Funny how 5 minutes ago I was looking down on the stupidity of covers posters and laughing saying ' I LOVE COVERS '!
...then had a moment of uncertainty...
...figured it out!
And now I'm dancing in the end zone with my weiner out like the fastest crippled kid playing special olympics football, celebrating my successes which are only attributed to flat competition at 3 AM
Like I said, I love covers.
0
Feels good I just wanna dance it out.
Funny how 5 minutes ago I was looking down on the stupidity of covers posters and laughing saying ' I LOVE COVERS '!
...then had a moment of uncertainty...
...figured it out!
And now I'm dancing in the end zone with my weiner out like the fastest crippled kid playing special olympics football, celebrating my successes which are only attributed to flat competition at 3 AM
lol its all how you look at it but ya both pay the juice lose or win, losers pay juice out of pocket and winners pay juice with their winnings(how can you not count winning 10% less then your bet anything but juice), anyways parlay it and fuck the juice, god its 6am and i cant sleep...
0
lol its all how you look at it but ya both pay the juice lose or win, losers pay juice out of pocket and winners pay juice with their winnings(how can you not count winning 10% less then your bet anything but juice), anyways parlay it and fuck the juice, god its 6am and i cant sleep...
(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.
Bingo.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ed-Collins:
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.
Why would you charge your friend juice in a friendly wager if you were not booking action regularly
You wouldnt charge a friend juice. That's what I'm saying. So when you add a bookie to the equation, what changes ? Who is financially affected by the presence of a bookie? The winner is. Winner pays the vig.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:
Why would you charge your friend juice in a friendly wager if you were not booking action regularly
You wouldnt charge a friend juice. That's what I'm saying. So when you add a bookie to the equation, what changes ? Who is financially affected by the presence of a bookie? The winner is. Winner pays the vig.
people who make posts this stupid should be put in the penalty box. i had respect for vanzack too until his dumb post agreeing with someone saying the winner pays the juice. vig is just expected value math/probability. you can't look at it like 'who pays the juice'. the ignorance. *sigh*
0
people who make posts this stupid should be put in the penalty box. i had respect for vanzack too until his dumb post agreeing with someone saying the winner pays the juice. vig is just expected value math/probability. you can't look at it like 'who pays the juice'. the ignorance. *sigh*
I really don't think so. See what I said and show me where I am wrong.
In my opinon, the fact that the loser doesn't know if he paid is your flaw in the argument. This doesn't matter - his money pays the winner, so while the winner loses a portion that he could have won, it is pure profit being paid for by the loser, and the juice, which goes to the bookie, is not taken out the winner's pocket because it is the LOSERS money.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Bingo.
I really don't think so. See what I said and show me where I am wrong.
In my opinon, the fact that the loser doesn't know if he paid is your flaw in the argument. This doesn't matter - his money pays the winner, so while the winner loses a portion that he could have won, it is pure profit being paid for by the loser, and the juice, which goes to the bookie, is not taken out the winner's pocket because it is the LOSERS money.
(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.
You got it right on sir. Losers actually play for free, they dont pay the "vig" only winners pay the vig. If I bet 110 to win 100, that extra 10 i have to bet is the vig. but if I lose i just lose 110..i dont have to give the sports book more money. Think of it this way, for every dollar i wanna win I have to bet 1.10. Check out this article it explains it in better detail https://www.professionalgambler.com/vigorish.html
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ed-Collins:
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.
You got it right on sir. Losers actually play for free, they dont pay the "vig" only winners pay the vig. If I bet 110 to win 100, that extra 10 i have to bet is the vig. but if I lose i just lose 110..i dont have to give the sports book more money. Think of it this way, for every dollar i wanna win I have to bet 1.10. Check out this article it explains it in better detail https://www.professionalgambler.com/vigorish.html
You wouldnt charge a friend juice. That's what I'm saying. So when you add a bookie to the equation, what changes ? Who is financially affected by the presence of a bookie? The winner is. Winner pays the vig.
You guys can say whatever you'd like, but the bottom line is the question is being asked who pays the juice.....
That answer is simply the loser is....the winner is not paying juice, but receiving back less than what was put up....had the winner indeed lost the wager then he would have paid $45 in vig to the bookie...
In the spirit of the question that is the answer....receiveng back less money than what you put up is not related to the question....the question was clearly who pays the juice and that is most definitely the loser.....
That's if you take the question as it is simply stated....
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
0
Quote Originally Posted by 4degreeswarmer:
You wouldnt charge a friend juice. That's what I'm saying. So when you add a bookie to the equation, what changes ? Who is financially affected by the presence of a bookie? The winner is. Winner pays the vig.
You guys can say whatever you'd like, but the bottom line is the question is being asked who pays the juice.....
That answer is simply the loser is....the winner is not paying juice, but receiving back less than what was put up....had the winner indeed lost the wager then he would have paid $45 in vig to the bookie...
In the spirit of the question that is the answer....receiveng back less money than what you put up is not related to the question....the question was clearly who pays the juice and that is most definitely the loser.....
That's if you take the question as it is simply stated....
people who make posts this stupid should be put in the penalty box. i had respect for vanzack too until his dumb post agreeing with someone saying the winner pays the juice. vig is just expected value math/probability. you can't look at it like 'who pays the juice'. the ignorance. *sigh*
Another moron who no longer respects me.
Get in line.
Look - the discussion is one of semantics - but one that most automatically assume that losers pay the juice. It depends on a lot of factors how you debate this - and it can turn in to a chicken or egg - but to dismiss that winners pay vig is wrong. Winners get paid less than they should, and therefore pay vig.
Thats why I always laugh when I read posts that line and price shopping is irrelevant if you pick winners. Not true. If I bet a side at -110, and I could have gotten it at -105, I am risking more to win less - in other words - I have basically given the house money for nothing (vig).
I desperately hope there is some way I can earn your respect again. Dope.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by tigerw05:
people who make posts this stupid should be put in the penalty box. i had respect for vanzack too until his dumb post agreeing with someone saying the winner pays the juice. vig is just expected value math/probability. you can't look at it like 'who pays the juice'. the ignorance. *sigh*
Another moron who no longer respects me.
Get in line.
Look - the discussion is one of semantics - but one that most automatically assume that losers pay the juice. It depends on a lot of factors how you debate this - and it can turn in to a chicken or egg - but to dismiss that winners pay vig is wrong. Winners get paid less than they should, and therefore pay vig.
Thats why I always laugh when I read posts that line and price shopping is irrelevant if you pick winners. Not true. If I bet a side at -110, and I could have gotten it at -105, I am risking more to win less - in other words - I have basically given the house money for nothing (vig).
I desperately hope there is some way I can earn your respect again. Dope.
I to do accounting and that is how I view it....but only in the true sense of the word "Pay" as it is stated in the title......
Otherwise the other guys are correct because vig is imposed on both parties regardless of whether you win or lose....But it's hard to fathom how one pays anything when you win....you just don't collect as much, but you don't pay in the true sense of the word...however the risk is there for both parties regardless, but that wasn't the question being asked....
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
0
I to do accounting and that is how I view it....but only in the true sense of the word "Pay" as it is stated in the title......
Otherwise the other guys are correct because vig is imposed on both parties regardless of whether you win or lose....But it's hard to fathom how one pays anything when you win....you just don't collect as much, but you don't pay in the true sense of the word...however the risk is there for both parties regardless, but that wasn't the question being asked....
Look - the discussion is one of semantics - but one that most automatically assume that losers pay the juice. It depends on a lot of factors how you debate this - and it can turn in to a chicken or egg - but to dismiss that winners pay vig is wrong. Winners get paid less than they should, and therefore pay vig.
Thats why I always laugh when I read posts that line and price shopping is irrelevant if you pick winners. Not true. If I bet a side at -110, and I could have gotten it at -105, I am risking more to win less - in other words - I have basically given the house money for nothing (vig).
I desperately hope there is some way I can earn your respect again. Dope.
and it is always hard to argue with your logic because your rationale of thinking is unlike most out there
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Another moron who no longer respects me.
Get in line.
Look - the discussion is one of semantics - but one that most automatically assume that losers pay the juice. It depends on a lot of factors how you debate this - and it can turn in to a chicken or egg - but to dismiss that winners pay vig is wrong. Winners get paid less than they should, and therefore pay vig.
Thats why I always laugh when I read posts that line and price shopping is irrelevant if you pick winners. Not true. If I bet a side at -110, and I could have gotten it at -105, I am risking more to win less - in other words - I have basically given the house money for nothing (vig).
I desperately hope there is some way I can earn your respect again. Dope.
and it is always hard to argue with your logic because your rationale of thinking is unlike most out there
The winner doesnt PAY any juice, is this seriously a thread?
I see where the OP is coming from, but it doesnt follow any logical sense, and Vanzack, i opened this thread looking for you to refute the OP, not agree with him...
how can you pay, if you arent losing? its just probability that makes it SEEM that way...
the same thing applies to a bet on say -200 odds. The line tells you that there is a 2:1 chance of that side winning every time those two teams meet. You are betting on the MOST LIKELY OUTCOME, therefore you have to RISK more, but you arent PAYING anything until you LOSE.
you get LESS back because that is the EXPECTED outcome of the event.
The ONLY time juice is ever paid is on a losing wager with odds below +100
On a 10 cent book, say we have team A and team B Team A is -110 Team B is +100 if there is even action on both teams
bettors bet $110 to win $100 on Team A bettors bet $100 to win $100 on Team B
If Team A wins, the books get NO JUICE (they even out) because Team B is +100, and the winner gets his $110 BACK plus $100
You are arguing that the bettor should be getting back $110 if he bets $110, and thats the "juice", however you fail to realize that the odds of probability affect the wager, and that is why you have to bet more and get less in return
0
The winner doesnt PAY any juice, is this seriously a thread?
I see where the OP is coming from, but it doesnt follow any logical sense, and Vanzack, i opened this thread looking for you to refute the OP, not agree with him...
how can you pay, if you arent losing? its just probability that makes it SEEM that way...
the same thing applies to a bet on say -200 odds. The line tells you that there is a 2:1 chance of that side winning every time those two teams meet. You are betting on the MOST LIKELY OUTCOME, therefore you have to RISK more, but you arent PAYING anything until you LOSE.
you get LESS back because that is the EXPECTED outcome of the event.
The ONLY time juice is ever paid is on a losing wager with odds below +100
On a 10 cent book, say we have team A and team B Team A is -110 Team B is +100 if there is even action on both teams
bettors bet $110 to win $100 on Team A bettors bet $100 to win $100 on Team B
If Team A wins, the books get NO JUICE (they even out) because Team B is +100, and the winner gets his $110 BACK plus $100
You are arguing that the bettor should be getting back $110 if he bets $110, and thats the "juice", however you fail to realize that the odds of probability affect the wager, and that is why you have to bet more and get less in return
Look - the discussion is one of semantics - but one that most automatically assume that losers pay the juice. It depends on a lot of factors how you debate this - and it can turn in to a chicken or egg - but to dismiss that winners pay vig is wrong. Winners get paid less than they should, and therefore pay vig.
Thats why I always laugh when I read posts that line and price shopping is irrelevant if you pick winners. Not true. If I bet a side at -110, and I could have gotten it at -105, I am risking more to win less - in other words - I have basically given the house money for nothing (vig).
I desperately hope there is some way I can earn your respect again. Dope.
Just wanted to get your response to how I said it. You can make an argument for either said but I think ultimately when you pay juice as the winner, it is coming out of the losers pocket, loser pays the juice. And nobody would reasonable argue that price shopping is pointless no matter which side 'pays' the juice.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Another moron who no longer respects me.
Get in line.
Look - the discussion is one of semantics - but one that most automatically assume that losers pay the juice. It depends on a lot of factors how you debate this - and it can turn in to a chicken or egg - but to dismiss that winners pay vig is wrong. Winners get paid less than they should, and therefore pay vig.
Thats why I always laugh when I read posts that line and price shopping is irrelevant if you pick winners. Not true. If I bet a side at -110, and I could have gotten it at -105, I am risking more to win less - in other words - I have basically given the house money for nothing (vig).
I desperately hope there is some way I can earn your respect again. Dope.
Just wanted to get your response to how I said it. You can make an argument for either said but I think ultimately when you pay juice as the winner, it is coming out of the losers pocket, loser pays the juice. And nobody would reasonable argue that price shopping is pointless no matter which side 'pays' the juice.
You got it right on sir. Losers actually play for free, they dont pay the "vig" only winners pay the vig. If I bet 110 to win 100, that extra 10 i have to bet is the vig. but if I lose i just lose 110..i dont have to give the sports book more money. Think of it this way, for every dollar i wanna win I have to bet 1.10. Check out this article it explains it in better detail https://www.professionalgambler.com/vigorish.html
Exactly. Glad to know that a few others understand get it. And of course I knew Van would.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dogbettor71861:
You got it right on sir. Losers actually play for free, they dont pay the "vig" only winners pay the vig. If I bet 110 to win 100, that extra 10 i have to bet is the vig. but if I lose i just lose 110..i dont have to give the sports book more money. Think of it this way, for every dollar i wanna win I have to bet 1.10. Check out this article it explains it in better detail https://www.professionalgambler.com/vigorish.html
Exactly. Glad to know that a few others understand get it. And of course I knew Van would.
Winner only profits.
Feels good 
I just wanna dance it out.
Hot Forum Topics
