[jjgold]

Say I bet the Yanks -170 and win, how is their juice?

[austintx05]

are you really this ****ing stupid?

[jjgold]

if you bet yanks -280 and it wins how is there juice?

If it loses their is juice

[Halo]

Juice can only come from fruits I thought

[tacomax]

if you bet yanks -280 and it wins how is there juice?

If it loses their is juice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vig

I await your "Martin Gale - how can his system lose?" post with relish.

[Dark Horse]

Discussion comes up every once in a while. Usually someone will contradict the following.

If you and I make a $110 bet, and you win, you're up $110 and I'm out $110.

But if we add a middleman, the bookie with his juice, that same bet still costs me $110. You, on the other hand, now only win $100. The winner pays the juice.

[DrSlamm]

that same argument can be reversed.

[DrSlamm]

both bets are paying juice.. the loser loses 5 dollars more than he should and the winner wins 5 bucks less than he should

[LT Profits]

ding ding ding we have a winner! (ALL players pay juice)

Kudos to DrSlamm

Using JJ's original Yankees -170 example, lets assume we are at the greek with their bogus 20-cent lines. Therefore the line is -170/+150, which means that the REAL person-to-person line is -160. Therefore if a player lays $170 at the real -160 price, he should win 106.25, meaning that the winner in this case is paying $6.25 in juice. If the yankees lost, the player would be paying $10 in juice (lose 170 instead of "fair" price of 160).

[Dark Horse]

Except that both players in both examples put up $110. In the second case the bookie was added. Absolutely nothing else changed. Yet by adding the juice one player was affected, not two.

The simplest explanation, in a case such as this, should be considered the correct one. According to Occam's Razor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor (not sure why this link isn't working)

The point is that the loser isn't punished extra for losing. The winner takes home less than if the players had made the same bet without the middleman and his juice. All the juice that was paid, every penny of it, was taken out of the winner's share.

The decision on who pays the juice, in other words, is made AFTER the bet is decided. The fact that both players agreed to this BEFORE they placed the bet doesn't mean that they both paid half the juice.

[Ganchrow]

If you and I make a $110 bet, and you win, you're up $110 and I'm out $110.

But if we add a middleman, the bookie with his juice, that same bet still costs me $110. You, on the other hand, now only win $100. The winner pays the juice.

My response to my friend Dark Horse's same misguided comments the last time around:

It's really just two sides of the same coin.

Before the bet is placed, your expectation of juice paid is of course the theoretical hold.

Once the bet has been decided, however, it doesn't really make sense to say that only one side or the other is paying the juice. It all depends on how you look at it -- do you place a bet to risk a specified amount or do you place a bet to win a specified amount?

If the former, then you can nominally say that the winner is "paying" the juice in that he wins less on any given unit bet won.

If the latter, then you can nominally say that the loser is "paying" the juice in that he loses more on any given unit bet lost.

Two sides of the same coin.

and

Ganch, how does the loser pay more with a bookmaker?

a) 100 bet between you and me. Loser loses 100, winner wins 100.

b) Same bet at bookmaker with -110 juice. Loser loses 100, winner takes 91.

b') Bet to win the same amount at bookmaker with -110 juice. Loser loses 110, winner takes 100.

So is a) the analogue of b) or is it the analogue of b')? There's really no strictly "correct" answer -- it all just comes down to convention and/or betting style.

In Fixed Odds Sports Betting: Statistical Forecasting and Risk Management, for example, Joseph Buchdahl demonstrates how a bettor engaging in "fixed profits" staking can reduce both his standard deviation and risk-of-ruin versus a flat bettor with the same average bet size. In the case of such a wagering structure, b') clearly provides a more appropriate description of that bettor's reality than b).

As I wrote before:

Do you place a bet to risk a specified amount or do you place a bet to win a specified amount?

If the former, then you can nominally say that the winner is "paying" the juice in that he wins less on any given unit bet won.

If the latter, then you can nominally say that the loser is "paying" the juice in that he loses more on any given unit bet lost.

Just two sides of the same coin.

And of course, TLD posed a rather apt question:

Let’s say you decided to open a book that charges the loser juice and not the winner (i.e., reverses the way books supposedly do it now). Explain to me, with examples, how your book would differ from current practice.

Bet without a middle man and nobody pays any juice. Add the middle man and the winner ends up with less than without the middle man. It makes no difference for the loser.

Or conversely, the loser ends up paying more than without the middle man. Just two sides of the same coin.

TLD, I had the same discussion with J.R. Miller once, with me taking your position. lol.

And J.R.

Tout J.R. Miller is to blame for spreading this notion that you only pay juice on a winning bet.

My challenge to those who believe that is this: Let’s say you decided to open a book that charges the loser juice and not the winner (i.e., reverses the way books supposedly do it now). Explain to me, with examples, how your book would differ from current practice.

Miller was wrong. How surprising.

And from TLD:

Tout J.R. Miller is to blame for spreading this notion that you only pay juice on a winning bet.

My challenge to those who believe that is this: Let’s say you decided to open a book that charges the loser juice and not the winner (i.e., reverses the way books supposedly do it now). Explain to me, with examples, how your book would differ from current practice.

[Ganchrow]

Except that both players in both examples put up $110. In the second case the bookie was added. Absolutely nothing else changed.

I just love TLD's comment as a response to this:

My challenge to those who believe that is this: Let’s say you decided to open a book that charges the loser juice and not the winner (i.e., reverses the way books supposedly do it now). Explain to me, with examples, how your book would differ from current practice.

[Dark Horse]

I love it.

All I can say is that I've held both opinions, and chose the beautiful, stunning simplicity of the 'winner pays the juice' model. But if you guys prefer the fuzzy one, that's cool. In the end, it makes absolutely no difference. Nice to be reacquainted with the old argument. lol

[Ganchrow]

The point is that the loser isn't punished extra for losing. The winner takes home less than if the players had made the same bet without the middleman and his juice. All the juice that was paid, every penny of it, was taken out of the winner's share.

Look at it this way. Bet with a bookie at -110 and each player puts up $110 to win $100. AFter the outcome is decided, the winner has his $100 bet, his $100 winnings, and his $10 vig payment returned to him. The loser, OTOH, forfeits both his $100 bet as well as the $10 in vig.

The point we're all making here, DH, isn't that the loser pays the juice, per se, but rather that it doesn't make sense to attribute the entirety of the vig cost to either market participant. Claiming the loser pays all the juice is just as incorrect as claiming the winner pays all the juice. It all depends upon how you look at it.

[Dark Horse]

Look at it this way. Bet with a bookie at -110 and each player puts up $110 to win $100. AFter the outcome is decided, the winner has his $100 bet, his $100 winnings, and his $10 vig payment returned to him. The loser, OTOH, forfeits both his $100 bet as well as the $10 in vig.

So the winner now has $100 plus his $10 vig payment returned to him?

Where is this book you're speaking of?

[Ganchrow]

All I can say is that I've held both opinions, and chose the beautiful, stunning simplicity of the 'winner pays the juice' model.

I'd argue it lacks beauty insofar as it's an inaccurate description of reality.

And believe me, the 'loser pays the juice' model is just as "stunningly simplistic" as your own.

[Dark Horse]

Maybe I just like to feel generous.

You know.

[Ganchrow]

So the winner now has $100 plus his $10 vig payment returned to him?

Where is this book you're speaking of?

Any book, anywhere.

Player X bets on Team A, laying $110 to win $100 ($100 of that is his bet, while $10 of that is a deposit on the 'fee' paid by the loser)
Player Y bets on Team B, laying $110 to win $100 ($100 of that is his bet, while $10 of that is a deposit on the 'fee' paid by the loser)

Team A wins.
Player X receives back his $100 bet, his $100 winnings, and has his $10 fee refunded.
Player Y loses his $100 bet and the bookie keeps his $10 fee.

One coin. Two sides.

[raiders72002]

You can look at it many ways. A bookmaker sets what he considers true odd so that both the winner and loser pay juice.

Now what if the public moves the line? Is it the original line that the book came out with or the adjusted line based on a move by face, action or air.

What if your original bet is moved so that you can now scalp the original bet. There are way to many scenarios for a correct answer.

[mad]

I like juice.