[BobJoeJim]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't usually make this sort of post. Because anyone is welcome to their opinion. I value and respect you all as human beings, content contributors, yadda yadda. But...

But anyone who believes that (a) the losers pay the juice or (b) both sides pay the juice has a very deep and very fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of gambling as a whole and sports wagering specifically.

...
Now some people feel that's not the case for sports betting. if we're both betting opposite sides of a -110 line it feels like we're both wagering $100 to win $100 and we're paying a $10 "service charge" for the privledge, right? Wrong. It works exactly like the craps example. We're wagering on something that's a 50-50 proposition, in essence. we should be paid at 1:1. For every dollar we wager, we should be paid a dollar in return. So when we step up to the sportsbook and wager $110, we should be paid, from a true neutral expected value perspective, $110 if we win and lose our bet if we lose. And if that happened, just like in the craps example the house wouldn't make any money. They'd just take the money from the loser and hand it to the winner. But just like in the craps example, the house doesn't do that. They take the money from the loser, they take a percentage of the profits as a "transaction fee", and then they pay the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]
Performify, those of us who are arguing that both sides pay understand the craps example. It's just a more detailed version of the same winner pays argument that has been given many times in this thread. And it's true, mathematically. The flaw in your reasoning is to assume that because it's "true" that the winner pays, it must be "false" that the loser pays. You say the idea of a "service charge" is wrong, but mathematically you can argue that it is the case, and the numbers work. Whether you consider it a "service charge" that is returned to the winner, or a "transaction fee" that is taken out of the winner's cut, is PURE SEMANTICS.

In the end, the sports book takes its "vig" by trying to make EVERY BET THEY OFFER be negative EV. (Of course they fail sometimes, and the purpose of this forum is to exchange ideas on how to catch them in the act when they do, and profit from it, but that's a sidenote.) The vig isn't taken from anyone specific, it's a GENERAL fee, that they charge to ALL their customers, by offering -110 lines on even propositions. In the end, you're placing a -110 bet on something that you and the book agree is probably 50/50 to happen, and THAT is when you pay the vig. It doesn't matter if you go on to win or lose the bet. You already paid, by accepting -EV.

EVERYONE PAYS THE VIG!

And with all due respect, my friend, if you don't understand that then it's you whose fundamental understanding of gambling is flawed.