nba bets. Easy money?

[simpdog]

Historically, teams in a 3-1 hole have come back to win the series just eight times in 186 chances, a rate of 4.3 percent. In fact, just battling valiantly and forcing a sixth game is a big step -- teams down 3-1 have made it to Game 6 just 38.5 percent of the time since 1956.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...odds-teams-3-1


So yes we're now in the 38.5 percent. So that's 8/72 teams = 11.1% of the time the team down 3-1 comes back to win the series.

For the series bets:
Chicago is roughly -215 vs Brooklyn
GS is roughly -175 vs Denver.


How are both of these not +EV? It's not NEVER like being down 3-0, but it is rare in the history of the NBA to come back from 3-1. Also rare to come back from 3-1 even when you get to 3-2.

At least one of the series will finish tonight if not both.

[SrslySirius]

I don't follow NBA much, so I don't know about the lines, but it looks like you're using past results to predict future outcomes. That's a common gambler's fallacy, like feeling that a certain roulette number is due.

It's extremely uncommon for 10 consecutive coinflips to land all tails. The chances are about 1 in 1,000. That's much more of a longshot than an NBA team coming back from 1-3. But the fact remains that once you've flipped 9 tails in a row, the outcome of the 10th flip is still 50-50.

[simpdog]

I don't follow NBA much, so I don't know about the lines, but it looks like you're using past results to predict future outcomes. That's a common gambler's fallacy, like feeling that a certain roulette number is due.

It's extremely uncommon for 10 consecutive coinflips to land all tails. The chances are about 1 in 1,000. That's much more of a longshot than an NBA team coming back from 1-3. But the fact remains that once you've flipped 9 tails in a row, the outcome of the 10th flip is still 50-50.

Yup I know the point which is why I'm hesitant. But at the same time I'm not betting one roulette spin do its not exactly the same

[Sloppy Joe]

I think the Warriors are going to end up prevailing (wish I had had the stones to fire on that one) but I would stay the hell away from the Bulls right now.

Not giving any credit to the Nets; I think they're pretty crappy and I hate their offense.

Hinrich probably won't play tonight, Deng/Noah/Boozer are all banged up and Nate Robinson has too much confidence/not enough talent after that amazing game 4.

This series is basically a war of attrition. I would NOT wager on the Bulls at this point.

[simpdog]

I think the Warriors are going to end up prevailing (wish I had had the stones to fire on that one) but I would stay the hell away from the Bulls right now.

Not giving any credit to the Nets; I think they're pretty crappy and I hate their offense.

Hinrich probably won't play tonight, Deng/Noah/Boozer are all banged up and Nate Robinson has too much confidence/not enough talent after that amazing game 4.

This series is basically a war of attrition. I would NOT wager on the Bulls at this point.

Going into the series I told a few people GS was great at +330 with Gallinari out. Took away the combo of 16 pts/game + outside threat. Plus the kids of GS aren't getting worn down in Denver like an older team would. Didn't have the stones to throw down on it then.

[simpdog]

Hinrich + Deng both out tonight

[Sloppy Joe]

It would have been great for Rose to come back at the start of this series, eviscerate Brooklyn and officially relegate Deron Williams to the second tier of NBA point guards.

Rose, Westbrook and CP3 are my favorite players to watch. It sucks that two of them are out and CP3 is only 70%.

[varys]

As much as i love chicago as a team it was pretty easy to fire brooklyn +1 before the deng news became official. That said i wont be sad if the bulls pull it off tonight.

[JimmyG_415]

I think the Warriors are going to end up prevailing (wish I had had the stones to fire on that one) but I would stay the hell away from the Bulls right now.

Not giving any credit to the Nets; I think they're pretty crappy and I hate their offense.

Hinrich probably won't play tonight, Deng/Noah/Boozer are all banged up and Nate Robinson has too much confidence/not enough talent after that amazing game 4.

This series is basically a war of attrition. I would NOT wager on the Bulls at this point.

Going into the series I told a few people GS was great at +330 with Gallinari out. Took away the combo of 16 pts/game + outside threat. Plus the kids of GS aren't getting worn down in Denver like an older team would. Didn't have the stones to throw down on it then.

I got them +375 @ 5dimes. I took them only to hedge, as I was pretty sure they'd steal one in Denver. But because Lee was out, the line was too high after game 2. I did hedge it after they won game 3. I also have them 100 for 16,500 to win it all, I didn't check today but they were 28-1 before game 5.
Can't really do anything w/that for a while.

177134114-1 4/28/13 8:13pm $300.00 $200.00 Pending 4/28/13 9:35pm* Reduced*Basketball* 884 Denver Nuggets (Series) -150* vs Golden State Warriors (Series)*

175673276-1 4/20/13 1:39pm $200.00 $750.00 Pending 4/20/13 5:30pm* Reduced*Basketball* 883 Golden State Warriors (Series) +375* vs Denver Nuggets (Series)*

[simpdog]

Curry heating up. Bogut has played amazing.

Wonder how hurt Lee is...with Westbrook out, I could see GS winning the West if Lee is able to play more.

[Muck Ficon]

Curry heating up. Bogut has played amazing.

Wonder how hurt Lee is...with Westwood out, I could see GS winning the West if Lee is able to play more.

You mean Westbrook?

[simpdog]

Curry heating up. Bogut has played amazing.

Wonder how hurt Lee is...with Westwood out, I could see GS winning the West if Lee is able to play more.

You mean Westbrook?

Fixed. Sorry had D Lee on the brain

[Walter Sobchak]

I don't follow NBA much, so I don't know about the lines, but it looks like you're using past results to predict future outcomes. That's a common gambler's fallacy, like feeling that a certain roulette number is due.

It's extremely uncommon for 10 consecutive coinflips to land all tails. The chances are about 1 in 1,000. That's much more of a longshot than an NBA team coming back from 1-3. But the fact remains that once you've flipped 9 tails in a row, the outcome of the 10th flip is still 50-50.

True, but NBA games aren't random events. They depend on the performance of individuals, where the games are played, whether anyone gets i jured, etc. If player X has shot a decent sample size of free throws and has made 80% of them, it is reasonable to say that the chance that player makes any given free throw is within a small tolerance of 80%.

It should be possible, in part by using historical data, to estimate an answer to the question "what are the odds a team comes back from 3-1 down in a playoff series?" Using data on the specific players and situation involved it should be possible to further refine the answer to be more accurate. I have no idea whether the bets mentioned in this thread are good bets but I think it is possible to determine whether they are good bets.

[simpdog]

Both teams pulled it out

Will keep an eye on these in the future

[Sloppy Joe]

Thought it was interesting that the Grizzlies were a small favorite over OKC. Saw OKC +120 and fired. It should be a good series but I just can't see Memphis taking 4 out of 7.

Spurs are 7 to 1 favorites on Sportsbook, which feels about right. Curry is going to be completely neutralized by tenacious Spurs defense. Anyone who thinks that GS is going to ride their momentum any further doesn't watch enough basketball. Spurs in 5 is +150, a bit low to fire on but I think it's the most likely outcome. They'll be down 15 with 7:00 in the fourth of one of the games and Pop will pull everyone.

Didn't watch any of the Pacers-Hawks series but saw them today and they look pretty good. The Knicks have been crap since game 5 against Boston. Kind of like the upset here, especailly if A'mare comes back and further messes up their chemistry.

Kudos to the Bulls in that game 7 last night. I've come full circle on Joakim this year, plays so hard and effects both ends of the floor throughout the game. What a gutty win; that being said, LOL at the shitbag Brooklyn Nets. So brutal to watch. Probably a Heat sweep though in round 2.

[SrslySirius]

I don't follow NBA much, so I don't know about the lines, but it looks like you're using past results to predict future outcomes. That's a common gambler's fallacy, like feeling that a certain roulette number is due.

It's extremely uncommon for 10 consecutive coinflips to land all tails. The chances are about 1 in 1,000. That's much more of a longshot than an NBA team coming back from 1-3. But the fact remains that once you've flipped 9 tails in a row, the outcome of the 10th flip is still 50-50.

True, but NBA games aren't random events. They depend on the performance of individuals, where the games are played, whether anyone gets i jured, etc. If player X has shot a decent sample size of free throws and has made 80% of them, it is reasonable to say that the chance that player makes any given free throw is within a small tolerance of 80%.

It should be possible, in part by using historical data, to estimate an answer to the question "what are the odds a team comes back from 3-1 down in a playoff series?" Using data on the specific players and situation involved it should be possible to further refine the answer to be more accurate. I have no idea whether the bets mentioned in this thread are good bets but I think it is possible to determine whether they are good bets.

I agree with everything you just said. But simpdog wasn't betting on whether a team comes back from a 3-1 deficit. He was betting on whether a team, that had previously been down 3-1, would come back from a 3-2 deficit.

This might sound like splitting hairs, but it's a very different proposition. The series line for Chicago was -215 when the series was 3-2. Obviously that line was much different when the series was 3-1, for good reason. Maybe something like -450.

Before the regular season, the '07 Patriots are a huge dog to go 16-0. By week 17 you don't use the same line. At that point they're most likely a favorite.

[Walter Sobchak]

True, but NBA games aren't random events. They depend on the performance of individuals, where the games are played, whether anyone gets i jured, etc. If player X has shot a decent sample size of free throws and has made 80% of them, it is reasonable to say that the chance that player makes any given free throw is within a small tolerance of 80%.

It should be possible, in part by using historical data, to estimate an answer to the question "what are the odds a team comes back from 3-1 down in a playoff series?" Using data on the specific players and situation involved it should be possible to further refine the answer to be more accurate. I have no idea whether the bets mentioned in this thread are good bets but I think it is possible to determine whether they are good bets.

I agree with everything you just said. But simpdog wasn't betting on whether a team comes back from a 3-1 deficit. He was betting on whether a team, that had previously been down 3-1, would come back from a 3-2 deficit.

This might sound like splitting hairs, but it's a very different proposition. The series line for Chicago was -215 when the series was 3-2. Obviously that line was much different when the series was 3-1, for good reason. Maybe something like -450.

Before the regular season, the '07 Patriots are a huge dog to go 16-0. By week 17 you don't use the same line. At that point they're most likely a favorite.

Yes I agree.

[simpdog]

True, but NBA games aren't random events. They depend on the performance of individuals, where the games are played, whether anyone gets i jured, etc. If player X has shot a decent sample size of free throws and has made 80% of them, it is reasonable to say that the chance that player makes any given free throw is within a small tolerance of 80%.

It should be possible, in part by using historical data, to estimate an answer to the question "what are the odds a team comes back from 3-1 down in a playoff series?" Using data on the specific players and situation involved it should be possible to further refine the answer to be more accurate. I have no idea whether the bets mentioned in this thread are good bets but I think it is possible to determine whether they are good bets.

I agree with everything you just said. But simpdog wasn't betting on whether a team comes back from a 3-1 deficit. He was betting on whether a team, that had previously been down 3-1, would come back from a 3-2 deficit.

This might sound like splitting hairs, but it's a very different proposition. The series line for Chicago was -215 when the series was 3-2. Obviously that line was much different when the series was 3-1, for good reason. Maybe something like -450.

Before the regular season, the '07 Patriots are a huge dog to go 16-0. By week 17 you don't use the same line. At that point they're most likely a favorite.

True but I wasn't using the same line for 3-1 vs 3-2. At 3-2 they were roughly -200 which is a far cry from the 11% of teams who were down 3-1 but are now 3-2 to win the series.

Plus your NFL comparison doesn't work. Way different situation plus there isn't enough data on teams that go undefeated.

It seems like these situations are +EV. If you bet them throughout history of the NBA you would be up huge

[BeerAndPoker]

Chicago 93
Miami 86

LOL, even if it's only for one night but the Heat lost to a injured up team in the Bulls.

[BCR]

The Bulls are all heart at the moment. Every guy on that team has huge balls and is playing through injuries, except Rose who is still sitting with his torn pussy. Cleared healthy to play for 10 weeks now, "nah, I'll just sit coach." Unreal, the Bulls will obv. lose series, but Rose not lending his short-handed team help is absurd. Have never seen a MVP-caliber player be this soft. Adrian Petersen should fuck him in his bitch ass like a prison punk.