Actually if DS gave this question a serious answer I'd like to think it would look a little something like this:
Ultimately I think the crux of the "argument" is not the definition of the word "vigorish".
This debate comes down to the semantics of the term "pays".
If you mean who actually physically hands over the money that we identify as being dedicated to pay the bookmaker's fee, its the winner every time and you cannot realistically argue otherwise, and its not even close. Do you see why?
The bookmaking example sets this off perfectly. John and Mary both wager on opposite sides of the same game, both placing a $100 wager. The bookmaker Ben tells them both he'll be charging a 5% vigorish (effectively a -110 line). When Mary's team wins. John tries to hand Mary his $100. However, Ben intercedes, grabbing John's $100 bill. Ben reaches in to his pocket and makes quick change: he counts out four $20 bills, plus an extra $10 bill an a $1 dollar bill (because he's a nice guy and is rounding up), and hands the stack of $91 to Mary. Ben has taken his 5% fee (in this case $9) and he's physically taken the money from the winner.
Its the exact same thing with a rake or with a roulette bet or anything else. When a poker pot is raked, that money is literally coming out of the stack of the person who drags the pot - the dealer reaches in to the pot and physically removes the rake prior to handing the pot to the winner. This money is literally being paid by the winner.
In a statistical, expected value type defination of the term "pays", then it can be argued that metaphysically speaking both sides "pay" the vig by entering in to a -110 proposition thus costing themselves ~5% vig.
however I think the reasonable defination of "pays" is "whose pocket does the vig come out of" and in that defination it literally comes out of the pocket of the winner. The loser loses 100% of their initial bet, the winner gets the bookmaker's 5% fee (the vigorish) taken out of the amount they expect to be paid. Likewise anyone getting dealt a hand of poker at that raked table "pays", virtually speaking, a portion of the rake every hand they're dealt whether they play or not.
However, I believe any attempt to define "pays" as such is distorting the original question. And as such is incorrect.
But with the rake example, I think there's another scenario that helps to spell this out even better.
If you sit down at a poker table and fold every hand for three orbits, how much rake did you pay? Let's assume you folded every hand, including your blinds.
If you're playing online, open a table, fold for two orbits, and then go in to poker tracker and look at your stats for that session, what is it going to say under the "rake paid" column?
It's going to say zero.
Because you haven't literally paid any rake.
Because.... drumroll... you haven't won any pots.
PS: I know this is true. I read it on the internets.
http://www.dragonbets.com/sports-bet...-explained.php