the winner is the loser. YOU pay the juice. If you win you are the winner and still have to pay the juice because you basically bet 110 to win 100. If you pay juice you would really win 110. You got juiced. If you lose you are the loser and you would pay 110 for a 100 bet. You never would of won 110. You got juiced. YOU are getting juiced. It just wether you become the loser or winner.
0
idiots.
the winner is the loser. YOU pay the juice. If you win you are the winner and still have to pay the juice because you basically bet 110 to win 100. If you pay juice you would really win 110. You got juiced. If you lose you are the loser and you would pay 110 for a 100 bet. You never would of won 110. You got juiced. YOU are getting juiced. It just wether you become the loser or winner.
Personally, I bet with a local. It goes like this ...
I bet $100 over the phone. (i don't put money up front)
If I win I get $100
If I lose I pay $110.
Using this real life example, it is tough to argue the winner pays the vig.
Hi Hugh,
When you say you "bet $100 over the phone," your bookie obviously already knows this to mean you wish to win $100. I'm guessing the figure $110 never actually comes up in your conversation, because you and your bookie know that is your actual risk.
Thus, you can see you are paying him vig when you when... you're paying him 10.00 vig each time. Otherwise, he should be paying you $110 each time you win, and not just $100.
When you risk the $110 that you are, and you lose, that's all you pay... $110. No vig.
I myself have never believed it was about semantics. Neither does Spitfire's favorite casino owner, Bob Stupak,
It's also hard to argue about these two real-life examples: Pai-gow poker... you fork over a 5% commission, immediately, each time you win. Or when my girlfriend wins at roulette and receives a lower payout than what the true odds say she should. When that happens she just paid them some vig. Same principal with sports betting.
Good luck to you with your bets.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
Personally, I bet with a local. It goes like this ...
I bet $100 over the phone. (i don't put money up front)
If I win I get $100
If I lose I pay $110.
Using this real life example, it is tough to argue the winner pays the vig.
Hi Hugh,
When you say you "bet $100 over the phone," your bookie obviously already knows this to mean you wish to win $100. I'm guessing the figure $110 never actually comes up in your conversation, because you and your bookie know that is your actual risk.
Thus, you can see you are paying him vig when you when... you're paying him 10.00 vig each time. Otherwise, he should be paying you $110 each time you win, and not just $100.
When you risk the $110 that you are, and you lose, that's all you pay... $110. No vig.
I myself have never believed it was about semantics. Neither does Spitfire's favorite casino owner, Bob Stupak,
It's also hard to argue about these two real-life examples: Pai-gow poker... you fork over a 5% commission, immediately, each time you win. Or when my girlfriend wins at roulette and receives a lower payout than what the true odds say she should. When that happens she just paid them some vig. Same principal with sports betting.
When you win you only get 100 so you miss out on the 10 you "should have" won... when you lose you pay 110... Just because you don't classify it as 100+10 like you do when thinking of a winner, doesn't mean you aren't paying extra for the bet. That is still essentially a long-term loss that you take when betting with a 10% vig.
If I have 500 dollars and want to bet 5 coin flips for $100 each, I can do so without and I could lose on 5 flips and pay $500. But when betting sports, we bet 'to win' and have to pay an extra 10% on a loss so we could now not afford to lose 5 bets, because each time, we pay $10 in vig added to the $100.
^^^ This isn't completely right either but it shows how Ed-Collins' theory is all based on the idea that all bets are risking X ($100), and it makes it much easier to argue that the winner pays.
In reality, no matter which way you look at it you will pay out of pocket for the opportunity to wager the game. I feel that the LOSER pays juice and the WINNER pays juice.
I can't remember the betting 'strategy' if you want to call it that - the one that Vanzack uses (who also says the winner pays yeah yeah I know) - It's the one that says that if you are laying -120 and you always bet 1 unit per game, you should risk about 1.09 to win .91 units. Betting in this style it is much easier to see how both sides pay the juice.
If I bet $109 to win $91 and I lose, I pay $109... lost $100 and paid $9 for the opportunity to bet. If I win $91, I win $100 and pay $9 for the opportunity to bet.
Thank god I finally was able to express this in a way that makes some kind of sense (although I'm probably still all over the place, running on no sleep today and I'm high as a kite)..... Please, rebuttle, because I just want to figure this out.
0
I still disagree
When you win you only get 100 so you miss out on the 10 you "should have" won... when you lose you pay 110... Just because you don't classify it as 100+10 like you do when thinking of a winner, doesn't mean you aren't paying extra for the bet. That is still essentially a long-term loss that you take when betting with a 10% vig.
If I have 500 dollars and want to bet 5 coin flips for $100 each, I can do so without and I could lose on 5 flips and pay $500. But when betting sports, we bet 'to win' and have to pay an extra 10% on a loss so we could now not afford to lose 5 bets, because each time, we pay $10 in vig added to the $100.
^^^ This isn't completely right either but it shows how Ed-Collins' theory is all based on the idea that all bets are risking X ($100), and it makes it much easier to argue that the winner pays.
In reality, no matter which way you look at it you will pay out of pocket for the opportunity to wager the game. I feel that the LOSER pays juice and the WINNER pays juice.
I can't remember the betting 'strategy' if you want to call it that - the one that Vanzack uses (who also says the winner pays yeah yeah I know) - It's the one that says that if you are laying -120 and you always bet 1 unit per game, you should risk about 1.09 to win .91 units. Betting in this style it is much easier to see how both sides pay the juice.
If I bet $109 to win $91 and I lose, I pay $109... lost $100 and paid $9 for the opportunity to bet. If I win $91, I win $100 and pay $9 for the opportunity to bet.
Thank god I finally was able to express this in a way that makes some kind of sense (although I'm probably still all over the place, running on no sleep today and I'm high as a kite)..... Please, rebuttle, because I just want to figure this out.
The way to think about a -110 bet for $100 is that you are actually betting $105 and paying the 5% juice ($5 on a $100 bet) to the house no matter if you win or lose...
So we get screwed by the house both ways (surprise... surprise...)
but at least both winners and losers pay the same juice... so I guess it is "fair"
someone tell me how this is wrong...
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
The way to think about a -110 bet for $100 is that you are actually betting $105 and paying the 5% juice ($5 on a $100 bet) to the house no matter if you win or lose...
So we get screwed by the house both ways (surprise... surprise...)
but at least both winners and losers pay the same juice... so I guess it is "fair"
Betting $110 is a $100 bet plus $10 pre-paid juice that bookie keeps if and only if you lose.
Your wager is $100 and NOT $110. You had to lay $110 so bookie has the juice in advance if you were to lose.
From bookie's perspective, he knows that he cannot keep this $10 if you win.
Good luck and keep winning and you won't pay the juice.
End of discussion!
False.
You bet $110 to win $110 but the bookie takes $10 in the final transaction if you win.
This is clearly stated on any betting ticket at a window in Vegas...It will read "Bet $110 to win $100" (they are telling you in advance they will collect $10 from your win)
0
Quote Originally Posted by Maritimus:
Guys,
The juice applies as a cost of losing.
Betting $110 is a $100 bet plus $10 pre-paid juice that bookie keeps if and only if you lose.
Your wager is $100 and NOT $110. You had to lay $110 so bookie has the juice in advance if you were to lose.
From bookie's perspective, he knows that he cannot keep this $10 if you win.
Good luck and keep winning and you won't pay the juice.
End of discussion!
False.
You bet $110 to win $110 but the bookie takes $10 in the final transaction if you win.
This is clearly stated on any betting ticket at a window in Vegas...It will read "Bet $110 to win $100" (they are telling you in advance they will collect $10 from your win)
You bet $110 to win $110 but the bookie takes $10 in the final transaction if you win.
This is clearly stated on any betting ticket at a window in Vegas...It will read "Bet $110 to win $100" (they are telling you in advance they will collect $10 from your win)
would that be stated in black or white
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
False.
You bet $110 to win $110 but the bookie takes $10 in the final transaction if you win.
This is clearly stated on any betting ticket at a window in Vegas...It will read "Bet $110 to win $100" (they are telling you in advance they will collect $10 from your win)
You bet $110 to win $110 but the bookie takes $10 in the final transaction if you win.
This is clearly stated on any betting ticket at a window in Vegas...It will read "Bet $110 to win $100" (they are telling you in advance they will collect $10 from your win)
your math might be a little off
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
False.
You bet $110 to win $110 but the bookie takes $10 in the final transaction if you win.
This is clearly stated on any betting ticket at a window in Vegas...It will read "Bet $110 to win $100" (they are telling you in advance they will collect $10 from your win)
You bet $110 to win $110 but the bookie takes $10 in the final transaction if you win.
This is clearly stated on any betting ticket at a window in Vegas...It will read "Bet $110 to win $100" (they are telling you in advance they will collect $10 from your win)
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
False.
You bet $110 to win $110 but the bookie takes $10 in the final transaction if you win.
This is clearly stated on any betting ticket at a window in Vegas...It will read "Bet $110 to win $100" (they are telling you in advance they will collect $10 from your win)
You bet $110 to win $110 but the bookie takes $10 in the final transaction if you win.
This is clearly stated on any betting ticket at a window in Vegas...It will read "Bet $110 to win $100" (they are telling you in advance they will collect $10 from your win)
bet $110 to win $100, when that hits, you collect $210, they are not telling you in advance that they will collect $10 from your win. some tickets read "risk $110 to win $100", would that make it easier for you to understand? you are risking $110 ($100 of that is your wager, and $10 of that is your fee to play/bet (which is also called juice or vigorish) if you lose.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
False.
You bet $110 to win $110 but the bookie takes $10 in the final transaction if you win.
This is clearly stated on any betting ticket at a window in Vegas...It will read "Bet $110 to win $100" (they are telling you in advance they will collect $10 from your win)
bet $110 to win $100, when that hits, you collect $210, they are not telling you in advance that they will collect $10 from your win. some tickets read "risk $110 to win $100", would that make it easier for you to understand? you are risking $110 ($100 of that is your wager, and $10 of that is your fee to play/bet (which is also called juice or vigorish) if you lose.
If you bet 7 games and go 4-3, everyone agrees that you won exactly $70.
You won $400 ($0 for juice in the 4 wins) and lost $330 ($10 juice for each of the 3 losses).
If this logic works every time then my above argument is true. The amount you placed to play is irrelevant. Juice is the cost of losing that you had to pre-pay.
0
Example:
Given $100 per unit bet.
If you bet 7 games and go 4-3, everyone agrees that you won exactly $70.
You won $400 ($0 for juice in the 4 wins) and lost $330 ($10 juice for each of the 3 losses).
If this logic works every time then my above argument is true. The amount you placed to play is irrelevant. Juice is the cost of losing that you had to pre-pay.
If you bet 7 games and go 4-3, everyone agrees that you won exactly $70.
You won $400 ($0 for juice in the 4 wins) and lost $330 ($10 juice for each of the 3 losses).
If this logic works every time then my above argument is true. The amount you placed to play is irrelevant. Juice is the cost of losing that you had to pre-pay.
Maritimus,
If you bet 7 games with no juice at all, and go 4-3, you would win exactly $110.
7 games with juice, going 4-3, you win exactly $70, as you correctly pointed out.
The difference between $110 and $70 is exactly $40. $40, because you paid $10 juice on each of the four games you won.
"Players are paying the house edge only when they win - never when they lose." - Bob Stupak, 1983
0
Quote Originally Posted by Maritimus:
Example:
If you bet 7 games and go 4-3, everyone agrees that you won exactly $70.
You won $400 ($0 for juice in the 4 wins) and lost $330 ($10 juice for each of the 3 losses).
If this logic works every time then my above argument is true. The amount you placed to play is irrelevant. Juice is the cost of losing that you had to pre-pay.
Maritimus,
If you bet 7 games with no juice at all, and go 4-3, you would win exactly $110.
7 games with juice, going 4-3, you win exactly $70, as you correctly pointed out.
The difference between $110 and $70 is exactly $40. $40, because you paid $10 juice on each of the four games you won.
"Players are paying the house edge only when they win - never when they lose." - Bob Stupak, 1983
Just yesterday I payed for the juice...I payed for some lemonade juice I bought at MacD along with the happy meal, man that was some delicious tasting juice...I'm so glad I payed the juice.
0
Just yesterday I payed for the juice...I payed for some lemonade juice I bought at MacD along with the happy meal, man that was some delicious tasting juice...I'm so glad I payed the juice.
The way to think about a -110 bet for $100 is that you are actually betting $105 and paying the 5% juice ($5 on a $100 bet) to the house no matter if you win or lose...
So we get screwed by the house both ways (surprise... surprise...)
but at least both winners and losers pay the same juice... so I guess it is "fair"
how is this one wrong?
People saying what they think...
but how is this theory that both sides pay evenly wrong?
do the math
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
The way to think about a -110 bet for $100 is that you are actually betting $105 and paying the 5% juice ($5 on a $100 bet) to the house no matter if you win or lose...
So we get screwed by the house both ways (surprise... surprise...)
but at least both winners and losers pay the same juice... so I guess it is "fair"
how is this one wrong?
People saying what they think...
but how is this theory that both sides pay evenly wrong?
I'm a bookie and you wager $110 to win $100. When you win, I kept NOTHING and paid you back $210.
So, when you win, I don't get your juice.
I can see why people think winner pays when you get $100 for $110 bet. But the logic still holds that as long as you win, you get EVERYTHING you risked back, true?
So, if you go 100-0, the bookie makes $0 from you. But if you go 0-1, you pay juice immediately! My opinion stands.
0
After much thought, I give up!
Think of it as a bookie.
I'm a bookie and you wager $110 to win $100. When you win, I kept NOTHING and paid you back $210.
So, when you win, I don't get your juice.
I can see why people think winner pays when you get $100 for $110 bet. But the logic still holds that as long as you win, you get EVERYTHING you risked back, true?
So, if you go 100-0, the bookie makes $0 from you. But if you go 0-1, you pay juice immediately! My opinion stands.
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.
pays the vig. To each their own
Hot Forum Topics
