Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

I have seen this discussed and i would really like to know your thoughts on this. If we have two guys who place a bet with a bookie. Each lay -110 on oppossite sides. The loser loses all of his 110, but the winner only wins $100. Who pays the juice? I know the actual answer. But, I want to see what you guys think and maybe I am wrong (doubtful [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).

craig

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

I've always heard it's the loser. I haven't put much thought into it thou... interested to hear your take.

I hate lossing [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

This is copied from another site, but it was a tout site and the one article that might be correct. If anybody really feels I should link the site I will.

[ QUOTE ]
The bookmaker's rather unique commission has no precise English definition, but the French word for it is "vignes." American gamblers have long since converted "vignes" to "vigorish," or to just plain "vig." Nevertheless, the bookmaker's fee is as much a commission as a broker's fee for handling a stock transaction or a Realtor's fee for handling a real estate deal. To account for this commission on standard pointspread wagers or over/under wagers, at traditional bookmakers for every $10 a bettor wants to win he is required to risk $11 - to "lay" $11. (Many internet bookmakers now charge less, allowing bettors to risk as little as 10.5 to win 10, but for our purposes here we will use '11-10' bets.) These 'eleven-ten' bets lead many gamblers to conclude that they are paying the bookmaker a commission of 10 percent if they lose a bet, but that they pay nothing if they win.

That's not correct. Here's how it actually works: Say two bettors each risk $110 with the same bookmaker on opposite sides of the same proposition, each bettor trying to win $100: The bookmaker receives a total of $220 from the two bettors. One bettor wins, one bettor loses, and the winner picks up a total of $210; - the $110 he put at risk, plus his $100 profit. That leaves the bookmaker with $10 gross profit as his vigorish on the deal. The bookmaker kept $10 of the $220 total amount risked.

That's a service charge of 4.55 percent. Had the two bettors each risked $110 against the other without using the services of the bookmaker, the winner would have walked away with $220 instead of $210. The bookmaker kept 4.55 percent of that $220. The amount risked by each bettor was $110; not 100 dollars.

($10 divided by $220 = .0455)

So the bookmaker does, indeed, charge 4.55 percent of the total amount put at risk by both bettors...But be sure to note which bettor paid both bettors' share of the vigorish. It was not the loser. The loser - since he lost the bet - would have lost whatever he put at risk, with or without the services of the bookmaker. The winner paid. The winnings, which would have been $110 without using the services of the bookmaker, were shorted by ten dollars - 9.1 percent.

($10 divided by $110 = .090909091)

The winner got back only 191 percent of the amount he put at risk.

($110 x 1.90909091 = $210)

This is also the way it works in virtually all other casino games, such as craps, roulette, baccarrat, blackjack, and even slot machines. When a loser loses, he loses what he puts at risk no matter whether the house charges zero vigorish or ten times the vigorish they actually do charge. In roulette, for example, someone betting on an 'even-money' proposition (red or black, high or low, odd or even) and losing, loses his bet, whatever he risked, period.

On the other hand, someone winning against an 'even-money' roulette proposition does not get paid the 'fair' odds of 10-to-9, but only 1-to-1. (There are 20 ways to lose an even-money bet at roulette and only 18 ways to win. The odds are 10-9 against you.) In all these table games, the winners pay the vigorish.

Of course, in a larger, more philosophical sense losers not only pay the vigorish but also the light bills of the casino and the salaries of the casino employees and all the other expenses of the casino. But we're not addressing philosophy here. We're addressing how the business of gambling actually 'works'. This is no place to play with words and semantics. Vigorish is deducted from winnings.

It is important to understand this point. You can be sure most bettors don't. In effect, the bookmaker becomes a partner of the winning bettor. Understanding this point is important when figuring the real cost of various sports betting opportunities, including parlays. (See our article, Parlays & Profit.) For example, laying 12-to-10 is a one-way ticket to the poorhouse. Laying 12 to win 10 costs the winner a whopping 16.67% of his winnings.

The illustration accompanying this text (above) shows precisely the cost of vigorish when dealing with 11-10 bets. Notice that since the winning bettor is always charged for the vigorish, the higher the percentage of bets won, the higher the percentage of vigorish paid. It might help if you picture what happens this way: If you lost all 100 of 100 bets, you would lose 100 percent of the amount put at risk - with or without the services of a bookmaker - but if you won all 100 of 100 bets, you would win only 91 percent of the total amount you were required to risk.

In those two extreme cases, the 0-100 loser would have played for 'free' while the 100-0 winner would have paid more than 9 percent in vigorish. Notice also that even though the bookmaker's commission is 4.55 percent, it is only the bettor who wins exactly half his bets who pays precisely 4.55 percent in vigorish. Everybody else pays something different. In order to break even you must win 53 percent of your bets - assuming the sizes of all your bets are exactly the same - and in order to win 53 percent of your bets, you must pay 4.82 percent in vigorish. Successful sports bettors who win more than 55 percent of their 11-10 bets typically pay more than 5 percent in vigorish.



[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

That's a service charge of 4.55 percent.

I knew that! Really, I must have ready that about 20 times... "Education of a Sports Bettor" (for one) harps on this

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

In my opinion, it's just a matter of semantics. You can really look at it either way.

When you risk $110 to win $100 you can either look at it as:

a.) a $110 bet which the winner pays a $10 vig charge.

-or

b.) a $100 bet which the loser pays an additional $10 vig charge.


Since this vig charge is paid up front and is lumped together with the actual wager, to me a.) makes more sense. If I put down $110 I prefer to view that as a $110 wager, not a $100 wager with a prepaid $10 vig charge in case I lose. It makes more sense to me that way, but in reality they are equivalent and equally valid. I'll make a separate post which shows how you can view the example in the article the other way.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

As I stated above, I tend to agree which the viewpoint presented in the article quoted by Craig that the winners pay the vig. However, I don't think it an indisputably "correct", but rather a point-of-view and here's why:

[ QUOTE ]
The illustration accompanying this text (above) shows precisely the cost of vigorish when dealing with 11-10 bets. Notice that since the winning bettor is always charged for the vigorish, the higher the percentage of bets won, the higher the percentage of vigorish paid. It might help if you picture what happens this way: If you lost all 100 of 100 bets, you would lose 100 percent of the amount put at risk - with or without the services of a bookmaker - but if you won all 100 of 100 bets, you would win only 91 percent of the total amount you were required to risk.

In those two extreme cases, the 0-100 loser would have played for 'free' while the 100-0 winner would have paid more than 9 percent in vigorish. Notice also that even though the bookmaker's commission is 4.55 percent, it is only the bettor who wins exactly half his bets who pays precisely 4.55 percent in vigorish. Everybody else pays something different. In order to break even you must win 53 percent of your bets - assuming the sizes of all your bets are exactly the same - and in order to win 53 percent of your bets, you must pay 4.82 percent in vigorish. Successful sports bettors who win more than 55 percent of their 11-10 bets typically pay more than 5 percent in vigorish.

[/ QUOTE ]

The above is a valid viewpoint, however you can look at a bet of $110 risked to win $100 as a $100 bet with a prepaid $10 service charge "deposit" which is returned if you win. In this case, the 100% winner would win all his $100 bets and have all his $10 "vig charge deposits" returned to him, while the 100% loser would lose all his $100 bets and the bookmaker would keep all the $10 "vig charges". From this point of view, the 100% loser pays all the vig, the winner pays nothing.


As I said, to me this seems a bit more convoluted way of looking at it, but not wrong. In reality it really doesn't matter which way you look at it, everybody pays vig, it's just a cost of doing business.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Both.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

I think the best example is playing roulette. If you and a friend each place 10$ on different numbers and his doesn't hit, he just loses his 10. But, if you hit yours you get $360 (I don't know roullette odds well enought). But, you should have gotten back $380. So, did you friend pay or did you? In this example, it is obvious that you paid.

craig

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the best example is playing roulette. If you and a friend each place 10$ on different numbers and his doesn't hit, he just loses his 10. But, if you hit yours you get $360 (I don't know roullette odds well enought). But, you should have gotten back $380. So, did you friend pay or did you? In this example, it is obvious that you paid.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, I think you could apply Deuces Up's logic here too. You and your friend are essentially each placing a $9.47 bet at 38-1 odds, and prepaying a 53 cent service charge. You win, so you get the service charge back, plus win $360 on the bet. Your friend loses his $9.47, and the casino keeps the service charge as well, for -$10 net.

It's still just semantics, although the idea of a "prepaid service charge for losing" that is returned if you win does stretch credubility a little. I think it's valid from a technical sense though. In the end, unless you're planning on winning (or losing) every bet you place, it doesn't matter. If the winner pays all the juice, and you win half the time, you pay all the juice half the time, or half of the total juice. On the other hand, if the loser pays all the juice and you win half the time, you pay half the juice half the time, or half of the total juice.

In the end, I think the most realistic perspective to take for a serious sports bettor, is that every time you place a bet at -110, you are paying 4.54% juice, win or lose. On average, that will end up being true, and it most accurately describes the effect of the juice on your bankroll.

All the rest of this discussion is just logic puzzles and semantics, which I love arguing as much as anyone, but aren't particularly relevant to the topic.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the best example is playing roulette. If you and a friend each place 10$ on different numbers and his doesn't hit, he just loses his 10. But, if you hit yours you get $360 (I don't know roullette odds well enought). But, you should have gotten back $380. So, did you friend pay or did you? In this example, it is obvious that you paid.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Or did you each place a bet of $9.46 + $0.54 fee for placing the bet [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] (fee returned on winning bets)?

(roulette only pays 35-1)

Edit: JoeBobJim beat me to it.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

The winner.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Who pays the vig??? That's really a stupid question when you come right down to it. It's a simple 10/11 proposition. End of story. Loser always loses his entire stake. Duh. Winner gets back what he deserves based on 10/11 (or whatever) odds he accepted when he made the bet. The math in the example assumes a perfectly balanced book. This hardly ever actually happens. What the bookmaker makes depends on the outcome, just like for the bettor. Difference is only that the bookmaker has the odds stacked in his favor. And CAN - usually - if he wants, lay off enough action one way or the other to guarantee a profit. "Who pays" the juice is really a silly question. It's just a 10/11 proposition pure and simple.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Somebody has to pay the vig? How is this a silly questions. shouldn't we know who pays.

craig

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who pays the vig??? That's really s stupid question when you come right down to it. It's a simple 10/11 proposition. End of story. Loser always loses his entire stake. Duh. Winner gets back what he deserves based on 10/11 (or whatever) odds he accepted when he made the bet. The math in the example assumes a perfectly balanced book. This hardly ever actually happens. What the bookmaker makes depends on the outcome, just like for the bettor. Difference is only that the bookmaker has the odds stacked in his favor. And CAN - usually - if he wants, lay off enough action one way or the other to guarantee a profit. "Who pays" the juice is really a silly question. It's just a 10/11 proposition pure and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Throughout history, there have been many apparently stupid questions that turned out to be much less stupid:

- Dude, where's my car?
- Is the world really flat?
- Whatchu talking 'bout Willis?
- What is the exact value of pi?
- What? You pooped in the refrigerator? And you ate the whole... wheel of cheese? How'd you do that?

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

No. It's not a matter of "who pays". Of course in the long run, the losers pay. But for any given proposition, it's not a question of "who pays". Both bettors are taking the same price. One wins and one loses. Often it's not even the same price. It might be -108/-102 or something like that. To me, it's just a matter of "what's the house edge?" Not a question of "who pays the vig"

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Don't think of it so much like "Steelers or Seahawks" risk 110 to win 100. Think of it like a horse race. 5/2 on the favorite, then 4/1, then 7/1, etc. etc. The total of it all may be somthing like a 7% make-up for the bookie. Who pays the vig?? The losers of course. A football game is like a 2 horse race with each horse equally likely to win.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Is that a McCune book? If so, I don't put much stock in it. I was really just trying to see if the answer was theoretical or if ther was an actual way to figure this out.

I still am not convinced the loser pays. The bookmaker keeps, what is in a sense, the money from the loser.

craig

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

I got a headache right now so only scanned the posts, here is my take:

The loser pays his bet + juice. The winner only pays juice.
The answer is both as the vig was factored into both sides before hand and it doesn't matter the outcome as to who pays it.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Mark me down for a "winner pays" vote.

To keep it sports-related, change the roulette example to a 4-team parlay that pays 10/1, should pay 15/1.

Another way to look at it: when you lose a bet, the bookie doesn't pocket that money; he needs it to pay the winners. If there's any left after paying the winners, he keeps it. Since he's paying the winners less than they had coming (ie, less than even money on a 50-50 bet, or less than 15/1 on a 15/1 shot), the left-over money is coming from the winners.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Both pay. With no vig, the winner would win an extra $10 on his $110 bet. With no vig, the loser would have lost $10 less, as he would have only had to risk $100 to win $100 instead of $110 to win the same amount.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

The vig is a cost when you win; that cost is collected when you lose.

Same as the casinos- they make their money when you win a bet and collect it when you lose.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Think about poker. In poker the winner pays the rake. I'd argue in sports betting the vig is similar. But it doesn't really matter, as you should make bets that you calculate to be +EV, and it doesn't matter what the vig is or who pays it.

If you think -110 is a good line on something it shouldn't matter if the other way is offering +110, pk, -110, or -120. If you think risking 110 to win 100 is a +EV bet, make it and ignore the vig.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

One other thing to take into account, though this doesn't change my argument, is that the losers pay for the Wynn, CEO's, and sportsbooks.

craig

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

We can think of it in several ways however:

When you lose you pay exactly the fair price that you should pay. The sum of your wager. In this case $110. When you win however a fee is collected from the win and you are undercompensated for your troubles.

Sucks to be you heh?

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Here's a fun corollary.

In a parlay, the loser bets $5 and loses $5.

The winner bets $5 on a 3-1 proposition, yet only gets 13-5.

Winner "pays the vig". Sorta.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

I'm more convinced that everyone contributing to a poker pot pays rake, then I am both sides pay the vig in a sport book. Think this was a poor example.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

They both pay vig. I don't see how it can be figured any other way.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Only the winner pays vig. -110 is the same as if they charge 1/11th of the winning as commission if you win and charge nothing if you lose.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen this discussed and i would really like to know your thoughts on this. If we have two guys who place a bet with a bookie. Each lay -110 on oppossite sides. The loser loses all of his 110, but the winner only wins $100. Who pays the juice? I know the actual answer. But, I want to see what you guys think and maybe I am wrong (doubtful [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the other replies in this thread so I'm sorry if someone else already answered. The answer is that the loser pays the vig. Here's an example. There is a game at PK and you take the home team and put down $110 to win $100 and your friend does the same with the away team. Assume that is the only action on the game so the book now has $220. If you win, the book returns your $110, and then takes your friend's $110 pays you $100 of it, keeping $10 of vig from the loser. If you lose, the book will do the reverse and keep your $10 instead of your friend's. Hence, the loser always pays the vig.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have seen this discussed and i would really like to know your thoughts on this. If we have two guys who place a bet with a bookie. Each lay -110 on oppossite sides. The loser loses all of his 110, but the winner only wins $100. Who pays the juice? I know the actual answer. But, I want to see what you guys think and maybe I am wrong (doubtful [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the other replies in this thread so I'm sorry if someone else already answered. The answer is that the loser pays the vig. Here's an example. There is a game at PK and you take the home team and put down $110 to win $100 and your friend does the same with the away team. Assume that is the only action on the game so the book now has $220. If you win, the book returns your $110, and then takes your friend's $110 pays you $100 of it, keeping $10 of vig from the loser. If you lose, the book will do the reverse and keep your $10 instead of your friend's. Hence, the loser always pays the vig.

[/ QUOTE ]

An argument like this could also be used to show that the winner pays the vig. Without vig, the winner would get paid $220 instead of $210. So, one could argue that the $10 the book is making is taken from the winner.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Those were my thoughts Homer. The winner pays the "broker" (bookie) for carrying out the transaction.

craig

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

The winner pays 100% of the vig, and its not even close.

Do you see why?








[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]









if not, its exactly as detailed by a couple people above. the winner should be paid 110 for his 110 bet but is paid 10:11. this money withheld from the winner (only) is the juice.

In other words, both betters are not risking 110 to win 100, even though it looks that way. They're both risking 110 to win 110, but the agreement is that the "house" only pays the winner 10:11. The loser drops 100% of their risked wager, not any more.

The casino table games are the perfect example. Do the casinos take their profit from people who win or people that lose at roulette / craps / etc?

While your first instinct might be that the losers are the ones that keep the lights on in Vegas, casinos take their longterm profits from each person that wins a bet, by paying them less than what they should (less than the true odds of the action happening). and this is why most people lose money over time, because they're playing a -EV game.

You can see this another way, by looking at if you went to a roulette table and placed a bet on every number (including 0 and 00 if you're in a US casino) you'd lose money, because the house is taking a percentage of your winnings as juice. If the house wasn't taking juice from the winner, you'd be breaking even.

Same thing with red/black on roulette: they should be paying more than 1:1 because of the 0/00 factor, and since they're not you have a longterm -EV expectation because they're witholding the extra 2%/4% from your payout on red/black.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

very interesting topic, and something i wondered about.

alot of people think the "commission fee" is 9% (approx. 10/110) not the 4.55% (from memory)... but i always knew the fee was the lower amount, although sometimes it's hard to conceptualize.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen this discussed and i would really like to know your thoughts on this. If we have two guys who place a bet with a bookie. Each lay -110 on oppossite sides. The loser loses all of his 110, but the winner only wins $100. Who pays the juice? I know the actual answer. But, I want to see what you guys think and maybe I am wrong (doubtful [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Winners pay, this is a joke, right Craig? Loser lost his bet, he didn't pay any vig. If you bet on Hard 10 at craps and lose, do you pay a vig there as well?

Naj

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have seen this discussed and i would really like to know your thoughts on this. If we have two guys who place a bet with a bookie. Each lay -110 on oppossite sides. The loser loses all of his 110, but the winner only wins $100. Who pays the juice? I know the actual answer. But, I want to see what you guys think and maybe I am wrong (doubtful [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Winners pay, this is a joke, right Craig? Loser lost his bet, he didn't pay any vig. If you bet on Hard 10 at craps and lose, do you pay a vig there as well?

Naj

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is obvious, but many have argued that the losers pay. When I win a bet placed at -110 I am shorted $10. It is obvious who is paying.

craig

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, both betters are not risking 110 to win 100, even though it looks that way. They're both risking 110 to win 110, but the agreement is that the "house" only pays the winner 10:11. The loser drops 100% of their risked wager, not any more.


[/ QUOTE ]
Please excuse me if I'm wrong because I didn't read this entire thread but couldn't it be looked at as both people in theory having to risk 100 to win 100 but the house just takes their edge off of both sides before the outcome to guarantee a profit? This would mean the loser would actually pay.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have seen this discussed and i would really like to know your thoughts on this. If we have two guys who place a bet with a bookie. Each lay -110 on oppossite sides. The loser loses all of his 110, but the winner only wins $100. Who pays the juice? I know the actual answer. But, I want to see what you guys think and maybe I am wrong (doubtful [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Winners pay, this is a joke, right Craig? Loser lost his bet, he didn't pay any vig. If you bet on Hard 10 at craps and lose, do you pay a vig there as well?

Naj

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is obvious, but many have argued that the losers pay. When I win a bet placed at -110 I am shorted $10. It is obvious who is paying.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, they have a name for those people, they are called 'suckers.' [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Naj

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

WHY IS THIS DISCUSSION STILL GOING BACK AND FORTH?!?!?!?!

THE WINNER PAYS!!!
SO DOES THE LOSER!!!

You can argue, mathematically, that only the winner pays, OR that only the loser pays, and be technically "right" either way. It's all semantics. In the end it all averages out though, and the winner and loser each pay half the juice.

If you plan to factor your answer to this question into any of your bankroll management plans, then you HAVE to treat the answer as "both" or else you'll get yourself into trouble down the road.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

Interesting to see this here. The same argument came up at Covers a few years back with people insisting that only losers pay the vig.

So I came up with this thought experiment. Suppose the house decided to run a promotion - every Sunday, for the first round of games, they make one a "no juice" special, but they do not reveal what the game will be before hand. So everyone still bets the the -110 but in one case the winners will actually get paid as if it were +100.

If all you picked were losers then you would never know what game was juice free. Only a winner would be able to identify the juice free game.


Now, if someone can come up with a similar situation in which the winner can't tell which game had the juice, I'll agree that both sides pay the vig.

Until then, I'm sticking to the idea that only winners pay the vig.

Re: Who pays the vig: The loser or the winner??
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's all semantics. In the end it all averages out though, and the winner and loser each pay half the juice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really the correct answer. The system is set up such that the book takes in more more than they have to pay out hence everyone who's betting is paying vig.

I'll give one more way of looking at it which I think shows that both winners and losers pay vig:

Consider instead a betting exchange with no fees. When a bet is agreed upon, there is no vig - 100% of the money wagered goes to the winner. Now one person on this exchange is offering to take bets on Sea+4-105 and another is offering bets on Pitt-4-105. The "market" is giving a fair value of this game of Sea+4+100 the midpoint between these offers. These two offers that are out there haven't been matched up because of the "bid-ask spread" between these two numbers, neither is willing to lay even odds on their bet they both want to get back +105.

Now if you want to take one of these bets - it doesn't matter which one - you have to "jump across" the bid-ask-spread and lay -105. Clearly from a trading point of view, you've taken the worst of it. You've conceded the even odds and agreed to pay -105 odds which is essentially vig. In this model, it is always THE BUYER who is agreeing to take odds worse than the fair market value. Note that it doesn't matter whether the bet wins or looses, the buyer paid his "vig" when he accepted odds worse than what the market was valuing the game at.

In the case of the sportsbook, the bettor is always "the buyer" and the sportsbook is always "the seller". The sportsbook is offering bets on both sides but the odds offered on both bets are decreased from the fair price, generally making you lay -110 when the fair price is +100. You pay the vig when you accept the bet at decreased odds, it doesn't matter whether the bet wins or looses.