Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire15:
You are WRONG, Scalabrine... let me see if I can explain.
You argument is simply a perspective that make it seem that the winner pays the juice. When you look at it as if the bettor has a set amount to risk ($110) and can only win $100, it looks like the winner pays the juice.
If you look at it as if a bettor has a certain amount to win $100, but the bookie imposes 10 cents juice, so I have to risk $110, when I lose I lose an extra $10... so the loser pays the juice.
It's just a matter of perspective...
We are arguing over who PAYS the juice... IMO, clearly, since the bookie PAYS the winner and loser PAYS the bookie, even if the winner received less than he should have, it was paid by the loser...
....this leaves us at a dead end
clearly the winner lost out of money too!
WELL THIS IS BECAUSE THEY BOTH LOSE MONEY, which I have been trying to argue for a while now.
The question was 'who pays the juice?' ---- the SAME question, phrased differently, that would allow for everyone to have the same answer..... "Who pays the RISK?' simplified even further, Which side loses out from paying the juice?
BOTH!!!!The problem that causes this paradox that has everyone debating is that WE ARE LOOKING AT IT AS IF THE GAME IS ALREADY OVER, and then justifying how we won or lost. When we bet, we don't know if we will win or lose,
-- I can bet $1100 to win $1000 and say that if I lose, I pay 100 juice
-- I can bet $1000 to win $909 and say that if I win I pay $91 juice
-- I can bet $1047.75 to win $952.25 and say that regardless of winning or losing, I will pay $47.75 in juiceBut regardless of how you look at it AFTER THE FACT, the reality is that the RISK is the same BEFORE THE BET on BOTH SIDES.
Fuck yeah.
The bolded part is completely false (as is the rest of your post along with Cmo's but I don't have the time or patience to address it all so I will choose your most flagrant bonehead musings).
The loser LOST. That's it! End of story. The bookie pockets your money and walks away regardless of the amount. There is no clear indication from the bettor or bookie that specifies how much a LOSER pays in juice.
I defy ANY BOOKIE to tell me how much juice he collected on a LOSING bet.
But the winner participated in a successful transaction. Much like in sales, a commission is granted to the salesman who made the transaction possible. When you bet $110 you are rightfully owed $110. But the bookie steps in and says that $10 of your bet was never really bet: it was put aside so that if you ended up winning the bet, your $110 would be returned to you and $100 would be rightfully paid at even odds. The $10 that should have been doubled is never paid. That is the bookie's vig/vigorish/juice.
That is clear and straightforward on a WINNING bet because that is how the system works. NO ONE CAN TELL ME what the losing juice is. It is not clear. Why? Because it doesn't exist.
Much like the rake in poker, 9 people enter a multiway pot. You hit the nut flush on the river and take it down and take it down. There are NINE PEOPLE A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I in this pot who have all contributed different amounts at different times, dropping out at each street. The pot is pushed to you. It is ALL YOUR MONEY. Do you know what happens next? The dealer takes 10% or $4 max out of the pot as the rake FROM YOU, the winner. It would take a graduate level math course and maybe some computer programming to figure out how much juice each of the nine players paid in total with each of their bets at different times.
But is this necessary? NO! Because they paid NO JUICE. They paid YOU and then YOU PAID THE HOUSE AFTER YOU WON!
END OF STORY GUYS. It's got to stop and it's got to stop ASAP.
We are a community of degenerate gamblers and some here with thousands and thousands of posts fail to understand WHAT RUNS THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY!!!!
Hot Forum Topics
