Stupid question

[Henry]

You would have a very competitive series.

Position Players
DH Cabrera / Encarnacion
C Grandal / Perez
1B Votto
2B Altuve / Odor
SS Lindor / Boegarts
3B Correa
OF Cespedes / Marte / Polanco / Bautista

Starters
Darvish / Carrasco / Quintana / Tanaka / Cueto

Relievers
Chapman / Jansen / Familia

[Lord of the Fraud]

Feels like a no brainer if you can get a highly competitive ROW side against a highly patriotic American side.

If taken seriously the viewing figures would be huge everywhere.

The money generated doesn't go to the players either. It goes back into the grassroots of the sport.

That's how our national football team setup works anyway .

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

It means they are expected to lose 1 in every 10.5 games, or something to that effect.

Flawed in two ways.

First off you are forgetting about juice.

Second off following your logic a -200 would be expected to lose every other game and a -100 would be expected to lose every game.

So if -1050 was the true moneyline you would be expected to lose 1 in every 11.5 games.


But it's not the true moneyline. Without tracking down the math formula and going by Daly's chart where -1050 translates to +735 the true moneyline would land somewhere between (+/-) 750-780.

So they are expected to lose about 1 in every 8.5 games.


And no I can't show my work. I flunked out of Calculus. I know I'm right though.

http://sportsbettingsites.org/bettin...ig-calculator/


So for -1050 +735 it comes out to -762.19 +762.19 Which means you lose 11.6 percent of the time if you bet these dark. I'm the fucking Lord of guessing real close without having any clue how to prove it.

[gimmick]

Flawed in two ways.

First off you are forgetting about juice.

Second off following your logic a -200 would be expected to lose every other game and a -100 would be expected to lose every game.

So if -1050 was the true moneyline you would be expected to lose 1 in every 11.5 games.


But it's not the true moneyline. Without tracking down the math formula and going by Daly's chart where -1050 translates to +735 the true moneyline would land somewhere between (+/-) 750-780.

So they are expected to lose about 1 in every 8.5 games.


And no I can't show my work. I flunked out of Calculus. I know I'm right though.

http://sportsbettingsites.org/bettin...ig-calculator/


So for -1050 +735 it comes out to -762.19 +762.19 Which means you lose 11.6 percent of the time if you bet these dark. I'm the fucking Lord of guessing real close without having any clue how to prove it.

And then the line is also adjusted with the expectation of betting action with opening lines and the actual betting with closing lines.

[Pooh]

Thanks for the answers guys. I don't sports bet and wasn't going to start now. I was just curious how big an upset it was that they lost to that team. I'm a Uconn fan and was just wondering.

[hardeight]

THe line is a made up number to get even action on both sides. Has nothing to do with the outcome of the game

[big dick]

THe line is a made up number to get even action on both sides. Has nothing to do with the outcome of the game

Books shade lines in anticipation of public wagering this gives them a bigger edge than just the vig. Why would they want equal action on both sides when they can makes lines that have lopsided action on one side but that one side is -ev

example, if the true line on the pats vs bears is pats -10 and they assume 75% of wagers will be on the pats they put the line out @ -10.5 or -11

[gimmick]

THe line is a made up number to get even action on both sides. Has nothing to do with the outcome of the game

Books shade lines in anticipation of public wagering this gives them a bigger edge than just the vig. Why would they want equal action on both sides when they can makes lines that have lopsided action on one side but that one side is -ev

example, if the true line on the pats vs bears is pats -10 and they assume 75% of wagers will be on the pats they put the line out @ -10.5 or -11

They do that sometimes when there's less competition among bookmakers. The split action approach is risk free profit and if they are correct with their line the markets wont move the line too much nor do they lose action to competition.

With national events making slightly lopsided lines, like expecting 75% of the action to go to pats, you just lose that action to competing bookmakers that are willing to give a better line.

[Tellafriend]

Just last night 2 underdogs both won outright and actually by wide margins.

Ark St. +10 - won by 30 or so.
Houston +17.5 - won by 20 or so.

Prop heaven.