The chicken or the egg question: Who pays the juice when 2 people are laying -110. The winner or the loser ? The 2 sides;
The winner pays it because he risked 110 and only got back 100 so therefore its clearly the winner. The winner always pays. Losers play for "free".
The other arguement is that the loser pays the juice because the winner gets back everything he risked and even more, so of course its the loser who pays it. If you never ever lost a bet you would never ever pay juice.
Which one's right? Guess there's no right answer. Or is there.....
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
The chicken or the egg question: Who pays the juice when 2 people are laying -110. The winner or the loser ? The 2 sides;
The winner pays it because he risked 110 and only got back 100 so therefore its clearly the winner. The winner always pays. Losers play for "free".
The other arguement is that the loser pays the juice because the winner gets back everything he risked and even more, so of course its the loser who pays it. If you never ever lost a bet you would never ever pay juice.
Which one's right? Guess there's no right answer. Or is there.....
If there was no vig and just a bet between 2 friends i would have gotten his entire 110. therefore I'm paying. Again, no right answer, just 2 ways of looking at it.
0
If there was no vig and just a bet between 2 friends i would have gotten his entire 110. therefore I'm paying. Again, no right answer, just 2 ways of looking at it.
play 110.00 to win 100.00 WIN=100.00+110.00 laid=210.00 how do u lose?
If it was just betwwen me and a buddy I ,(the winner) would have gotten back more money. Its costing ME money. The casino is taking a small part of MY winnings. The loser wouldve had the same outcome whether he bet with a friend or the casino. Just my opinion. You could go round and round forever with it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ASkinsFanInDixi:
play 110.00 to win 100.00 WIN=100.00+110.00 laid=210.00 how do u lose?
If it was just betwwen me and a buddy I ,(the winner) would have gotten back more money. Its costing ME money. The casino is taking a small part of MY winnings. The loser wouldve had the same outcome whether he bet with a friend or the casino. Just my opinion. You could go round and round forever with it.
If you went 100-0 you would pay 9% vig on every bet ( 110 minus 10 for vig. ) If you went 0-100 what vig do you pay? Nothing . There's nothing to take a vig FROM. I will keep reading because I'm curious how others see it but wont make any more posts. My position is clear. Have a good week, everyone.
0
If you went 100-0 you would pay 9% vig on every bet ( 110 minus 10 for vig. ) If you went 0-100 what vig do you pay? Nothing . There's nothing to take a vig FROM. I will keep reading because I'm curious how others see it but wont make any more posts. My position is clear. Have a good week, everyone.
All I know is that if you and your friend both make a bet on say the Yankees game for $100 each, and you play it under 8 and he plays it over and the final score is 3-2 The Casino/Sportsbook pays you $90 and change out of the $100 that your friend lost and they keep $9 and change for their troubles of handling the transaction.
Initially you both paid in for a chance at winning against the other, it is just a matter of who came out on the winning side.
Unless you are trying to explain it in a different way.
0
All I know is that if you and your friend both make a bet on say the Yankees game for $100 each, and you play it under 8 and he plays it over and the final score is 3-2 The Casino/Sportsbook pays you $90 and change out of the $100 that your friend lost and they keep $9 and change for their troubles of handling the transaction.
Initially you both paid in for a chance at winning against the other, it is just a matter of who came out on the winning side.
Unless you are trying to explain it in a different way.
The chicken or the egg question: Who pays the juice when 2 people are laying -110. The winner or the loser ? The 2 sides;
The winner pays it because he risked 110 and only got back 100 so therefore its clearly the winner. The winner always pays. Losers play for "free".
The other arguement is that the loser pays the juice because the winner gets back everything he risked and even more, so of course its the loser who pays it. If you never ever lost a bet you would never ever pay juice.
Which one's right? Guess there's no right answer. Or is there.....
Forget about who pays juice...what matters the most is where do you stand overall...are you a loser overall or a winner overall.
Give yourself a pat on the back if overall you are still beating the man ever since you have started your gambling career.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 4degreeswarmer:
The chicken or the egg question: Who pays the juice when 2 people are laying -110. The winner or the loser ? The 2 sides;
The winner pays it because he risked 110 and only got back 100 so therefore its clearly the winner. The winner always pays. Losers play for "free".
The other arguement is that the loser pays the juice because the winner gets back everything he risked and even more, so of course its the loser who pays it. If you never ever lost a bet you would never ever pay juice.
Which one's right? Guess there's no right answer. Or is there.....
Forget about who pays juice...what matters the most is where do you stand overall...are you a loser overall or a winner overall.
Give yourself a pat on the back if overall you are still beating the man ever since you have started your gambling career.
If it was just betwwen me and a buddy I ,(the winner) would have gotten back more money. Its costing ME money. The casino is taking a small part of MY winnings. The loser wouldve had the same outcome whether he bet with a friend or the casino. Just my opinion. You could go round and round forever with it.
you could also argue are you paying jucie when betting money line? If its say -150, those are jus the odds that the plays wins, so thats why ur betting 150 to win 100. Becuase one is more liekly than the other. Meanwhile why when u bet the dog u can bet 100 to win 150, less likely to happen. Whereas with spreads, the odds are supposed to be 50-50, yet ur still paying more than you can win.
Like hugh said, its all semantics
0
Quote Originally Posted by 4degreeswarmer:
If it was just betwwen me and a buddy I ,(the winner) would have gotten back more money. Its costing ME money. The casino is taking a small part of MY winnings. The loser wouldve had the same outcome whether he bet with a friend or the casino. Just my opinion. You could go round and round forever with it.
you could also argue are you paying jucie when betting money line? If its say -150, those are jus the odds that the plays wins, so thats why ur betting 150 to win 100. Becuase one is more liekly than the other. Meanwhile why when u bet the dog u can bet 100 to win 150, less likely to happen. Whereas with spreads, the odds are supposed to be 50-50, yet ur still paying more than you can win.
(I realize my explanation below won't convince anyone who already has their mind made up, but here goes.)
Assume I make a bet for x amount of dollars. You don't know what x is. Assume I lose. I'm out x dollars. Did I pay any juice? You don't know and there is no way to determine it. There may have been no juice at all. For example, I may have betting x amount of dollars to win x amount of dollars with a friend. x might be 110 dollars and if so you might assume I'm betting 110 to win 100, but you don't know for sure. And if you don't know what I expect to get back, you can't say for sure I'm paying any juice or that there is any juice.
Now, again assume I make a bet for x amount of dollars. This time I win the bet. And again, until I tell you how much I won, you still don't know a thing. But if tell you the total amount returned to me, including my bet, is x * 1.909, NOW you can determine WHAT the juice was and that "I" paid it.
I paid it because with no juice I should have gotten back (x * 2).
It makes no difference at all if the money is paid up front or via a local bookie who just pays the winners afterwords. That's completely irrelevant.
Winners always pay the juice. They always pay it because they always get back LESS than if there was no juice at all. And the amount they get back less, is the amount of juice they paid.
0
The winner always pays the juice.
(I realize my explanation below won't convince anyone who already has their mind made up, but here goes.)
Assume I make a bet for x amount of dollars. You don't know what x is. Assume I lose. I'm out x dollars. Did I pay any juice? You don't know and there is no way to determine it. There may have been no juice at all. For example, I may have betting x amount of dollars to win x amount of dollars with a friend. x might be 110 dollars and if so you might assume I'm betting 110 to win 100, but you don't know for sure. And if you don't know what I expect to get back, you can't say for sure I'm paying any juice or that there is any juice.
Now, again assume I make a bet for x amount of dollars. This time I win the bet. And again, until I tell you how much I won, you still don't know a thing. But if tell you the total amount returned to me, including my bet, is x * 1.909, NOW you can determine WHAT the juice was and that "I" paid it.
I paid it because with no juice I should have gotten back (x * 2).
It makes no difference at all if the money is paid up front or via a local bookie who just pays the winners afterwords. That's completely irrelevant.
Winners always pay the juice. They always pay it because they always get back LESS than if there was no juice at all. And the amount they get back less, is the amount of juice they paid.
Holy shit guys I'm the 24th post and nobody has put this to rest yet? I didn't even look through the responses I had to get my laughter out.
If I lay -110 and win... I win $100
If I lay -110 and lose ... I lose $110 ($100 bet loss +$10 juice, essentially).
The loser pays the juice.... he pays the juice, he pays the whole bet, he pays the bookie.
The winner doesn't pay anyone. He gets paid, definitely doesn't pay any fucking juice (are you kidding me?), probably goes out and spends the money on overpriced weed, and spends way too much buying everyone shots at the bar.
........okay now that I put it that way...... the winner pays the juice ..... just a joke, don't make this the next subject of debate.
Okay, now we don't need a page 2 right?
0
Holy shit guys I'm the 24th post and nobody has put this to rest yet? I didn't even look through the responses I had to get my laughter out.
If I lay -110 and win... I win $100
If I lay -110 and lose ... I lose $110 ($100 bet loss +$10 juice, essentially).
The loser pays the juice.... he pays the juice, he pays the whole bet, he pays the bookie.
The winner doesn't pay anyone. He gets paid, definitely doesn't pay any fucking juice (are you kidding me?), probably goes out and spends the money on overpriced weed, and spends way too much buying everyone shots at the bar.
........okay now that I put it that way...... the winner pays the juice ..... just a joke, don't make this the next subject of debate.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
..... just a joke, don't make this the next subject of debate.
Hot Forum Topics
