Who pays the juice?

Thank you! Fuck that Bob guy... 

I'm still going with my own opinion that you RISK juice on both sides and that's all that matters because we don't have crystal balls.

What if you bet on credit, but you also have money in your account, it is Tuesday, the moon is in Capricorn and you are wearing your favorite Spiderman jammies. What then?

Ask Bob Stupak - he is the answer to every argument. 

cmo, you're also very close!  You almost have it!

Yes, the book paid out $10,500.  Very good.  And thank goodness for them they charged vig!  Otherwise, with no vig they would have had to pay out $11,000!

Thus, they earned $500 in vig!  They did! 

I think it might be more apparent to you if the books did pay the winners the full $5,500, and then immediately asked the winners for $500 of it back.  (That's what is happening, but the book saves a step and don't do t that way.)

And this $500 is money earned (not money won) that Stupak was talking about, even if you choose not to agree with him.  

And next week, maybe the opposite occurs!  This time team B wins, when everyone again has money on team A.  This second week the book again takes in $5,500 and this week give none of it back. 

Last week they paid out $5,000.  This week they take in $5,500.  Over the two-week span, the book is ahead $500.00. 

Ahead $500, from money earned from vig, paid by the winners the week before!

As I think you know, in the long run, the book will win just as many bets as they lose.  But they come out ahead from the money they earn from the juice. 

Quick question.  Have you ever played pai-gow poker, or baccarat, in Las Vegas?   If so, you've seen what happens when you win.  The dealer slips a winning chip your way and then, before moving on to the next player, literally stops and waits for you to pay him/her the 5% commission!  (The vig.)  That comes from you, the winning bettor, immediately, when you win a bet.  It's the same thing with sports betting.  (Or roulette, or craps, or any other casino game.)

The following two paragraphs are taken from the January 1983 issue of GAMBLING TIMES, from a two-page article written by Bob Stupak

As Bob said above, even "longtime casino executives" don't really understand it, so the initial confusion is understandable

Bob Stupak is respected in the gambling industry and he explained it well.

From the same Bob Stupak article:

But as Bob explained, that money would just be in escrow.  It's not earned money.

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

Stupak was indeed a character.  (Was... he's dead now.)  Books could probably be written about him, assuming they haven't been already.

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

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

"I only make money when you win, not when you lose." - Bob Stupak, 1983





Holy shit... someone get Ed_Collins 10 gallons of bob stupak juice STAT

I contributed VERY little in terms of factual information in this thread. 

Scalabrine is right.  If you go make a bet at a book, your money is no longer in your pocket.  And if you win the bet and got back less then you should have because of Vig, then you certainly paid it. 

Without Vig, you bet Heat tonight at -1.5, you should technically get +100 if there was no Vig.  100 to win 100.  Well, you bet it at -110, and you don't get back 100 if you bet 100.  Someone paid something and it certainly wasn't the loser. 

h.
are you trying to tell me...you know what fuck it...you guys are fucking idiots that try to over think everything.
 you know that you are risking 10% more when you make your wager on a -110 wager, it's the nature of the beast, if you want to gamble, then most of the time you have to risk a little more.  CALCULATED RISK.

so why the fuck do any of you bet if you know you lose everytime, even when you win??? 

exactly......the guy who started the thread asked who PAYS the juice....

 

clearly the winner receiving money is not paying even if he is getting back less than what he put up.....as I stated before....the loser clearly PAYS the juice while the winner just receives less but never paid anything.....

everyone who is saying that the winner pays juice isn't reading the original question properly....if the question was asked who is risking the juice then your answers are correct, but there is no one that can admit that if I put up $110 and get back $200 that I PAID anything....Now if I got back only a $100 then clearly I paid something.....

the original question asked only has one answer.....had it been worded differently than the others would have some merit, but you can't assume that's what the original poster asked when clearly he did not.....

 

who PAYS the juice?

 

When you settle your debt with a bookie you PAY

When your bookie settles your debt with you he PAYS...you RECEIVE

Ah, but yes, you did pay something.  Apparently you just don't realize it! 

Your bookie paid you $220 for your win!  And then you turned around and paid him $10 in vig! 

That's exactly what happened.  But to make it easier on himself, and you, he simply saved a step.  He simply deducted the $10 vig himself, before paying you. 

With no vig he pays you the entire $220.00.  But because he is charging you vig, he only pays you $210.00.



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

Nightmare, did you read anything I wrote?  We are indeed reading the original question properly.

Winners pay the juice.  Losers do not. 

You can win a bet and have more in your pocket than what you started with prior to the bet, and pay juice at the same time.

As proof you paid juice is the fact that if you didn't pay it, if there was no juice, you'd have even more money in your pocket!

Why is that simple concept so hard for some people to understand?  It truly boggles my mind.

It's hard to understand because you aren't paying anything if you are getting money back.....just because you and others seem to think that because you are getting back less than what you put is actually paying something versus it been the risk one takes to wager is what I don't get....

Clearly your examples and others theories are misinterpreting what the word PAY actually means according the English Dictionary...how does one pay something when they are receiving?

If I paid my book juice for winning then how is it if I put up $110 and get paid back $210 for winning my book collected a vig or I paid a vig?

You can call it a calculated risk percentage, cost of doing business, handlers fee or whatever you'd like, but you certainly can't call it PAYING.....If I paid something when I won then who profitted from it?

Call it whatever else you'd like, but PAYING....no way.....when you receive that's not paying.....I received more money back they I originally paid out...I didn't pay anything....let's not confuse getting less back as the winner actually paying something in the true sense of the word...

So when you receive a paycheck are you PAYING or getting PAID?

 

Are you related to this guy Bob or something?

 

Is this the same Bob that drives an 18-wheeler, knows how to fly and was a war vet pulling wounded from gunfire.....that Bob?

 

Seriously.....you know Bob?

Did somebody say Bob Stupak?

The winners pay the vig

If sports gambling were regulated and the law was made so that there is an absolute, unchanging amount that winning a bet costs a gambler, then this question becomes moot. That is not the case since the entity who takes your bet has an option to let you bet Team A -2.5 @ -120 or Team A -3 @ -110. In other words, the entity sets the price the winner pays to gamble.  Ultimately, the money the winner receives comes from the entity itself because who amongst us would gamble with an entity without capital to pay us?