Nick: I’m sorry. You’re wrong.
You’ve got one thing right: bookmakers would PREFER that they have even action on both games, with everyone on both sides laying 11 to win 10. However, this doesn’t always happen. And when that happens, books have liabilities on games that they otherwise wouldn’t have. So books can lose money on a given season, and so you MAY have negative rollover.
And indeed, some sharp books will take leans on games. Take the Carolina @ Chicago game last year. You know what the percentage of bets and money were on that game? 70% to 30%, Carolina. And Pinnacle, the sharpest of the sharp, moved the line TO ENCOURAGE action on Carolina before the game started (line was -3.5 on Carolina, line was moved to -3, which we both know is HUGE)
And your examples always assume that everyone loses in the long run. This is not true. Everyone does NOT always lose in the long run. Some people can actually pick games to beat the vig. So the players that you refer are important. Are they sharps, that can pick enough winners over losers so that they win money, and thus make the sportsbook lose money? If so, that’s why you are experiencing negative rollover.
And not every bet is geared towards even action: parlays and teasers, for example are always a player vs. the book. So books do have other sources of income rather than the vig in straight bets. With parlays and teasers, the book just tries to use simple math in order to beat the player, but this doesn’t ALWAYS work. Think correlated parlays and such.
So stop berating Gooner. Because in this instance, he is correct.