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.....
This is why Vegas and bookies make so much fucking money, because there are fucking morons like this guy that have no fucking clue...wow.
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.....
This is why Vegas and bookies make so much fucking money, because there are fucking morons like this guy that have no fucking clue...wow.
(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.
i understand what you're trying to say, but it can be argued both ways. you have guy A wager five separate dollar bets, he goes 5-0 and collects $500. guy B wagers five separate dollar bets and has a terrible weekend and goes 0-5 and pays the $500 + the %10 on each bet so another $50 for a total of $550.
So guy B pays the juice, while guy A risked the juice, but did not pay it.
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.
i understand what you're trying to say, but it can be argued both ways. you have guy A wager five separate dollar bets, he goes 5-0 and collects $500. guy B wagers five separate dollar bets and has a terrible weekend and goes 0-5 and pays the $500 + the %10 on each bet so another $50 for a total of $550.
So guy B pays the juice, while guy A risked the juice, but did not pay it.
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
If I wager $100 to win $75.00, then I am risking $100 for the opportunity to win $100 (or "paying" $25.00). If you win the bet, the money never leaves your pocket. So maybe "paying" is the wrong word. But to win $75, it required that you put up $100....so the cost of making that play is $25.....although it never leaves your pocket if you win.
A lot of semantics for sure.
But it's just like people say juice doesn't matter if you win. Yes it does because wagers are evaluated BEFORE the event. Would you pay -300 to back the Yankees tonight? Of course not. But folks should also apply this to lines that are closer....say -110 v. -105. It has everything to do with risk (or the amount you "pay" to have the right to make a bet so to speak).
0
Quote Originally Posted by Strategic_Bets:
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
If I wager $100 to win $75.00, then I am risking $100 for the opportunity to win $100 (or "paying" $25.00). If you win the bet, the money never leaves your pocket. So maybe "paying" is the wrong word. But to win $75, it required that you put up $100....so the cost of making that play is $25.....although it never leaves your pocket if you win.
A lot of semantics for sure.
But it's just like people say juice doesn't matter if you win. Yes it does because wagers are evaluated BEFORE the event. Would you pay -300 to back the Yankees tonight? Of course not. But folks should also apply this to lines that are closer....say -110 v. -105. It has everything to do with risk (or the amount you "pay" to have the right to make a bet so to speak).
If I wager $100 to win $75.00, then I am risking $100 for the opportunity to win $100 (or "paying" $25.00). If you win the bet, the money never leaves your pocket. So maybe "paying" is the wrong word. But to win $75, it required that you put up $100....so the cost of making that play is $25.....although it never leaves your pocket if you win.
A lot of semantics for sure.
But it's just like people say juice doesn't matter if you win. Yes it does because wagers are evaluated BEFORE the event. Would you pay -300 to back the Yankees tonight? Of course not. But folks should also apply this to lines that are closer....say -110 v. -105. It has everything to do with risk (or the amount you "pay" to have the right to make a bet so to speak).
buy technically you're not paying the -300, you're RISKING it, there's a difference. just like if you take them at -110, you are risking $110 to win $110, I just don't understand how Vanzack can say the winner pays the juice It is an understood risk that is taken before the bet is placed.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
If I wager $100 to win $75.00, then I am risking $100 for the opportunity to win $100 (or "paying" $25.00). If you win the bet, the money never leaves your pocket. So maybe "paying" is the wrong word. But to win $75, it required that you put up $100....so the cost of making that play is $25.....although it never leaves your pocket if you win.
A lot of semantics for sure.
But it's just like people say juice doesn't matter if you win. Yes it does because wagers are evaluated BEFORE the event. Would you pay -300 to back the Yankees tonight? Of course not. But folks should also apply this to lines that are closer....say -110 v. -105. It has everything to do with risk (or the amount you "pay" to have the right to make a bet so to speak).
buy technically you're not paying the -300, you're RISKING it, there's a difference. just like if you take them at -110, you are risking $110 to win $110, I just don't understand how Vanzack can say the winner pays the juice It is an understood risk that is taken before the bet is placed.
Hey CMO, you just said yourself it can be argued both ways. That's all I did . I just proposed the question. So why am I a moron but you can ask the same question but yet you know everything?
0
Hey CMO, you just said yourself it can be argued both ways. That's all I did . I just proposed the question. So why am I a moron but you can ask the same question but yet you know everything?
Hey CMO, you just said yourself it can be argued both ways. That's all I did . I just proposed the question. So why am I a moron but you can ask the same question but yet you know everything?
i said it could be argued both ways, but both way aren't correct. you should continue wasting your time looking for dumbass pictures to put as your avatar, and leave the gambling to the grown-ups.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 4degreeswarmer:
Hey CMO, you just said yourself it can be argued both ways. That's all I did . I just proposed the question. So why am I a moron but you can ask the same question but yet you know everything?
i said it could be argued both ways, but both way aren't correct. you should continue wasting your time looking for dumbass pictures to put as your avatar, and leave the gambling to the grown-ups.
i said it could be argued both ways, but both way aren't correct. you should continue wasting your time looking for dumbass pictures to put as your avatar, and leave the gambling to the grown-ups.
Look pal - I consider myself a grownup, and the original posters point is an interesting one - and thought provoking - and shouldnt be dismissed with lame insults.
It is largely a question of semantics, but the point that I will hijack from the OP is that people think when they win they dont pay vig, and whether you want to call it vig or lost opportunity cost or whatever, when you dont win as much as you should because of a house hold - you are in my eyes paying vig.
In your example of laying -300, some of that is house hold or vig. All 300 of that is NOT your risk. The actual risk is a midpoint (not really, but for purposes of illustration) between the dog price and the fav price - and since you are not laying -280 - YOU ARE LAYING VIG.
So go ahead, get annoyed, call me a name - Im not trying to split hairs here over semantics - but you are flat wrong if you think it is a dumb discussion.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cmo1037:
i said it could be argued both ways, but both way aren't correct. you should continue wasting your time looking for dumbass pictures to put as your avatar, and leave the gambling to the grown-ups.
Look pal - I consider myself a grownup, and the original posters point is an interesting one - and thought provoking - and shouldnt be dismissed with lame insults.
It is largely a question of semantics, but the point that I will hijack from the OP is that people think when they win they dont pay vig, and whether you want to call it vig or lost opportunity cost or whatever, when you dont win as much as you should because of a house hold - you are in my eyes paying vig.
In your example of laying -300, some of that is house hold or vig. All 300 of that is NOT your risk. The actual risk is a midpoint (not really, but for purposes of illustration) between the dog price and the fav price - and since you are not laying -280 - YOU ARE LAYING VIG.
So go ahead, get annoyed, call me a name - Im not trying to split hairs here over semantics - but you are flat wrong if you think it is a dumb discussion.
just retorting from his "box drip" comment. if i take a line from my local, i know it will cost me a 10% vig if i lose, it is what it is, i don't have to place the bet. However, if i do choose to gamble, if I lose I know i will have to pay the 10% juice. I know if i win i win what i bet, so by you saying that i "don't win as much as you should" is not true. and for the -300 example, yes, you are risking 330 to win 300, and if you don't think that you are then you shouldn't be betting. If you are not aware enough to know that if you lose you will be owing $330 then you should not bet it. I'm not annoyed, and I'm not going to call you any names-and by you saying that I am flat wrong is just fine, that is your opinion. Never said it was a dumb discussion, I just can't believe you are buying into this. answer me this...what would you do if Matchbook went under tomorrow? I know it is HIGHLY unlikely, but what if tomorrow somehow someway the went down. Would you stop betting?
0
just retorting from his "box drip" comment. if i take a line from my local, i know it will cost me a 10% vig if i lose, it is what it is, i don't have to place the bet. However, if i do choose to gamble, if I lose I know i will have to pay the 10% juice. I know if i win i win what i bet, so by you saying that i "don't win as much as you should" is not true. and for the -300 example, yes, you are risking 330 to win 300, and if you don't think that you are then you shouldn't be betting. If you are not aware enough to know that if you lose you will be owing $330 then you should not bet it. I'm not annoyed, and I'm not going to call you any names-and by you saying that I am flat wrong is just fine, that is your opinion. Never said it was a dumb discussion, I just can't believe you are buying into this. answer me this...what would you do if Matchbook went under tomorrow? I know it is HIGHLY unlikely, but what if tomorrow somehow someway the went down. Would you stop betting?
just retorting from his "box drip" comment. if i take a line from my local, i know it will cost me a 10% vig if i lose, it is what it is, i don't have to place the bet. However, if i do choose to gamble, if I lose I know i will have to pay the 10% juice. I know if i win i win what i bet, so by you saying that i "don't win as much as you should" is not true. and for the -300 example, yes, you are risking 330 to win 300, and if you don't think that you are then you shouldn't be betting. If you are not aware enough to know that if you lose you will be owing $330 then you should not bet it. I'm not annoyed, and I'm not going to call you any names-and by you saying that I am flat wrong is just fine, that is your opinion. Never said it was a dumb discussion, I just can't believe you are buying into this. answer me this...what would you do if Matchbook went under tomorrow? I know it is HIGHLY unlikely, but what if tomorrow somehow someway the went down. Would you stop betting?
Im not sure what you are asking.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cmo1037:
just retorting from his "box drip" comment. if i take a line from my local, i know it will cost me a 10% vig if i lose, it is what it is, i don't have to place the bet. However, if i do choose to gamble, if I lose I know i will have to pay the 10% juice. I know if i win i win what i bet, so by you saying that i "don't win as much as you should" is not true. and for the -300 example, yes, you are risking 330 to win 300, and if you don't think that you are then you shouldn't be betting. If you are not aware enough to know that if you lose you will be owing $330 then you should not bet it. I'm not annoyed, and I'm not going to call you any names-and by you saying that I am flat wrong is just fine, that is your opinion. Never said it was a dumb discussion, I just can't believe you are buying into this. answer me this...what would you do if Matchbook went under tomorrow? I know it is HIGHLY unlikely, but what if tomorrow somehow someway the went down. Would you stop betting?
just retorting from his "box drip" comment. if i take a line from my local, i know it will cost me a 10% vig if i lose, it is what it is, i don't have to place the bet. However, if i do choose to gamble, if I lose I know i will have to pay the 10% juice. I know if i win i win what i bet, so by you saying that i "don't win as much as you should" is not true. and for the -300 example, yes, you are risking 330 to win 300, and if you don't think that you are then you shouldn't be betting. If you are not aware enough to know that if you lose you will be owing $330 then you should not bet it. I'm not annoyed, and I'm not going to call you any names-and by you saying that I am flat wrong is just fine, that is your opinion. Never said it was a dumb discussion, I just can't believe you are buying into this. answer me this...what would you do if Matchbook went under tomorrow? I know it is HIGHLY unlikely, but what if tomorrow somehow someway the went down. Would you stop betting?
Oh really? I think post #52 tells a different story. Its just a stupid " chicken or the egg' question that I proposed to get people talking. The fact that you sit here and scream "EGG, EGG ! Its the EGG that came first! ", makes you the one who looks clueless and foolish. I said from the very beginning there is no right answer, and if you really think there is, god help you.....
0
Quote Originally Posted by cmo1037:
just retorting from his "box drip" comment. if i take a line from my local, i know it will cost me a 10% vig if i lose, it is what it is, i don't have to place the bet. However, if i do choose to gamble, if I lose I know i will have to pay the 10% juice. I know if i win i win what i bet, so by you saying that i "don't win as much as you should" is not true. and for the -300 example, yes, you are risking 330 to win 300, and if you don't think that you are then you shouldn't be betting. If you are not aware enough to know that if you lose you will be owing $330 then you should not bet it. I'm not annoyed, and I'm not going to call you any names-and by you saying that I am flat wrong is just fine, that is your opinion. Never said it was a dumb discussion, I just can't believe you are buying into this. answer me this...what would you do if Matchbook went under tomorrow? I know it is HIGHLY unlikely, but what if tomorrow somehow someway the went down. Would you stop betting?
Oh really? I think post #52 tells a different story. Its just a stupid " chicken or the egg' question that I proposed to get people talking. The fact that you sit here and scream "EGG, EGG ! Its the EGG that came first! ", makes you the one who looks clueless and foolish. I said from the very beginning there is no right answer, and if you really think there is, god help you.....
guys you are really paying juice on every bet in some form. Say a straight bet has a 50-50 shot then you are risking 110 to win 100. if you win I say you should win 110 for a 50-50 shot, so you are winning a lower amount than you risked. If you lose then you lost more than you would have won. These edges for the book are small but very powerful in the longrun. losers lose more than they should and winners win less than they would have without any juice-its as simple as that. Just book with a few of your friends and you'll see what I'm talking about...
0
guys you are really paying juice on every bet in some form. Say a straight bet has a 50-50 shot then you are risking 110 to win 100. if you win I say you should win 110 for a 50-50 shot, so you are winning a lower amount than you risked. If you lose then you lost more than you would have won. These edges for the book are small but very powerful in the longrun. losers lose more than they should and winners win less than they would have without any juice-its as simple as that. Just book with a few of your friends and you'll see what I'm talking about...
If I wager $100 to win $75.00, then I am risking $100 for the opportunity to win $100 (or "paying" $25.00). If you win the bet, the money never leaves your pocket. So maybe "paying" is the wrong word. But to win $75, it required that you put up $100....so the cost of making that play is $25.....although it never leaves your pocket if you win.
A lot of semantics for sure.
But it's just like people say juice doesn't matter if you win. Yes it does because wagers are evaluated BEFORE the event. Would you pay -300 to back the Yankees tonight? Of course not. But folks should also apply this to lines that are closer....say -110 v. -105. It has everything to do with risk (or the amount you "pay" to have the right to make a bet so to speak).
It certainly does leave your pocket.
It's all a matter of how you perceive the money being exchanged.
If you literally walk up to a window in Vegas and hand them $100 for the opportunity to win $75 (assuming a straight wager on the Titans +3 vs. the Ravens... on Titans +3, $100 to win $75 or Baltimore -3, $100 to win $75) and the Titans win and you go to collect:
The teller is essentially handing you your $100 back and handing you another 100 singles. Then before you take your money, the teller takes 25 singles for the 'juice'.
If it happens in an online book or a handshake with a local, the same thing happens with every bet that pays out less than even odds on a straight wager.
The WINNER pays juice.
BUT
The losing bet also can be viewed as paying juice. When the book is getting you to risk $100 to win $75, you are paying a $25 premium over even odds before the bet is settled which could be viewed as 'juice". If you lose, they keep the $25 premium as 'juice'.
BOTH the winner and loser pay juice. We're all fucked!
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
If I wager $100 to win $75.00, then I am risking $100 for the opportunity to win $100 (or "paying" $25.00). If you win the bet, the money never leaves your pocket. So maybe "paying" is the wrong word. But to win $75, it required that you put up $100....so the cost of making that play is $25.....although it never leaves your pocket if you win.
A lot of semantics for sure.
But it's just like people say juice doesn't matter if you win. Yes it does because wagers are evaluated BEFORE the event. Would you pay -300 to back the Yankees tonight? Of course not. But folks should also apply this to lines that are closer....say -110 v. -105. It has everything to do with risk (or the amount you "pay" to have the right to make a bet so to speak).
It certainly does leave your pocket.
It's all a matter of how you perceive the money being exchanged.
If you literally walk up to a window in Vegas and hand them $100 for the opportunity to win $75 (assuming a straight wager on the Titans +3 vs. the Ravens... on Titans +3, $100 to win $75 or Baltimore -3, $100 to win $75) and the Titans win and you go to collect:
The teller is essentially handing you your $100 back and handing you another 100 singles. Then before you take your money, the teller takes 25 singles for the 'juice'.
If it happens in an online book or a handshake with a local, the same thing happens with every bet that pays out less than even odds on a straight wager.
The WINNER pays juice.
BUT
The losing bet also can be viewed as paying juice. When the book is getting you to risk $100 to win $75, you are paying a $25 premium over even odds before the bet is settled which could be viewed as 'juice". If you lose, they keep the $25 premium as 'juice'.
BOTH the winner and loser pay juice. We're all fucked!
OK what the F is this about YOU lose YOU pay $110 U win u get paid back your $110 plus your win of $100 in your account or in vegas so YOU collect $210 like simple math is all it is
LOSERS PAY the vig and since most books get 50 50 action they guranteed to make money !
0
OK what the F is this about YOU lose YOU pay $110 U win u get paid back your $110 plus your win of $100 in your account or in vegas so YOU collect $210 like simple math is all it is
LOSERS PAY the vig and since most books get 50 50 action they guranteed to make money !
vanzack, yeah you dont care about having my respect i dont blame you--with all of my 200 posts, its clear that i give a F about covers but do value some of the info that comes out of this site and from time to time will post my comments when i deem appropriate.
you clearly DO care how people on this forum view/respect you, maybe not me but to act as if you dont care when you have 50k posts makes me scratch my head as to why you come on here in the first place, even though you dont think you do seek that respect and adoration you just might
as for the thread topic, i still think its a dumb question and not at ALL interesting. this is not due to the fact that i bet on mb but rather its just a dumb question altogether for the reason stated in my previous post. its the equivalent argument of which is better a RIMM product or an AAPL product or which is better a VHS cassette or a DVD.
0
vanzack, yeah you dont care about having my respect i dont blame you--with all of my 200 posts, its clear that i give a F about covers but do value some of the info that comes out of this site and from time to time will post my comments when i deem appropriate.
you clearly DO care how people on this forum view/respect you, maybe not me but to act as if you dont care when you have 50k posts makes me scratch my head as to why you come on here in the first place, even though you dont think you do seek that respect and adoration you just might
as for the thread topic, i still think its a dumb question and not at ALL interesting. this is not due to the fact that i bet on mb but rather its just a dumb question altogether for the reason stated in my previous post. its the equivalent argument of which is better a RIMM product or an AAPL product or which is better a VHS cassette or a DVD.
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.
its the equivalent argument of which is better a VHS cassette or a DVD. 
Hot Forum Topics
