Who pays the juice?

Sigh...

I said it before and I'll say it one more time.  The winner pays the vig.

The following two paragraphs are taken from the January 1983 issue of GAMBLING TIMES, from a two-page article written by Bob Stupak.  The article appears on page 64 and 65.  The title of the article is called "The House Edge."  If I get ambitious, maybe I'll scan the entire article and post it on my website and then post the link here.  (It's simply too long for me to re-type the entire article by hand.)

 --- Begin ---

There are two inter-related concepts about casino profits that most players, and even many longtime casino executives, don't really understand.  First, players are paying the house edge only when they win - never when they lose.  Put another way, you might say that the house makes money not on customers' losing bets but on their winning bets because the house pays slightly less than the true odds on those winning bets.

If a fellow comes in and makes one bet for $1,000 on the craps table and loses it, he pays nothing for it.  But if he wins the bet, he should get approximately $1,028 for his $1,000.  Then he would be getting true odds.  Instead, he wins only $1,000.  So by winning the bet, he pays a $28 vig.  By losing, he doesn't.  Customers are often a little flabbergasted when I tell them, "I only make money when you win, not when you lose."  The may be hard to believe, but nevertheless it's true.

 --- End ---

Me again. 

The winners pay the vig.  The winners pay it because they have less in their pocket than what they should have, after winning.  The reason they have less is because they paid the vig.  The loser simply lost a bet. 

It is very difficult for me understand why so many players here just can't seem to understand this simple concept once it's explained to them.  As Bob said above, even "longtime casino executives" don't really understand it, so the initial confusion is understandable

(Of course, it is also difficult for me to understand why so many players play parlay cards and then wish to hedge their bet on the last game, thinking it is "guaranteed money.")

Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:

...The result would be you'd never get true odds no matter what you'd bet and you would never win.  Just the fact you played the game at less than true odds resulted in you paying the house...

...Therefore, the loser pays as well.... 

Yes, losers lose money, and losers lost bets, but they don't pay vig.


From the same Bob Stupak article:

--- Begin ---

The second thing people don't realize is that a casino does not make it's profits by winning money.  For example, a fellow came into Vegas Word with $28,000.00 a few Saturdays ago, and lost it in about 10 minutes.  Now, we didn't earn that money.  We just won it.  We were gambling and we got lucky.  But I can't survive on won money.  I can only survive on earned money.  That guy's $28,000.00 is just in escrow.  Sooner or later somebody is going to come in and win it back.  Everyday some people win and some people lose.  One day per week or month there might be more winning bets than losing bets, but in the long run they even out.  The only thing the casino earns is the money it retains from winning bettors by paying them slightly less than true odds.

Typo:  Yes, losers lose money, and losers LOSE bets, but they don't pay vig.

I understand, it makes sense, but I still disagree to an extent.

The winner pays vig for making his bet, yes...

But he is winning the LOSERS money.. the LOSER funds all of this, and pays the juice upfront in sports at -110.

The casino craps bet for $1000 seems to put this discussion to rest - a losing better bets $1000 and if he loses, he pays nothing and walks away - not really.... If he had placed his bet TO WIN $1,000, then he would still lose $1,028 or whatever it was on the bet.  Therefore the LOSER still pays the juice.

I still disgree, I don't think the winner pays the juice... but I would agree that he pays 50% of the juice.

This is why you don't see casinos offering a lot of single zero roulette wheels, or lowering the 11-to-win-10 ratio, or finding other ways to lower their house edge in other games, etc. 

Initially, you might suspect that if they did, then many more gamblers would then play these games, and more gamblers making more bets and playing more games means more money for the casino.  But as Bob explained, that money would just be in escrow.  It's not earned money.  Someone else would eventually come along and win it back. 

The casino (house) only earns money by paying the winners less than the true odds.  The casino only earns money by collecting the vig from the winning bettors.  Thus, they have no desire or interest to lower the house edge that they have in these games.  It would not be to their benefit.

Yes, losers lose money but they just lose a bet.  They don't pay vig.  Only the winners pay the vig.

Spitfire,

Well, it's nice to see you are at least meeting me (us) halfway.  Your first couple of posts said this:

The loser pays the juice.... he pays the juice, he pays the whole bet, he pays the bookie.

In another week's time maybe we can finally convince you to come all the way around. 

so if i walk into a casino, make ten bets at -110 for $100 each, win all ten, and walk out with $1900 in my pocket, i just paid the vig?  No, i risked the vig.

 I understand what you are trying to say, that obviously everyone is not going to win every bet, and they are winning less than they are laying.  However, that is the risk that person is willing to take, it's like an entertainment fee.  Same reason people will go to a football game and pay $10 for a bud light. It's not like you go to the game and expect to pay $2.00 like what the vendor bought it for. 
If you want to gamble, you have to be willing to risk a little more in situations like that.  In a perfect world it would be nice to lay the points or vice versa and get even money every time, but that's not how it works.
What about if like the other night you could get the rangers at plus money and they win, the winner is still paying the vig there too, right?

Best quote of the day:"It is very difficult for me understand why so many players here just can't seem to understand this simple concept once it's explained to them.  As Bob said above, even "longtime casino executives" don't really understand it"

guess i'm in the same boat as those stupid "longtime casino executives"

No, you paid it.

If you risked $110 on ten different bets, and won all ten, if you didn't pay the vig, you would have an extra $1,100 in your pocket!

But if you only have an extra $1,000 in your pocket, you paid exactly $100 in vig!  Pretty simple.

And yes, you can call this an entertainment fee, or a markup fee, or juice, or vig, or the privilege or making a bet, or whatever else you want to call it.  But the fact remains that you paid it, the winner.

Winners pay the juice.   Losers do not.

Bob Stupak:  Players are paying the house edge only when they win - never when they lose. 

And yes, I don't follow baseball, but it sounds like you paid vig even if you got the Rangers at plus money.  (If there was no juice you'd have gotten back even more than what you did.)

Did you know that you can't buy a hot dog with expected value dollars 

Rangers @ +120.
you lay/risk $100 to win $120. 
Rangers win, you walk away with your original bet$100+$120=$220.
How is the winner paying juice/vig

something i came across regarding Bob Stupak whom you coninuously qoute "Stupak is nicknamed "The Mayor" because of unsuccessful campaigns for the office of mayor of Las Vegas in 1983 and 1987. Locals have also nicknamed him "Bob Stupid" for his many zany business failures."

Easy.  If you didn't pay any juice you would have more than $220 in your pocket.  Without any vig, the return for you would probably have been +130 or +135 or so, for every $100 you bet. 

You paid juice, trust me, even if you don't think you did or even if wish to convince yourself you didn't.

Stupak was indeed a character.  (Was... he's dead now.)  Books could probably be written about him, assuming they haven't been already.  But he was a self-made millionaire many times over, and he probably forgot more about business and casinos and casino management and odds and probabilities and all that kind of stuff, than you and I will ever know.

Scalabrine sided with you, therefore, i know that you are wrong

4 pages? Really?

A split-game on Pinnacle is -104/-104 and has a probability of 50/50. Therefore the true odds are 100/100 and whichever side you pick, you're laying 4 cents of juice. Therefore, both sides pay the vig.

If you want to classify it as winners and losers... bookies use the losers' money to payout the winners. In a sample of 100 people with split-action, the 50 people who won gained their $100 from the losers' portion less the $4 which goes to the bookie.

Side A: 50 x 104 = 5200
Side B: 50 x 104 = 5200

One side is getting returned to the winner completely so no vig is taken there... We'll say Side A won so their initial investment is returned.

That leaves us with:

Side B: 50 x 104 = 5200

We still owe 5000 to Side A bettors so we use this money lost on Side B to take care of that and the bookie is left with $200 of Side B's money.

Seems pretty clear to me the money came from the losers; but overall, both sides pay the vig!

you really need to look up the definitions/differences of paying and risking.

actually, let me help you:

Risk - The chance that an investment will lose value.
Pay - to give in return for goods or services.

how is the winner giving anything to the books?  they took a risk and won, they may not have won the same amount that they bet, but they lost/paid nothing.  they took a calculated, understood risk, and won.

fuck it, i'm done with this thread, keep overthinking EVERYTHING.

Cute.  But we all know that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. 

Proof the winners pay the vigorish:

Assume you have a crystal ball.  Assume it's the very morning of last year's Super Bowl.  You use your crystal ball and find out the Saints are going to win the big game.  Great!  For all of you who believe that it's just the LOSERS who pay the vig, then, since you know you're going to be a winner, then what the vig is shouldn't matter, right?  Why should it?  YOU'RE not going to have to pay it!  You're going to be a winner!  The losers pay the vig, not the winners.  With your crystal ball, you know you're going to win, so screw the vig.  It's not a factor for you, right?   It's irrelevant?

Completely wrong.  Winner's pay it.  And since you're going to be a winner, now is all the MORE REASON to really shop around, and look for the best price/lowest vig, and make your bet there.  

If all you can put your hands on is $11,000 to wager, you'll win MORE money with the lowest vig you can find.  Why?  Again, because you, the winner, will have pay it.

Find a book that doesn't charge vigorish at all and you win $11,000.  Find a book that has an 11-to-win-10 vig and all you win is $10,000.

Important:  The opposite is also true.  If you knew in advance you were going to LOSE, NOW the amount of the vig wouldn't matter to you all!  Ah ha!  And why?  Again, because it's the winners that pay it, not the losers.

You can put down your entire $11,000 that you have to wager at a book that has a horrible vig, say 11-to-win-5 or 11-to-win-4 or whatever.  When you lose, you lost the $11,000, the same as if it were 11-to-win-10.  (Of course, if you knew you were going to lose you wouldn't put down a bet anyway, but that's beside the point.  )

In the real world, we don't have crystal balls, and since we are all HOPING to win, we DO spend time finding the best price.

I really wish I could make it more clear than that.

Bet between 2 people, no book. No vig.

Winner pays.

Both guys bet 110 to win 100 on a game. 

Loser has -100% ROI on the loss.  Would have had -100% ROI regardless of the vig.

Winner has +90.9% ROI.  Would have had +100% ROI without the vig.

The vig only affects (costs) the winner.

Q.E.D.

  Exactly.

I see this entire discussion was discussed already, about 8 months ago, in another forum!

https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=40&sub=100679487&page=1

Surprising, most people there seemed to understood the winner pays it, although there were, of course, a few who didn't.

The person that pays is the one that ends up WITHOUT ANY MONEY.

Player 1 puts $110 to win $100 and does win  and gets $210 (his initial 110 and 100 from player # 2)...

...he was NOT playing the book, he was playing against...

Player # 2 who puts 110 to win 100 and loses and ends up with $0.0

Now... the book takes Player # 2's $110 and gives Player # 1 a $100 bill as the winner.

Book keeps the losers $10 bill.

Player #2 just paid Player #1 AND the juice to the book.

Player number One never paid anything because he won. He simple put up an extra 10 as collateral to be paid to the book if he lost his $100 to player # 2.

Just because your minds are warped does not mean reality is also warped.

End of fucking story.

You guys who think the winner pays (Even though he has all the cash he started with and what he expected to earn by winning) obviously did not do very well in grade school with the Bobby,Mary, and Apples questions... did you.

Skubishack, you're very close.  You almost have it !!

Player #2 makes a $110 bet and loses.  He's out $110.

Player #1 also makes a $110 bet but he wins.  The bookie doesn't pay him $110.  He would, of course, if he didn't charge any vig at all.  But naturally, he does charge vig, and so he only pays Player #1 $100.  He only pays him $100 since he charges Player #1 exactly $10 vig.

Summary:  Player #1 is the one who is out the $10 vig.  Player #1 is the one who would have $10 more in his pocket if no vig were charged.  Player #1 is the one who risked $110 and only won $100.  Player #1 paid the vig.

As mentioned above, Bob Stupak, who owned a Las Vegas casino, said only the winners pay the vig and clearly explained why. 

Surely, SURELY, that alone must make you rethink your answer, and consider the alternative! 

The following Covers members, including myself, (either here or in this other forum discussion) also know the winner pays:  4degreeswarmer, BHouse, CMJohnson1, GAMBLE_4heisman, PS150, archdriver, crapsplayer, dogbettor71861, lillefty, onion99, rockyspicks, teezeepicks, vanzack, webba  (I hope I didn't miss anyone.)

No?  We're all wrong?  We all flunked math?


I should put this on a t-shirt or a bumper sticker:

"Players are paying the house edge only when they win - never when they lose." - Bob Stupak, 1983