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

[MCS]

The winner.

[freewheeler]

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.

[craig]

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

craig

[mj555]

[ 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?

[freewheeler]

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"

[freewheeler]

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.

[craig]

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

[PropPlayer]

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.

[youtalkfunny]

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.

[Homer]

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.