who's your longshot to win a division this year, and maybe going to the series? nobody (at least very few) saw tampa bay doing what they did last year.
my SHOT is the GIANTS. i think they could have the best pitching in the west with lincecum, cain, unit, zito, sanchez...lots of K's here. howry and wilson should be able to close it if they get to them.
i understand this is a SHOT, but!!
longshots
longshots
bill cleavenger
BIG BLUE NATION
"we don't rebuild, we reload"
BIG BLUE NATION
"we don't rebuild, we reload"
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 2558
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:00 pm
longshots
Originally posted by KentuckyReign:
who's your longshot to win a division this year, and maybe going to the series? nobody (at least very few) saw tampa bay doing what they did last year.
my SHOT is the GIANTS. i think they could have the best pitching in the west with lincecum, cain, unit, zito, sanchez...lots of K's here. howry and wilson should be able to close it if they get to them.
i understand this is a SHOT, but!! Load up!! Maybe Barry will be back!
who's your longshot to win a division this year, and maybe going to the series? nobody (at least very few) saw tampa bay doing what they did last year.
my SHOT is the GIANTS. i think they could have the best pitching in the west with lincecum, cain, unit, zito, sanchez...lots of K's here. howry and wilson should be able to close it if they get to them.
i understand this is a SHOT, but!! Load up!! Maybe Barry will be back!
longshots
In that same division, I like the Dodgers chances. Great young pitching with Billingsley and Kershaw leading the way. Broxton closing, no weaknesses at any position.
On the other hand, besides the obvious choices of San Diego, Washington, and Pittsburgh; Toronto has a good chance at being a very, very bad team this year. Vernon Wells lead the team with 20 hr's last year, he's already hurt. They didn't sign anybody to help with power, their corners are Overbay and Rolen with a McDonald-Scutaro-Hill middle of the infield...between the five infielders, 50 hr's would be a reach.
Their bullpen gave them an edge last year and helped them to a winning record, but their starters were decimated by injuries. They'll have a good chance to win every fifth day as long as Halladay stays healthy, if that doesen't happen, Rusty Litsch is their ace, 'nuff said.
On the other hand, besides the obvious choices of San Diego, Washington, and Pittsburgh; Toronto has a good chance at being a very, very bad team this year. Vernon Wells lead the team with 20 hr's last year, he's already hurt. They didn't sign anybody to help with power, their corners are Overbay and Rolen with a McDonald-Scutaro-Hill middle of the infield...between the five infielders, 50 hr's would be a reach.
Their bullpen gave them an edge last year and helped them to a winning record, but their starters were decimated by injuries. They'll have a good chance to win every fifth day as long as Halladay stays healthy, if that doesen't happen, Rusty Litsch is their ace, 'nuff said.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
-
Navel Lint
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:00 pm
- Contact:
longshots
I like the Dodgers for the NL west, but I don't know that I would consider either the Dodgers or the Giants long shots.
Most recent odds;
Arizona Diamondbacks 3-2 In Progress
Los Angeles Dodgers 9-5 In Progress
San Francisco Giants 3-1 In Progress
Colorado Rockies 8-1 In Progress
San Diego Padres 8-1 In Progress
Last Updated: March 7, 2009 10:30:11 AM EST
Of course some lines are affected by perennial fan favorites like the Dodgers and Cubs.
[ March 07, 2009, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: rucrew2 ]
Most recent odds;
Arizona Diamondbacks 3-2 In Progress
Los Angeles Dodgers 9-5 In Progress
San Francisco Giants 3-1 In Progress
Colorado Rockies 8-1 In Progress
San Diego Padres 8-1 In Progress
Last Updated: March 7, 2009 10:30:11 AM EST
Of course some lines are affected by perennial fan favorites like the Dodgers and Cubs.
[ March 07, 2009, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: rucrew2 ]
Russel -Navel Lint
"Fans don't boo nobodies"
-Reggie Jackson
"Fans don't boo nobodies"
-Reggie Jackson
longshots
Originally posted by rucrew2:
I like the Dodgers for the NL west, but I don't know that I would consider either the Dodgers or the Giants long shots.
Most recent odds;
Arizona Diamondbacks 3-2 In Progress
Los Angeles Dodgers 9-5 In Progress
San Francisco Giants 3-1 In Progress
Colorado Rockies 8-1 In Progress
San Diego Padres 8-1 In Progress
Last Updated: March 7, 2009 10:30:11 AM EST
Of course some lines are affected by perennial fan favorites like the Dodgers and Cubs. During this bad economy, it looks like Vegas is saving themselves a little money by "shortening" odds. Normal year, the Padres and Rockies would be higher than 8-1.
I like the Dodgers for the NL west, but I don't know that I would consider either the Dodgers or the Giants long shots.
Most recent odds;
Arizona Diamondbacks 3-2 In Progress
Los Angeles Dodgers 9-5 In Progress
San Francisco Giants 3-1 In Progress
Colorado Rockies 8-1 In Progress
San Diego Padres 8-1 In Progress
Last Updated: March 7, 2009 10:30:11 AM EST
Of course some lines are affected by perennial fan favorites like the Dodgers and Cubs. During this bad economy, it looks like Vegas is saving themselves a little money by "shortening" odds. Normal year, the Padres and Rockies would be higher than 8-1.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
longshots
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I don't know what's normal for these types of bets, but this is 23% juice. They could make the longshots 20:1 and still take 10%. not sure how your getting 23%, im bad at math but looks like to me they would be getting 110 for every 1000 or 11%.
I don't know what's normal for these types of bets, but this is 23% juice. They could make the longshots 20:1 and still take 10%. not sure how your getting 23%, im bad at math but looks like to me they would be getting 110 for every 1000 or 11%.
longshots
Originally posted by Bama:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I don't know what's normal for these types of bets, but this is 23% juice. They could make the longshots 20:1 and still take 10%. not sure how your getting 23%, im bad at math but looks like to me they would be getting 110 for every 1000 or 11%. [/QUOTE]How did you come to that number Ken?
If you add up the implied probability of each team winning you get to 123%. So, if I bet $100 on each team, for a total bet of $500, my expected return would be $500/1.23 = $407. Although from the casino standpoint, this means they should profit $93 on my $500 bet, so from their end it would equate to 18.6% in profit (juice).
[ March 07, 2009, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I don't know what's normal for these types of bets, but this is 23% juice. They could make the longshots 20:1 and still take 10%. not sure how your getting 23%, im bad at math but looks like to me they would be getting 110 for every 1000 or 11%. [/QUOTE]How did you come to that number Ken?
If you add up the implied probability of each team winning you get to 123%. So, if I bet $100 on each team, for a total bet of $500, my expected return would be $500/1.23 = $407. Although from the casino standpoint, this means they should profit $93 on my $500 bet, so from their end it would equate to 18.6% in profit (juice).
[ March 07, 2009, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
longshots
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Bama:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I don't know what's normal for these types of bets, but this is 23% juice. They could make the longshots 20:1 and still take 10%. not sure how your getting 23%, im bad at math but looks like to me they would be getting 110 for every 1000 or 11%. [/QUOTE]How did you come to that number Ken?
If I bet $100 on each team, for a total bet of $500, my expected return would be $407 based on the implied probability of each team winning. $500/$407 = 123%. Although from the casino standpoint, they would profit $93 on my $500 bet, so from their end that would equate to 18.6% juice. [/QUOTE]Bet 100 on each team. assume each team would win, the total payout for casino would be 2225. divide by 5 equal 445. 445/500 equal 55 for house or 11%
[ March 07, 2009, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Bama ]
quote:Originally posted by Bama:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I don't know what's normal for these types of bets, but this is 23% juice. They could make the longshots 20:1 and still take 10%. not sure how your getting 23%, im bad at math but looks like to me they would be getting 110 for every 1000 or 11%. [/QUOTE]How did you come to that number Ken?
If I bet $100 on each team, for a total bet of $500, my expected return would be $407 based on the implied probability of each team winning. $500/$407 = 123%. Although from the casino standpoint, they would profit $93 on my $500 bet, so from their end that would equate to 18.6% juice. [/QUOTE]Bet 100 on each team. assume each team would win, the total payout for casino would be 2225. divide by 5 equal 445. 445/500 equal 55 for house or 11%
[ March 07, 2009, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Bama ]
longshots
Originally posted by Bama:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Bama:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I don't know what's normal for these types of bets, but this is 23% juice. They could make the longshots 20:1 and still take 10%. not sure how your getting 23%, im bad at math but looks like to me they would be getting 110 for every 1000 or 11%. [/QUOTE]How did you come to that number Ken?
If I bet $100 on each team, for a total bet of $500, my expected return would be $407 based on the implied probability of each team winning. $500/$407 = 123%. Although from the casino standpoint, they would profit $93 on my $500 bet, so from their end that would equate to 18.6% juice. [/QUOTE]Bet 100 on each team. assume each team would win, the total payout would be 2225. divide by 5 equal 445. 445/500 equal 55 for house or 11% [/QUOTE]Yeah, that math doesn't work Ken.
If you sum all the payouts it comes to 2730, not 2225, because 8:1, for example, pays out $900 (800 profit plus the original 100). Do this for all 5 possibilities and you come to 2730.
Continuing your equation, 2730/5 = 546. This would be the average payout (546) if you bet 100 on each team, but not the expected payout, because the odds of the Padres winning (and 900 being paid out) is presumably much lower than that of the Dodgers winning. If all teams had an equal chance of winning the house would be expected to lose 46 on every 500 bet.
What you want to do is look at the implied probability of each team winning - the Padres for example would be 1 chance in 9, or 11%. Do that for each team, total them up and you come up with the total implied probability of all teams winning, which in this case is 123%. So the casino is overstating the probability of each team winning by 23%.
Take the total bet on all teams and divide by 123%, which will give you the expected house payout. Then subtract the expected payout from the total bet, and you get the house profit.
[ March 07, 2009, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Bama:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I don't know what's normal for these types of bets, but this is 23% juice. They could make the longshots 20:1 and still take 10%. not sure how your getting 23%, im bad at math but looks like to me they would be getting 110 for every 1000 or 11%. [/QUOTE]How did you come to that number Ken?
If I bet $100 on each team, for a total bet of $500, my expected return would be $407 based on the implied probability of each team winning. $500/$407 = 123%. Although from the casino standpoint, they would profit $93 on my $500 bet, so from their end that would equate to 18.6% juice. [/QUOTE]Bet 100 on each team. assume each team would win, the total payout would be 2225. divide by 5 equal 445. 445/500 equal 55 for house or 11% [/QUOTE]Yeah, that math doesn't work Ken.
If you sum all the payouts it comes to 2730, not 2225, because 8:1, for example, pays out $900 (800 profit plus the original 100). Do this for all 5 possibilities and you come to 2730.
Continuing your equation, 2730/5 = 546. This would be the average payout (546) if you bet 100 on each team, but not the expected payout, because the odds of the Padres winning (and 900 being paid out) is presumably much lower than that of the Dodgers winning. If all teams had an equal chance of winning the house would be expected to lose 46 on every 500 bet.
What you want to do is look at the implied probability of each team winning - the Padres for example would be 1 chance in 9, or 11%. Do that for each team, total them up and you come up with the total implied probability of all teams winning, which in this case is 123%. So the casino is overstating the probability of each team winning by 23%.
Take the total bet on all teams and divide by 123%, which will give you the expected house payout. Then subtract the expected payout from the total bet, and you get the house profit.
[ March 07, 2009, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
longshots
Kj, keep trying to work with that fuzzy goverment math. In your example i come up with 2725 with 500 of that the amount bet plus 2225 that the casino would have to come up with. my example is off because in the end one will win so the casino will have to up with 2325/5 or 465. so 465 paid out for every 500 bet or 7% profit and 93% return to bettors.
longshots
Originally posted by Bama:
Kj, keep trying to work with that fuzzy goverment math. In your example i come up with 2725 with 500 of that the amount bet plus 2225 that the casino would have to come up with. my example is off because in the end one will win so the casino will have to up with 2325/5 or 465. so 465 paid out for every 500 bet or 7% profit and 93% return to bettors. Ken, I assume you are $5 off on the 9:5 bet, that one would pay $280 on a $100 bet- what do you have?
Secondly, the casino doesn't have to come up with 465, they have to come up with anywhere from 250 to 900, depending on which team wins.
My numbers are simple algebra. You said you're not good at math? Well I got "A's" in Statistics, Logic and Algebra in college. Trust me on this one.
I could easily give you a different example that would blow up your model.
Kj, keep trying to work with that fuzzy goverment math. In your example i come up with 2725 with 500 of that the amount bet plus 2225 that the casino would have to come up with. my example is off because in the end one will win so the casino will have to up with 2325/5 or 465. so 465 paid out for every 500 bet or 7% profit and 93% return to bettors. Ken, I assume you are $5 off on the 9:5 bet, that one would pay $280 on a $100 bet- what do you have?
Secondly, the casino doesn't have to come up with 465, they have to come up with anywhere from 250 to 900, depending on which team wins.
My numbers are simple algebra. You said you're not good at math? Well I got "A's" in Statistics, Logic and Algebra in college. Trust me on this one.
I could easily give you a different example that would blow up your model.longshots
The 280 is right. went though it real quick in my head. if 5 diff people bet 5 different teams in this example. the casino would have to come up with between 150 and 800 dollars according to which team won, The casino would recieve 400 dollars every time this happened. I still dont see how that amounts to 23% juice. Im actually very good at math.
longshots
Originally posted by Bama:
The 280 is right. went though it real quick in my head. if 5 diff people bet 5 different teams in this example. the casino would have to come up with between 150 and 800 dollars according to which team won, The casino would recieve 400 dollars every time this happened. I still dont see how that amounts to 23% juice. Im actually very good at math. Yeah, if you want to look at it that way, the casino would have 400 in losing bets and one winning bet - and that bet would pay the winner a profit of 150-800.
But to determine the "juice" you have to assign a probability of how likely each payout is. In your example, the casino would actually lose money because that 465 payout number (which is simply the avg payout, not the expected payout) you used would be against 400 taken in, so that would be negative juice if your example was correct.
Write it out or do in a spreadsheet and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.
[ March 07, 2009, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
The 280 is right. went though it real quick in my head. if 5 diff people bet 5 different teams in this example. the casino would have to come up with between 150 and 800 dollars according to which team won, The casino would recieve 400 dollars every time this happened. I still dont see how that amounts to 23% juice. Im actually very good at math. Yeah, if you want to look at it that way, the casino would have 400 in losing bets and one winning bet - and that bet would pay the winner a profit of 150-800.
But to determine the "juice" you have to assign a probability of how likely each payout is. In your example, the casino would actually lose money because that 465 payout number (which is simply the avg payout, not the expected payout) you used would be against 400 taken in, so that would be negative juice if your example was correct.
Write it out or do in a spreadsheet and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.
[ March 07, 2009, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
longshots
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I don't know what's normal for these types of bets, but this is 23% juice. They could make the longshots 20:1 and still take 10%. Lance would know better than I, but it seems bottom feeders in divisions have been longer shots than 8-1.
Vegas may get more juice this way, but less volume with less appealing longshots, thus limiting their take anyway.
Of course, if they get too many bets on Arizona and LA, they'll shorten the odds on those teams and extend the longshot odds to attract the longshot players.
I don't know what's normal for these types of bets, but this is 23% juice. They could make the longshots 20:1 and still take 10%. Lance would know better than I, but it seems bottom feeders in divisions have been longer shots than 8-1.
Vegas may get more juice this way, but less volume with less appealing longshots, thus limiting their take anyway.
Of course, if they get too many bets on Arizona and LA, they'll shorten the odds on those teams and extend the longshot odds to attract the longshot players.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
longshots
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Bama:
The 280 is right. went though it real quick in my head. if 5 diff people bet 5 different teams in this example. the casino would have to come up with between 150 and 800 dollars according to which team won, The casino would recieve 400 dollars every time this happened. I still dont see how that amounts to 23% juice. Im actually very good at math. Yeah, if you want to look at it that way, the casino would have 400 in losing bets and one winning bet - and that bet would pay the winner a profit of 150-800.
But to determine the "juice" you have to assign a probability of how likely each payout is. In your example, the casino would actually lose money because that 465 payout number (which is simply the avg payout, not the expected payout) you used would be against 400 taken in, so that would be negative juice if your example was correct.
Write it out or do in a spreadsheet and I'm sure you'll see what I mean. [/QUOTE]Actually if i was doing like it should have been done it would be 446/480 or 9.3%. the casino is setting odds to get equal amount of bets on each team.
quote:Originally posted by Bama:
The 280 is right. went though it real quick in my head. if 5 diff people bet 5 different teams in this example. the casino would have to come up with between 150 and 800 dollars according to which team won, The casino would recieve 400 dollars every time this happened. I still dont see how that amounts to 23% juice. Im actually very good at math. Yeah, if you want to look at it that way, the casino would have 400 in losing bets and one winning bet - and that bet would pay the winner a profit of 150-800.
But to determine the "juice" you have to assign a probability of how likely each payout is. In your example, the casino would actually lose money because that 465 payout number (which is simply the avg payout, not the expected payout) you used would be against 400 taken in, so that would be negative juice if your example was correct.
Write it out or do in a spreadsheet and I'm sure you'll see what I mean. [/QUOTE]Actually if i was doing like it should have been done it would be 446/480 or 9.3%. the casino is setting odds to get equal amount of bets on each team.