[jjgold]

Not laying anymore juice

[diogee]

JJ is tired of bullpens f*cking him in the 8th and 9th innings?....special f*ck yous go out ot Gagne, Corpas, and ZIsringhousen for constantadfluy ****ing me over.

[jjgold]

I don't feel bad when I lose RL bets

[zootiehead]

Remember there is no juice if you win.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Remember there is no juice if you win.

That would be incorrect.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Not laying anymore juice

That really doesn't make much sense, jj. How exactly would you avoid juice in run lines? Typically, at least in Las Vegas casinos and most books I've played at, run lines have MORE juice than moneylines in baseball. Every book that offers dime lines on ML wagers has 20 cent lines on the RL...

[3PtShooter]

juice is what feeds the books

[pat venditto]

no idiots being greedy trying to get +110 instead of-140 is what feeds books. dont be greedy and u will win

[pico]

juice is all psychological. for example, if there is 80 cents juice on a lock at -800. if you win, you're not paying the juice. you only pay juice if you lose.

only losers care about juice. if you can win 100% of the time, you're not paying juice at all.

[Ganchrow]

juice is all psychological. for example, if there is 80 cents juice on a lock at -800. if you win, you're not paying the juice. you only pay juice if you lose.

only losers care about juice. if you can win 100% of the time, you're not paying juice at all.

The assertion that only losers pay juice is just as fatuous as the assertion that only winners pay juice.

As has been written before:

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 yet again. How surprising.

And more 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.

[jjgold]

If you bet Yanks tonight -160 and they win there is no juice.

[pico]

If you bet Yanks tonight -160 and they win there is no juice.

how you crunch up those numbers?

[jjgold]

Tell me how I lay juice of the bet wins?

Juice only comes into play when you lose playing anything -101 and over.

Some of you guys don't understand the real game.

[pat venditto]

i hate the yankees tonight. mets will bury them 8-3

[treece]

JR Miller is an idiot the guy is so barrelled in that he had to take a vacation from losing.

[pico]

Tell me how I lay juice of the bet wins?

Juice only comes into play when you lose playing anything -101 and over.

Some of you guys don't understand the real game.

let's say you want to put 1600 on the yankees. if a book charges -170, you win less than 1000...anything less than 1k is vig.

[MonkeyF0cker]

If you bet Yanks tonight -160 and they win there is no juice.

Umm. If there were no juice you'd probably be only laying -155 instead of -160. If you were to bet the same amount regardless of the line you get, you'd win more money if the vig were less or zero. Thus, even winners pay juice. Pretty simple.

[pico]

Tell me how I lay juice of the bet wins?

Juice only comes into play when you lose playing anything -101 and over.

Some of you guys don't understand the real game.

now i get what you're trying to say. pretty funny logic, but makes sense. why should you worry about juice when you can't win.

[pimike]

now i get what you're trying to say. pretty funny logic, but makes sense. why should you worry about juice when you can't win.

LOL

Has JJ ever said anything that made sense?