Why aren't long shots accurate?

I suppose as much as this, it doesn't make sense for the casino to cap -20,000s. I just don't understand why one bet can't be -21500 and another -19,800. If -130 odds mah go either way by the second, why can't long odds and super shorts? Is it really fair to bettors for the Athletics, the White Sox , the Rockies, the Pirates and the Nationals all to have +50,000 odds. I was kind of under the assumption the vig is the vig, these contradictions tell me it isn't actually true the house doesn't take a side in betting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theywontpayontuesday

I suppose as much as this, it doesn't make sense for the casino to cap -20,000s. I just don't understand why one bet can't be -21500 and another -19,800. If -130 odds mah go either way by the second, why can't long odds and super shorts? Is it really fair to bettors for the Athletics, the White Sox , the Rockies, the Pirates and the Nationals all to have +50,000 odds. I was kind of under the assumption the vig is the vig, these contradictions tell me it isn't actually true the house doesn't take a side in betting.

---

Are you talking odds to win the World series at this point of the season? A quick google search says the biggest second half of the season (we are just about half way) comeback was the New York Yankees coming back from 14 down in mid July. All teams mentioned are further back than that. so we are talking about something that has Never happened. yeah, you would think books would take any wager amount on that. :D

Oh wait...there was the New York Knights in the movie The Natural. They were in last place, I don't know how many games back. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theywontpayontuesday

Is it really fair to bettors for the Athletics, the White Sox , the Rockies, the Pirates and the Nationals all to have +50,000 odds.

---

I probably don't understand the question, but I assume the books have logistical reasons for not wanting to offer extreme lottery-ticket odds.

The Rockies in particular appear extraordinarily unlikely as they would need to nearly win out just to reach postseason. Rather than ripping off customers, some books have taken the Rockies off the board: Atlantis, Circa, and Superbook NV.

Worst I've found is Bet Rivers, which has Rockies +20,000, with the others you mentioned at +16,000.

I don't know how much action they'll take, but I found select +500,000 odds at Superbook NV:



And Stations NV:



Even at those pays, the bets are probably still mathematically horrendous.

I just mean clearly the Chicago White Sox and the Colorado Rockies should not have the same odds identically. If the White Sox are getting +50,0000, the Rockies should be +50,001 or more. Therefore these odds are not very precise as they should be. The Rockies should be +100,000 or more. Is no action against the reason, they're not balancing their bets besides the bets on other teams because only one team can actually win the World Series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theywontpayontuesday

If the White Sox are getting +50,0000, the Rockies should be +50,001 or more.

---

Life is an IQ test.

Law of diminishing returns I’d imagine.

Why put a ton of effort & expense into pricing something that is very unlikely to hit?

Especially when they can ballpark it & focus on bets that have a lot of volume

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGenBen

Law of diminishing returns I’d imagine.

Why put a ton of effort & expense into pricing something that is very unlikely to hit?

Especially when they can ballpark it & focus on bets that have a lot of volume

---

This means the books are not just making money on the vig though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theywontpayontuesday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGenBen

Law of diminishing returns I’d imagine.

Why put a ton of effort & expense into pricing something that is very unlikely to hit?

Especially when they can ballpark it & focus on bets that have a lot of volume

---

This means the books are not just making money on the vig though.

---

Granted I’m not the expert like Redeitz but a book doesn’t have to make all its money from the Vig.

If suckers want to bet big long shots at bad odds they can make money that way too.

I think the books try to avoid taking a side on high volume bets, not necessarily on a long shot sucker bet.

So the books don't just make money making lines because they're not actually accurate at hedging their bets. They are not merely doing the math, they are making some arbitrary pre-set decisions in some areas. The books dont have accurate numbers all the time for bets and this is an example. The books dont want money moving out of their little fish ponds they built as home where they must dominate the pond and not let sharp players bet because they point out the flaws. The books betting is a sucker protected area they build with the expectations a set amount of deposits are kept and some free and clear. The books basically are conmen that dont let other conmen into the action on a large scale. The books count on the money bet being kept, the way they take the bets is to make profit by their plans in a predictable way. It would be nice for a book to make more money on the betting volume and allow people to stay winners. Being bet limiting really sucks.

Angels +8000 now AL west. Longest odds to year and I can't argue. The plus 800 could pay but the Angels would have to match the greatness of the Astros. No way the Astros will come down to the Angels I just can't believe it but luck is a factor so many ways.

Noticed for WS futures Yankees +750, Blue Jays +2500.The Blue Jays just spanked the Yanks though and are leading the AL East over them by 1 game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theywontpayontuesday

Noticed for WS futures Yankees +750, Blue Jays +2500.The Blue Jays just spanked the Yanks though and are leading the AL East over them by 1 game.

---

You just partly answered your own question. My late wife had a doctorate in demography. Demography and demographic weighting are always factors in how odds are assigned. The question you gotta ask isn't, "Did I fire six shots, or only five?" but "Who is likely to bet how much?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4b1WLL5Ak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theywontpayontuesday

Noticed for WS futures Yankees +750, Blue Jays +2500.The Blue Jays just spanked the Yanks though and are leading the AL East over them by 1 game.

---

I'm going to give you credit and a salute for this observation. Two days ago, I reviewed all of the MLB futures, and I came up with two possible futures plays. This was one of them -- it stood out like a sore thumb, but it also requires balls of iron as the run differentials would give anyone pause. The questions are, "How did the Yankees arrive at their relatively lousy record given their run differential and overall stats?" and "How are the Blue Jays where they are, given their very modest run differential?"

So my point is, I salute you Tuesday. Sometimes potential top-notch wagers hide in relatively plain sight. Now I'm not saying I'm playing this -- I need 24 hours more to mull it over and survey odds -- but you stated the obvious, which is not always an easy thing to do. Genius is often doing just that -- seeing what's in plain sight when everyone else is snow blind and pawing the ground looking for plays.

This is actually a fascinating subject, about as extreme as ever seen in baseball, so people should jump in, give opinions, and try to learn something about application of stats and extrapolating from stats. Right now, I need to analyze schedules and try to weigh the deep Yankee pockets, which could shore them up in a month or so with all kinds of moves. But the fact remains, no matter what happens, it is an anomaly for these two teams to have arrived at this juncture in time in a dead heat, given their relative stats.

My entire point of view is the Dodgers and Yankees will somehow fail. I have not taken a stance in the NL, but I have been betting heavily on Houston. The thing that scares me is I keep wanting to choose the Cubs +1200 instead of the Astros right beside them. The other day and the last week, I believe Houston was on the left. I dont think that's the reason, I think my subconscious likes the cubs and my consciousness only likes the Astros. I may start betting some money on the Cubs just to have some backup and it would be nice to see them l8neup and not care which wins.

Idk I dont love thw Yankees or the Blue Jays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theywontpayontuesday

Idk I dont love thw Yankees or the Blue Jays.

---

Well, my conclusion with the Blue Jays is I pass for now. If they are in the same position Aug 15 or thereabouts, I will do it, but that is not going to happen. My conclusion for now with the Yankees is that your manager has to be mangling things pretty badly to have the team stats of the Yankees and be stumbling along as they are, losing every close game. So they are also a pass for now.

There's a good chance Toronto is a bit of a mirage, but I have bet mirages before if sufficiently motivated.

I do have one other futures idea, but I need to cogitate on it a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theywontpayontuesday

Idk I dont love thw Yankees or the Blue Jays.

---

Well, my conclusion with the Blue Jays is I pass for now. If they are in the same position Aug 15 or thereabouts, I will do it, but that is not going to happen. My conclusion for now with the Yankees is that your manager has to be mangling things pretty badly to have the team stats of the Yankees and be stumbling along as they are, losing every close game. So they are also a pass for now.

There's a good chance Toronto is a bit of a mirage, but I have bet mirages before if sufficiently motivated.

I do have one other futures idea, but I need to cogitate on it a bit.

---

I do seem to remember them beating some bad and mediocre teams(the Blue Jays with lopsided scores).