing information about the 'weather' to a bookmaker.
    * The Italian Football Federation said in October 2000 it had found eight players guilty of match-fixing. Three were from Serie A side Atalanta and the other five played for Serie B side Pistoiese. The players were Giacomo Banchelli, Cristiano Doni and Sebastiano Siviglia (all Atalanta) and Alfredo Aglietti, Massimiliano Allegri, Daniele Amerini, Gianluca Lillo and Girolamo Bizzarri (all Pistoiese). The charges related to an Italian Cup first round tie between the two sides in Bergamo on August 20, 2000 which ended 1-1. Atalanta scored at the end of the first half and Pistoiese equalised three minutes from full time. Atalanta qualified for the second round. Snai, which organises betting on Italian football, said later it had registered suspiciously heavy betting on the result and many of the bets were for a 1-0 halftime score and a fulltime score of 1-1.
    * In June 2004 in South Africa, thirty-three people (including nineteen referees, club officials, a match commissioner and an official of the South African Football Association) were arrested on match-fixing charges.
    * In the summer of 2004, Betfair provided evidence of race fixing to City of London Police that led to the arrest of jockey Kieren Fallon and fifteen others on race fixing charges. On 7 December 2007 the judge in the case ordered the jury to find Fallon not guilty on all charges.
    * In late 2004, the game between Panionios and Dinamo Tbilisi in the 2004-05 UEFA Cup was suspected of being fixed after British bookmakers detected an unusually high number of half-time bets for a 5-2 win for the Greek side, which was trailing 0-1. As the final result ended up being 5-2, suspicions of fixing quickly emerged, but were quickly denied by both clubs, although UEFA started an investigation.
    * 2005 Bundesliga scandal: In January 2005, the German Football Association (DFB) and German prosecutors launched separate probes into charges that referee Robert Hoyzer bet on and fixed several matches that he worked, including a German Cup tie. Hoyzer later admitted to the allegations; it has been reported that he was involved with Croat gambling syndicates. He also implicated other referees and players in the match fixing scheme. The first arrests in the Hoyzer investigation were made on January 28 in Berlin, and Hoyzer himself was arrested on February 12 after new evidence apparently emerged to suggest that he had been involved in fixing more matches than he had admitted to. Hoyzer has been banned for life from football by the DFB. On March 10, a second referee, Dominik Marks, was arrested after being implicated in the scheme by Hoyzer. Still later (March 24), it was reported that Hoyzer had told investigators that the gambling ring he was involved with had access to UEFA's referee assignments for international matches and Champions League and UEFA Cup fixtures several days before UEFA publicly announced them. Ultimately, Hoyzer was sentenced to serve 2 years and 5 months in prison.
    * In July 2005, Italian Serie B champions Genoa was arbitrarily placed last in the division, and therefore condemned to relegation in Serie C1, after it was revealed that they bribed their opponents in the final match of the season, Venezia to throw the match. Genoa won the match 3-2 and had apparently secured promotion to Serie A.
    * Brazilian football match-fixing scandal: In September 2005, a Brazilian magazine revealed that two football referees, Edílson Pereira de Carvalho (a member of FIFA's referee staff) and Paulo José Danelon, had accepted bribes to fix matches. Soon afterwards, sport authorities ordered the replaying of 11 matches in the country's top competition, the Campeonato Brasileiro, that had been worked by Edílson. Both referees have been banned for life from football and face possible criminal charges. Brazilian supporters have taken to shout "Edílson" at a referee who they consider to have made a bad call against their team, in a reference to the scandal.
    * 2006 Serie A scandal ("Calciopoli"): In May 2006, perhaps the largest match fixing scandal in the history of Italian Serie A football was uncovered by Italian Police, implicating league champions Juventus, and powerhouses AC Milan, Fiorentina, and Lazio. Teams were suspected of rigging games by selecting favorable referees, and even superstar Italian World Cup team goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon was charged with betting on football games.  Initially, Juventus were stripped of their titles in 2004-05 and 2005–06, all four clubs were barred from European club competition in 2006-07, and all except Milan were forcibly relegated to Serie B. After all four clubs appealed, only Juventus remained relegated due while Milan were allowed to enter the third qualifying round of the Champions League (they went on to win the tournament.) The stripping of Juventus' titles stood.`
    * 2007 NBA Referee Scandal: In July 2007 it was revealed that National Basketball Association referee Tim Donaghy had gambled on 10 to 15 games, including games which he refereed. The matter is currently being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as the NBA.
    * 2008 The Fix: Book by Declan Hill alleges that in the 2006 World Cup, the group game between Ghana and Italy, the round-of-16 game between Ghana and Brazil, and the Italy-Ukraine quarter-final were all fixed by Asian gambling syndicates to whom the final scores were known in advance. The German Football Federation (DFB) and German Football League (DFL) looked into claims made in a Der Spiegel interview with Hill that two Bundesliga matches were fixed by William Bee Wah Lim a fugitive with a 2004 conviction for match-fixing.
    * 2008: On October 1, it was reported that a Spanish judge who headed an investigation against Russian Mafia figures uncovered information alleging that the mobsters may have attempted to fix the 2007–08 UEFA Cup semi-final between eventual champion Zenit St. Petersburg and Bayern Munich. Both clubs denied any knowledge of the alleged scheme. Prosecutors in the German state of Bavaria, home to Bayern, later announced that they did not have enough evidence to justify a full investigation.
    * 2008: On October 4, suspicious online betting on the game between Norwich City and Derby County led some to question the validity of the Football League match. Gamblers in Asia were said to have placed a large amount of money down during halftime, which raised concerns over the outcome. The inquiry by The Football Association found no evidence that would suggest the match was fixed. Derby County ended up winning the match 2-1.
    * 2009: On May 6, a federal grand jury in Detroit indicted six former University of Toledo athletes—three each from the school's football and basketball programs—on charges of conspiracy to commit sports bribery in relation to their alleged involvement in a point shaving scheme that ran from 2003 through 2006. It is believed to be the first major U.S. gambling case involving two sports at the same college.
    * In November 2009, German police arrested 17 people on suspicion of fixing at least 200 soccer matches in 9 countries. Among the suspected games were those from the top leagues of Austria, Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Turkey, and games from the second highest leagues of Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland. Three contests from the Champions League were under investigation, and 12 from the Europa League.
    * In 2010, several professional Starcraft players were suspected of being involved in illegal match fixing, with two people arrested and about seven gamers investigated, with two renowned gamers, Ma Jae-Yoon and By.CrocuS were confirmed as working as a broker between the betters and the gamers.
    * The fourth Test of Pakistan's summer 2010 cricket tour of England was alleged to have contained several incidents of spot fixing, involving members of the Pakistan team deliberately bowling no-balls at specific points in order to facilitate the potential defrauding of bookmakers.
    * In April 2011, a U.S. federal grand jury in San Diego indicted a group of 10 individuals on charges of running a point shaving scheme affecting an as yet-undetermined number of college basketball games. Three of the accused have ties to the University of San Diego's men's basketball team—one was the team's all-time leader in points and assists; another was a former player; and the third was a former assistant. Games at the University of California, Riverside, where the second indicted player also played, were also mentioned as potentially being fixed.
    * In June 2011, trials started for people allegedly involved in fixing Finnish football matches. One team, Tampere United was indefinitely suspended from Finnish football for accepting payments from a person known for match-fixing.

Outside of sports
The 1980s TV game show Starcade had a policy of matching contestants up based on their gaming abilities, which means that after potential contestants had played a number of video games for a certain amount of time, they would be paired up by their total scores. Although it was written in the rules that intentionally doing badly in order to be paired up to someone who really wasn't that good was grounds for disqualification, many contestants did it anyway, and were stripped of any awarded prizes and disqualified

BETS OFFERED BY UK BOOKMAKERS

This glossary of bets offered by UK bookmakers is a non-exhaustive list of traditional and popular bets offered by bookmakers in the United Kingdom. The 'multiple-selection' bets in particular are most often associated with horse racing selections but since the advent of fixed-odds betting on football matches some punters use these traditional combination bets for football selections as well.

Types of bet
Win
    A bet that produces a return only if the selection comes first in an event (i.e. wins). A win bet may be placed on a single event or the stake may be placed on two or more selections in a multiple bet (see below), all of which must win to give a return.

Place
    A bet that produces a return only if the selection finishes first or within a predetermined number of positions (places) of the winner of an event. The return is often based on a fixed proportion of the win odds of the selection (e.g. \tfrac{1}{5} the odds a place 1,2,3). It is rare for bookmakers to offer the opportunity to bet solely on a selection finishing in a place without at least an equal bet on the selection to win (see Each-Way below). Exceptions include betting at Parimutuel-style odds in pool betting (aka. 'betting on "The Tote"' in the UK). More recently, some bookmakers have started to introduce special 'Place Only' markets, in which a punter can place a wager solely on a selection to finish placed, meaning you are not bound to having an equal or bigger stake to win. However, the odds are not set in stone as below; they are completely arbitary. Horse racing offers the following place odds for races with a given number of runners:

All races
    Less than 5 runners: all up to win - i.e. the horse must win, but the odds for 1st place are the same as the win odds.
    5-7 runners: \tfrac{1}{4} the odds a place 1,2.
    8-11 runners: \tfrac{1}{5} the odds a place 1,2,3.

    Non-handicap races
    12+ runners: \tfrac{1}{5} the odds a place 1,2,3.

    Handicap races
    12-15 runners: \tfrac{1}{4} the odds a place 1,2,3.
    16+ runners: \tfrac{1}{4} the odds a place 1,2,3,4.

Each-Way
    A combination of win and place bets of equal size. Each-Way bets may be placed on a single event or on two or more selections in a multiple bet. Each-Way multiple bets are settled on a win-to-win and place-to-place basis, i.e. win returns from one selection form the win stake on the next selection, and the place returns from one selection form the place stake on the next selection. An alternative way of settling an each-way multiple bet (although much less common) is for the total return from the first selection to be equally divided as an each-way bet on the next selection, and so on. This is known as an Each-Way all Each-Way bet and must be specifically stated as such on the betting slip as the settling method if the default Win to Win, Place to Place method of settling is not required.
All the following bets are described as if they were win-only bets for ease of description; they may however, in almost all instances, be staked as an each-way bet.

Single
    A bet on an individual selection.

Multiple bet
    A double, treble or accumulator. A linked series of win singles where all the return from the first selection is automatically staked on the second selection as a win single and so on until all selections have won, thus giving a return, or until one selection loses in which case the whole bet is lost.

Double
    A bet on two selections; both of which must win to gain a return.

Treble
    A bet on three selections; all three of which must win to gain a return.

Accumulator
    A bet on four or more selections; all of which must win to gain a return. Accumulators are often named after the number of selections they contain - thus we can get a fourfold, fivefold or sixfold accumulator (or even higher).

Full cover bet
    A wager consisting of all possible doubles, trebles and accumulators across a given number of selections. These include: Trixie, Yankee, Canadian or Super Yankee, Heinz, Super Heinz and Goliath. A double may be thought of as a full cover bet with only two selections.

Trixie
    A wager on three selections and consisting of four separate bets: 3 doubles and a treble. A minimum two selections must win to gain a return.

Yankee
    A wager on four selections and consisting of 11 separate bets: 6 doubles, 4 trebles and a fourfold accumulator. A minimum two selections must win to gain a return.

Canadian or Super Yankee
    A wager on five selections and consisting of 26 separate bets: 10 doubles, 10 trebles, 5 fourfolds and a fivefold accumulator. A minimum two selections must win to gain a return.

Heinz
    A wager on six selections and consisting of 57 separate bets: 15 doubles, 20 trebles, 15 fourfolds, 6 fivefolds and a sixfold accumulator. A minimum two selections must win to gain a return. It is named for the '57 varieties' advertising slogan of the H. J. Heinz Company.

Super Heinz
    A wager on seven selections and consisting of 120 separate bets: 21 doubles, 35 trebles, 35 fourfolds, 21 fivefolds, 7 sixfolds and a sevenfold accumulator. A minimum two selections must win to gain a return.

Goliath
    A wager on eight selections and consisting of 247 separate bets: 28 doubles, 56 trebles, 70 fourfolds, 56 fivefolds, 28 sixfolds, 8 sevenfolds and an eightfold accumulator. A minimum two selections must win to gain a return.

Full cover bets with singles
Patent
    A wager on three selections and consisting of 7 separate bets: 3 singles, 3 doubles and a treble. Equivalent to a Trixie plus 3 singles. One winning selection will guarantee a return.

Lucky 15
    A wager on four selections and consisting of 15 separate bets: 4 singles, 6 doubles, 4 trebles and a fourfold accumulator. Equivalent to a Yankee plus 4 singles. One winning selection will guarantee a return. The 'Lucky' part of the name of this and other similar bets comes from the bookmaker's practice of offering bonuses for one or more winners; usually including 'double the odds' for only one winning selection.

Lucky 31
    A wager on five selections and consisting of 31 separate bets: 5 singles, 10 doubles, 10 trebles, 5 fourfolds and a fivefold accumulator. Equivalent to a Canadian plus 5 singles. One winning selection will guarantee a return.

Lucky 63
    A wager on six selections and consisting of 63 separate bets: 6 singles, 15 doubles, 20 trebles, 15 fourfolds, 6 fivefolds and a sixfold accumulator. One winning selection will guarantee a return.

Alphabet
    A bet consisting of six selections - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, usually on horse racing or greyhound racing. Selections 1, 2, and 3 form a patent, as described above. Selections 4, 5, and 6 form a second patent. Selections 2, 3, 4, and 5 form a Yankee, as described above. Selections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 form a sixfold accumulator, as described above. The total number of bets in an alphabet is therefore 26 [2 patents at 7 bets each, plus 1 yankee at 11 bets, and one accumulator at one bet - (7+7+11+1=26)]. At least one correct selection guarantees a return.

'Any to Come' (ATC) or 'if cash' bets
    Wagers which include conditional bets, i.e. if part of the wager produces a sufficient return then a predetermined amount may be wagered on one or more of the other selections. ATC and 'if cash' bets (generally referred to as 'conditional bets') are normally not accepted on Ante-post selections.

Up-and-Down
    An example of an 'if cash' or 'any-to-come (ATC)' bet. A wager on two selections and consisting of two single bets. If one selection wins (hence the phrase 'if cash') then the original stake is placed as an additional single bet on the second selection. If both selections win each original stake is placed as a single on the other selection: in effect giving twice the winnings for just two stake units. The downside of only one winning selection is that both original stakes are lost.
    Usually played for 'single stakes about (SSA)' meaning stakes identical to the original ones are placed on selections in the case of one or more winners. 'Double stakes about (DSA)' means twice the original stake is placed on selections in the case of one or more winners. Note: an odds-on winner will not supply enough money for 'double stakes about' so the whole amount actually available is used.

Round Robin
    A wager on three selections and consisting of 10 separate bets: 3 doubles, 1 treble and 3 up-and-down bets (each of 2 separate bets). It may be considered to be a Trixie to which 3 up-and-down bets have been added. One winning selection will guarantee a return.

Flag
    A wager on four selections and consisting of 23 separate bets: 6 doubles, 4 trebles, 1 fourfold and 6 up-and-down bets. It may be considered to be a Yankee to which 6 up-and-down bets have been added. One winning selection will guarantee a return.

Super Flag
    A wager on five selections and consisting of 46 separate bets: 10 doubles, 10 trebles, 5 fourfolds, 1 fivefold and 10 up-and-down bets. It may be considered to be a Canadian to which 10 up-and-down bets have been added. One winning selection will guarantee a return.

Rounder
    A wager on three selections A, B and C consisting of 3 singles and 3 any-to-come (ATC) doubles to the original singles stakes. For example: £1 win A, ATC £1 double BC; £1 win B, ATC £1 double AC; £1 win C, ATC £1 double AB.

Roundabout
    As Rounder (above) except the ATC doubles are to twice the stake, e.g. £1 win A, ATC £2 double BC etc. Note: In the event of an odds-on winner the complete returns (less than £2 in this example) from the winning single are bet on the appropriate double.

Speciality bets
Union Jack

    A wager on nine selections usually placed in a 3 by 3 grid on a purpose-designed betting slip and consisting of 8 trebles. If the selections A to I are placed thus:

    A     B     C
    D     E     F
    G     H     I

    then the 8 trebles are (horizontally) ABC, DEF, GHI, (vertically) ADG, BEH, CFI, (diagonally) AEI, CEG. All three selections in a particular treble must win to achieve a return. It is possible to get five or even six winners from the nine selections and yet still not achieve any return (e.g. A, B, E, F, G do not give a winning treble in example 1, and A, B, D, F, H, I do not produce a return in example 2, as shown below).

    Example 1

    A     B     C
    D     E     F
    G     H     I

    Example 2

    A     B     C
    D     E     F
    G     H     I

    Note that selection E appears in 4 of the trebles; A, C, G and I appear in 3 trebles; B, D, F, and H appear in only 2 trebles.
    This is considered more of a novelty bet.

Forecasts
Forecasts are bets on a single event that require the correct forecasting of the finishing order of (usually) the first two or three finishers in the event. Returns on correctly predicted finishing orders are calculated by industry sources via computer software that uses the starting price of all participants in the event, and are usually declared to a £1 stake unit on (mainly) horse and greyhound races.
Straight Forecast
A straight forecast (SF) or computer straight forecast (CSF) is a wager requiring the naming of two selections a and b to finish 1st and 2nd in the correct order in a specified event. Requires a single unit stake. Usually declared on horse and greyhound races of three or more runners. Equivalent to the USA exacta or perfecta, or the Canadian exactor.

Reversed Forecast
A reversed forecast (RF) is a wager requiring the naming of two selections to finish 1st and 2nd in either order in a specified event. It is the same as two straight forecasts on selections a and b: a 1st, b 2nd and b 1st, a 2nd. Requires two unit stakes. Equivalent to a "boxed" exacta/perfecta in North America, where the quinella is a similar wager that requires only one unit stake.
Combination Forecast

A combination forecast is a wager on three or more named selections in order to choose two of the selections to finish 1st and 2nd in the correct order in a specified event. It is the same as the number of straight forecasts on selections a, b ... n given by the formula n(n − 1) and therefore requires this number of unit stakes. E.g. 3 selections - 6 bets; 4 selections - 12 bets; 5 selections - 20 bets; etc. Equivalent to boxing an exacta/perfecta with more than two runners in North America.

Tricast
A tricast is a wager requiring the choosing of three named selections a, b and c to finish 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the correct order in a specified event. Requires a single unit stake. Accepted on horse races where 8 or more horses are declared and at least 6 run, and on greyhound races of 5 or more runners that form part of the bookmakers' main service. In North America, this wager is known as the trifecta (USA) or triactor (Canada).

Combination Tricast
A combination tricast is a wager on three or more named selections in order to choose three selections to finish 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the correct order in a specified event. Requires multiple unit stakes given by n(n − 1) (n − 2) where n is the number of selections. E.g. 3 selections, 6 bets; 4 selections, 24 bets; 5 selections, 60 bets; etc. In North America, this is a "boxed" trifecta.

TOTE IRELAND

Tote Ireland Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Horse Racing Ireland, with responsibility for the operation of a Totalisator on the 25 racecourses in the Republic of Ireland. Tote Ireland is at the heart of Irish Horseracing, providing a wide variety of betting options for all race goers. All profits made by Tote Ireland are used for the improvement of Irish Horseracing. 'Tote' is short for Totalisator and Tote Betting is similar to the Irish lottery. It works like this: all the stakes on a race are pooled; a deduction is made to cover costs and our contribution to racing. The remainder of the pool is divided by the number of winning units to give a dividend, which is inclusive of a 1 stake.
In other words, Tote customers bet into a common pool, betting against one another, whereas in bookmaking, they bet against the bookmaker. Tote odds may fluctuate according to the pattern of betting and the amount of money staked on each horse. Betting ceases at the "off" of each race.

History
    * In 1929 the Totalisator Act was passed for mechanical pool betting in Ireland with the Totalisator borrowing 20,000IR punts from sponsored races. Its first meeting in Fairyhouse on the April 21, 1930, offered win and place betting from 35 windows and had a Tote turnover of 5,035IR punts. By the end of 1930, with its best meetings at Punchestown, The Curragh, Galway and Tramore, the Tote had sold million tickets at 87 race meeting amassing 100,000IR punts.
    * In 1932 Tote Account was established, accepting bets by telegram. Also that year Tote attracted investors to the company and seven years later in 1939 slot machines were introduced, operating a single machine for each horse. By their end in 1965 they had sold 60 million tickets.
    * 1945 saw the forming of the Racing Board and in 1966 the Tote Jackpot Bet was introduced.
    * In 1987 computerised terminals were introduced and the IHA (Irish Horseracing Authority) was formed in 1994.
    * In 1999 the Tote launched their self service Touch Tote Terminals and only a year later in 2000 they took an amazing 1 million IR punts turnover for a single days racing, at the Galway festival on August 3, 1999. This record was broken at Galway in 2003 and once again in 2005, surpassing all previous records with a single race days take reaching 1,914,558.05
    * In 2001 Tote commenced co-mingling into UK Tote pools and in 2004 table service betting was introduced. Online wagering was introduced on the December 14, 2005.

Tote Pools

Tote Ireland operates the following pools:

    * Win - Runner must finish first
    * Place - Runner must finish within the first two places (in a 5-7 runner race), three places (8-15 runners and non-handicaps with 16+ runners) or four places (handicaps with 16+ runners). (From 23 April 2000 to 23 May 2010, Tote Ireland operated 4-place betting on ALL races with 16 or more runners.)
    * Each-way - Charged and settled as one bet to win and another bet to place (for example, a punter asking for a bet of "five euro each way" will be expected to pay ten euro.)
    * Jackpot - A Pick 4 bet on races 3-6 at every meeting
    * Pick Six - On races 1-6 at one meeting on all Sundays and occasionally on other days (introduced on 9 January 2011).
    * Placepot The better must correctly pick one horse to place in each of the races 2-7.
    * Exacta - The bettor must correctly pick the two runners which finish first and second, in the correct order.
    * Trifecta - The bettor must correctly pick the three runners which finish first, second, and third, in the correct order (introduced on 26 May 2010).
    * Daily Double - The bettor must correctly pick the winners of race 5 and race 6 (introduced on 22 January 2011).

Tote Records

    * Largest single Jackpot winner = €207k Leopardstown 20/11/1988
    * Best Winning Odds: 1177/1 Naas 30/11/1988
    * Best Exacta Odds: 8,107/1 Galway 01/08/2001
    * Largest take single race: €437,686.15 Galway 29/07/2004
    * Largest take single race day: €1,914,558.05 Galway 28/07/2005

BETTING POOL

A betting pool, sports lottery, sweep or office pool if done at work, is a form of gambling, specifically a variant of parimutuel betting influenced by lotteries, where gamblers pay a fixed price into a pool (from which taxes and a house "take" or "vig" are removed), and then make a selection on some outcome, usually related to sport. In an informal game, the vig is usually quite small or non-existent. The pool is evenly divided between those that have made the correct selection. There are no odds involved; each winner's payoff depends simply on the number of gamblers and the number of winners. (True parimutuel betting, which was historically referred to as pool betting, involves both odds calculations and variable wager amounts.)
Contestants predict the outcome of sporting events that take place at a later time. The concept was introduced in 1923 by Littlewoods Pools where it was known as toto[clarification needed] and based on football (soccer) matches. Today in England, sports lotteries are more commonly referred to as football pools. American sports lotteries often do not require contestants to purchase a lottery ticket or make an initial wager. Hockey pools are common in North America, and footy tipping in Australia.

A death pool is a betting pool concerning the death of someone.

SPREAD BETTING

Spread betting is any of various types of wagering on the outcome of an event, where the pay-off is based on the accuracy of the wager, rather than a simple "win or lose" outcome, such as fixed-odds (or money-line) betting or parimutuel betting. A spread is a range of outcomes and the bet is whether the outcome will be above or below the spread. Spread betting has been a major growth market in the UK in recent years, with the number of gamblers heading towards one million. Spread betting carries a high level of risk, with potential losses or gains far in excess of the original money wagered. In the UK, spread betting is regulated by the Financial Services Authority rather than the Gambling Commission.

Purpose
The general purpose of spread betting is to create an active market for both sides of a binary wager, even if the outcome of an event may appear a priori (prima facie) to be biased towards one side or the other. In a sporting event a strong team may be matched up against a historically weaker team; almost every game will have a favorite and an underdog. If the wager is simply "Will the favorite win?", more bets are likely to be made for the favorite, possibly to such an extent that there would be very few betters willing to take the underdog.
The point spread is essentially a handicap towards the underdog. The wager becomes "Will the favorite win by more than the point spread?" The point spread can be moved to any level to create an equal number of participants on each side of the wager. This allows a bookmaker to make a market by accepting wagers on both sides of the spread. The bookmaker charges a commission, or vigorish, and acts as the counterparty for each participant. As long as the total amount wagered on each side is roughly equal, the bookmaker is unconcerned with the actual outcome; profits instead come from the commissions.
Because the spread is intended to create an equal number of wagers on either side, the implied probability is 50% for both sides of the wager. In order to profit, the bookmaker must pay one side (or both sides) less than this notional amount. In practice, spreads may be perceived as slightly favoring one side, and bookmakers will often revise their odds in order to manage their event risk.
Spreads in sports wagering
Spread betting was invented by Charles K. McNeil, a mathematics teacher from Connecticut who became a bookmaker in Chicago in the 1940s. The idea became popular in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. In North America, the gambler usually wagers that the difference between the scores of two teams will be less than or greater than the value specified by the bookmaker. An example:

    * The bookmaker advertises a spread of 4 points in a certain game;

        * If the gambler bets on the "underdog", he is said to take the points and will win if the underdog's score plus the spread is greater than the favorite's score.

            * The eventual score is Underdog 8, Favorite 10: 8 + 4 > 10, so the gambler wins;
            * The eventual score is Underdog 8, Favorite 13: 8 + 4 < 13, so the gambler loses.

        * If the gambler bets on the "favorite", he gives the points and will win if the favorite's score minus the spread is greater than the underdog's score:

            * The eventual score is Underdog 5, Favorite 10: 10 - 4 > 5, so the gambler wins;
            * The eventual score is Underdog 8, Favorite 10: 10 - 4 < 8, so the gambler loses.

Spreads are frequently, though not always, specified in half-point fractions to eliminate the possibility of a tie, known as a push. In the event of a push, the game is considered no action, and no money is won or lost. However, this is not a desirable outcome for the sports book, as they are forced to refund every bet, and although both the book and its bettors will be even, if the cost of overhead is taken into account, the book has actually lost money by taking bets on the event. Sports books are generally permitted to state "ties win" or "ties lose" to avoid the necessity of refunding every bet.

A teaser is a bet that alters the spread in the gambler's favor by a predetermined margin – in American football the teaser margin is often six points. For example, if the line is 3.5 points and the bettor wants to place a teaser bet on the underdog, he takes 9.5 points instead; a teaser bet on the favorite would mean that the gambler takes 2.5 points instead of having to give the 3.5. In return for the additional points, the payout if the gambler wins is less than even money. At some establishments, the "reverse teaser" also exists, which alters the spread against the gambler, who gets paid at more than evens if the bet wins.

Bets on the total (over/under)
In addition to the spread bet, a very common "side bet" on an event will be the total (commonly called the over/under or O/U) bet. This is a bet on the total number of points scored by both teams. Suppose the Cowboys are playing the Giants and the total is set at 44.5 points. If the final score is Cowboys 24, Giants 17, the total is 41 and bettors who took the under will win. If the final score is Cowboys 30, Giants 31, the total is 61 and bettors who took the over will win. The total is popular because it allows gamblers to bet on their overall perception of the game (e.g., a high-scoring offensive show or a defensive battle) without needing to pick the actual winner.
In the UK, these bets are sometimes called spread bets, but rather than a simple win/loss, the bet pays more or less depending on how far from the spread the final result is.
Example: In a football match the bookmaker believes that 12 or 13 corners will occur, thus the spread will be set at 12-13.

    * A gambler believes that there will be more than 13 corners, and "buys" at £25 a point at 13.

        * If the number of corners is 16, the gambler wins (16 - 13) = 3 x £25.
        * If the number of corners is 10, the gambler loses (13 - 10) = 3 x £25.

    * A "sell" transaction is similar except that it is made against the bottom value of the spread.
    * Often "live pricing" will change the spread during the course of an event, allowing a profit to be increased or a loss minimized.

In North American sports betting many of these wagers would be classified as over-under (or, more commonly today, total) bets rather than spread bets. However, these are for one side or another of a total only, and do not increase the amount won or lost as the actual moves away from the bookmaker's prediction. Instead, over-under or total bets are handled much like point-spread bets on a team, with the usual 10/11 (4.55%) commission applied. Many Nevada sports books will allow these bets to be used in parlays, just like team point spread bets, making it possible to bet, for instance, "the Packers and the over", and be paid if both the Packers "cover" the point spread and the total score is higher than the book's prediction. (Such parlays usually pay off at odds of 13:5 with no "vig", just as a standard two-team parlay would.)

Mathematics of spread betting

The mathematical analysis of spreads and spread betting is a large and growing subject. For example, sports that have simple 1-point scoring systems (e.g., baseball, hockey, and soccer) may be analysed using Poisson and Skellam statistics.
Financial spread betting
By far the largest part of the official market in the UK concerns financial instruments; the leading spread-betting companies make most of their revenues from financial markets, their sports operations being much less significant.[citation needed] Financial spread betting in the United Kingdom closely resembles the futures and options markets, the major differences being

    * the "charge" occurs through a wider bid-offer spread;
    * spread betting has a different tax regime compared with securities and futures exchanges (see below);
    * spread betting is more flexible since it is not limited to exchange hours or definitions, can create new instruments relatively easily (e.g. individual stock futures), and may have guaranteed stop losses (see below); and
    * the trading is off-exchange, with the contract existing directly between the market-making company and the client, rather than exchange-cleared, and is thus subject to a lower level of regulation although the spread betting companies themselves are some of the most regulated entities in the City of London.[citation needed]

Financial spread betting is a way to speculate on financial markets in the same way as trading a number of derivatives. In particular the financial derivative Contract for difference (CFD) which in many ways mirrors the spread bet. In fact a number of Financial derivate trading companies offer both financial spread bets and CFDs in parallel using the same trading platform.
Unlike fixed-odds betting, the amount won or lost can be unlimited as there is no single stake to limit any loss. However, it is usually possible to negotiate limits with the bookmaker:

    * A "stop loss" or "stop" will automatically close the bet if the spread moves against the gambler by a specified amount.
    * A "stop win", "limit" or "take profit" will close the bet when the spread moves in a gambler's favor by a specified amount.

Spread betting has moved outside the ambit of sport and financial markets (that is, those dealing solely with share, bonds and derivatives), to cover a wide range of markets, such as house prices.
In a falling stockmarket, financial spread betting can also be used by investors as a means of hedging against predicted losses in a portfolio of shares.
Tax treatment
In the UK and some other European countries the profit from spread betting is free from tax. The UK and some other European countries tax authorities designate financial spread betting as gambling and not investing, meaning it is free from capital gains tax and stamp tax, despite the fact that its regulated as a financial product by the Financial Services Authority in the UK. Most traders are also not liable for Income Tax unless they rely solely on their profits from financial spread betting to support themselves. The popularity of financial spread betting in the UK and some other European countries, compared to trading other speculative financial instruments such as CFDs and futures is partly due to this tax advantage. However, this also means any losses cannot be offset against future earnings for tax calculations.
Conversely, in most other countries financial spread betting income is considered taxable. For example the Australian Tax Office issued a decision in March 2010 saying "Yes, the gains from financial spread betting are assessable income under section 6-5 or section 15-15 of the ITAA 1997". Similarly, any losses on the spread betting contracts are deductible. This has resulted in a much lower interest in financial spread betting in those countries.
Financial spread bet example
Suppose Lloyds TSB is trading on the market at 410p bid, and 411p offer. A spread-betting company is also offering 410-411p. We use cash bets with no definite expiry, or "rolling daily bets" as they are referred to by the spread betting companies.
If I think the share price is going to go up, I might bet £10 a point (i.e., £10 per penny the shares moves) at 411p. We use the offer price since I am "buying" the share (betting on its increase). Note that my total loss (if LloydsTSB went to 0p) could be up to £4110, so this is as risky as buying 1000 of the shares normally.
If a bet goes overnight, the bettor is charged a financing cost (or receives it, if the bettor is shorting the stock). This might be set at LIBOR + a certain percentage, usually around 2/3%.
Thus, in the example, if Lloyds TSB are trading at 411p, then for every day I keep the bet open I am charged [taking finance cost to be 7%] ((411p x 10) * 7% / 365 ) = £0.78821 (or 78.8p)
On top of this, the bettor needs an amount (AKA collateral) in the spread-betting account to cover potential losses. Usually this is either 5 or 10% of the total exposure you are taking on but can go up to 100% on illiquid stocks. In this case £4110 * 0.1 or 0.05 = £411.00 or £ 205.50

If at the end of the bet Lloyds TSB traded at 400-401p, I need to cover that £4110 - £400*10 (£4000) = £110 difference by putting extra deposit (or collateral) into the account.
The bettor will usually receive all dividends and other corporate adjustments in the financing charge each night. For example, suppose Lloyds TSB goes ex-dividend with dividend of 23.5p. The bettor will receive that amount. The exact amount received varies depending on the rules and policies of the spread betting company, and the taxes that are normally charged in the home tax country of the shares.

Dangers of financial spread betting
According to an article in The Times dated 10 April 2009 approximately 30,000 spread bet accounts were opened last year, and that the largest study of gambling in the UK on behalf of the Gambling Commission found that serious problems developed in almost 15% of spread betters compared to 1% of other gambling. In addition a report from Cass Business School found that only 1 in 5 punters ends up a winner. As noted in the report, this corresponds to the same ratio of successful punters in regular trading.

ASIAN HANDICAP

An Asian Handicap (named so simply because of its Eastern origins) is a gambling term used to describe spread betting in soccer that has gained popularity over the years. The handicaps typically range from one quarter goal to several goals and can be described in terms of half or even quarter goals.
Most importantly, Asian Handicap betting reduces the possible number of outcomes from three (in traditional 1X2 wagering) to two by eliminating the draw outcome. This simplification delivers two betting options that each have a near 50% chance of success.
Asian Handicaps are both good and bad for bookmakers. On one hand, they help bookmakers minimize risk by facilitating trading with parity or balancing the amount of wagering on each side of the match. This enables bookmakers to take larger positions on major matches. On the other hand, Asian Handicap markets are typically low margin offerings that do not contribute as significantly to the gross win as other, higher vigorish betting options like 1X2.
The term Asian Handicap was applied to this method of betting by a journalist, Joe Saumarez Smith, in November 1998. He was asked by an Indonesia bookmaker, Joe Phan, to provide a translation of the betting method that was termed 'hang cheng betting' by bookmakers in Asia.

Description
Football (soccer) is one of the few sports in the world where a tie is a fairly common outcome. With traditional fixed odds, ties are treated as an additional outcome to the game. In other words, bettors lose when they place a wager on either team to win and the game ties. With Asian Handicaps, however, the chance for a tie is eliminated by use of a handicap that forces a winner. This creates a situation where each team has a 50-50 chance of winning; similar to the odds for a basketball or baseball game where a tie is impossible. This system works in a straight-forward manner. The bookmakers's goal is to create a handicap or "line" that will make the chance of either team winning (considering the handicap) as close to 50% as possible. Since the odds are as close to 50% as possible, bookmakers offer payouts close to even money, or 1.90 to 2.00. Asian Handicaps start at a quarter goal and can go as high as 2.5 or 3 goals in matches with a huge disparity in ability. What makes Asian Handicaps most interesting is the use of quarter goals to get the "line" as close as possible. Taken in conjunction with the posted total for the game, the handicap essentially predicts the game's final score.

Quarter Goal or Two Way Handicaps
Subsequently, many matches are handicapped in ½ and ¼ intervals; both of which eliminate the possibility of a push since no one can score a half-goal. Quarter (¼) handicaps split the bet between the two next closest ¼ intervals. For instance, a $1000 bet with a handicap of 1 ¾ is the same as betting $500 at 1 ½ and $500 at 2. With ¼ handicap bets, you can win and tie (win ½ of wager) or lose and tie (lose ½ wager). The ¼-goal handicap may be expressed by some bookmakers as "0 and ½", or (especially for bookmakers whose systems are designed for sports like American football and basketball (where bets have a handicap that is designed to make the odds as close to even as possible)) as "pk (for "pick-em") and ½".

Match: Everton vs. Newcastle United

Handicap: 0 : +1.0, +1.5

Explained: This handicap states that half of your bet goes on Newcastle winning, or losing by less than 1 goal, and half on Newcastle winning, or losing by less than 1.5 goals.
If the final score is Everton 1-0 Newcastle, half your bet would be refunded due to draw (Everton 1 - +1 Newcastle, i.e: Newcastle lost by exactly one goal). The second half would win (Everton 1 - +1.5 Newcastle, i.e: Newcastle lost by less than 1.5 goals).
Whole Handicaps and Draws
In the event that a whole number is used for the handicap, the handicap adjusted final score could result in a draw. This situation is not a draw, but a push. With a push, all bettors have their original wagers returned as there is no winner.