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

[Lottery Larry]

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.

[SumZero]

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.

[craig]

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

[slavic]

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?

[Daliman]

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.

[PropPlayer]

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.

[TomBrooks]

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

[dafor11]

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.

[shamu]

[ 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.

[Homer]

[ 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.