PDA

View Full Version : Cubs & Sox Odds - First Flubsession Thread of '07


cws05champ
01-01-2007, 08:07 AM
I just saw this morning on an online sportsbook that the Cubs are now better odds to win the World Series than the Sox. Cubs 12-1, Sox 14-1. At the beginning of the offseason it was Cubs 50-1, Sox 10-1. I hope the Sox odds keep falling so I can place a bet on them.

I did that at the beginning of 2005 and cleaned up at 20-1. Just thought this was interesting to post.

Cuck_The_Fubs
01-01-2007, 09:07 AM
I just saw this morning on an online sportsbook that the Cubs are now better odds to win the World Series than the Sox. Cubs 12-1, Sox 14-1. At the beginning of the offseason it was Cubs 50-1, Sox 10-1. I hope the Sox odds keep falling so I can place a bet on them.

I did that at the beginning of 2005 and cleaned up at 20-1. Just thought this was interesting to post.
Who determines the odds? Baseball analysts?

I want Mags back
01-01-2007, 09:10 AM
Who determines the odds? Baseball analysts?
vegas bookmakers

teams like the flubs, yanks and blow sawks, and others they know will have alot of bets made on them just because of their popularity, will always have worse odds then less popular teams

Cuck_The_Fubs
01-01-2007, 09:25 AM
vegas bookmakers

teams like the flubs, yanks and blow sawks, and others they know will have alot of bets made on them just because of their popularity, will always have worse odds then less popular teams
Thanks, makes sense.

DumpJerry
01-01-2007, 09:42 AM
Odds mean nothing whatsoever. They are based on bets being placed for the team. This is further proof of how foolish Cub fans are as they drop their disability checks on the Cubs.

The only numbers that count are the number of runs scored and runs given up in each game. Those numbers directly control the most important number-wins.

Cuck the Fubs
01-01-2007, 09:45 AM
I'd rather see the Sox at 50 - 1 with the books.........

They seem to perform better under those odds than the favorite.

MarySwiss
01-01-2007, 10:01 AM
I just saw this morning on an online sportsbook that the Cubs are now better odds to win the World Series than the Sox. Cubs 12-1, Sox 14-1. At the beginning of the offseason it was Cubs 50-1, Sox 10-1. I hope the Sox odds keep falling so I can place a bet on them.

I did that at the beginning of 2005 and cleaned up at 20-1. Just thought this was interesting to post.

These things change all the time. In Laughlin last week, the Cubs were 20-1 and the Sox were 8-1.

jabrch
01-01-2007, 10:37 AM
These things change all the time. In Laughlin last week, the Cubs were 20-1 and the Sox were 8-1.

Exactly - they change based on the flow of bets, so that the number is where they can get an even amount of action on each side. It's not based at all on the probability of a team winning; rather on the bets coming in.

A vegas book doesn't care who wins; as long as someone does. If they have too much money on one side, they did a bad job of managing the odds, and then they have to either assume risk on that overbet, or (much more often) they will dump off a portion of those bets to another place at a different set of odds, potentially losing money on those bets.

TDog
01-01-2007, 03:41 PM
These things change all the time. In Laughlin last week, the Cubs were 20-1 and the Sox were 8-1.

I was at the first Laughlin sports book the morning before it opened, and the man who was running it gave me odds and point spreads off the top of his head for games he didn't have on the board. This isn't a power rating. This is a matter of what it takes to attract bets. At 8-1, they don't need to attract any Sox bets.

Even if the Sox make the postseason, with seven other teams, the mathematical odds on any single team coming out on top would be 7-1.

MarySwiss
01-01-2007, 04:02 PM
I was at the first Laughlin sports book the morning before it opened, and the man who was running it gave me odds and point spreads off the top of his head for games he didn't have on the board. This isn't a power rating. This is a matter of what it takes to attract bets. At 8-1, they don't need to attract any Sox bets.

Even if the Sox make the postseason, with seven other teams, the mathematical odds on any single team coming out on top would be 7-1.

Yep. That was my point, TDog. Actually, when I was there, the posted odds on the sheet for the Cubs was 30-1, but at mid-afternoon, they were 20-1, and 9-1 to win the NLCS. I tossed down a tenspot each way for my Cubs fan husband. I know; foolisly sentimental. But he did buy me my banjo, so what the hell! :D:

RadioheadRocks
01-01-2007, 06:10 PM
vegas bookmakers

teams like the flubs, yanks and blow sawks, and others they know will have alot of bets made on them just because of their popularity, will always have worse odds then less popular teams

My guess is that the oddsmakers are basing this on the acquisition of Soriano and with Piniella replacing Dusty, however what they failed to see is that there's a lot of truth to the saying "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".

DumpJerry
01-01-2007, 06:50 PM
My guess is that the oddsmakers are basing this on the acquisition of Soriano and with Piniella replacing Dusty, however what they failed to see is that there's a lot of truth to the saying "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".
No, the bookmakers don't base the odds on any acquisitions. As mentioned above, the odds are based on where the bets are being placed. If a lot of people start betting a certain team will achieve a certain result, the odds go down for that result. It's the most basic study of supply and demand you can find anywhere.

QCIASOXFAN
01-01-2007, 06:58 PM
Just bet a Cubs fan last week $100 that the Sox will have more wins.:thumbsup:

DumpJerry
01-01-2007, 07:02 PM
Just bet a Cubs fan last week $100 that the Sox will have more wins.:thumbsup:
Shame on you! Taking candy from a kid!

RadioheadRocks
01-01-2007, 07:05 PM
No, the bookmakers don't base the odds on any acquisitions. As mentioned above, the odds are based on where the bets are being placed. If a lot of people start betting a certain team will achieve a certain result, the odds go down for that result. It's the most basic study of supply and demand you can find anywhere.

But if you go back to the original post you'll notice that at the start of the off-season the Cubs were at 50-1 (coming off of their last-place finish, no doubt). What else could possibly explain such a radical shift from 50-1 to 12-1 in such a short time span? Methinks the acquisitions of Piniella and Soriano had something to do with that, and it's most likely all the sCrUB fans are following that logic and placing their bets accordingly.

DumpJerry
01-01-2007, 07:11 PM
But if you go back to the original post you'll notice that at the start of the off-season the Cubs were at 50-1 (coming off of their last-place finish, no doubt). What else could possibly explain such a radical shift from 50-1 to 12-1 in such a short time span? Methinks the acquisitions of Piniella and Soriano had something to do with that, and it's most likely all the sCrUB fans are following that logic and placing their bets accordingly.
One more time:
The bookmakers could not care less if a team acquired Jesus Christ. If the fans of a team think that their team has acquired The Answer, they will place bets driving down the odds. That explains the "radical" change in the odds. It was Cub fans surrendering their money from their disability checks.

RadioheadRocks
01-01-2007, 07:14 PM
One more time:
The bookmakers could not care less if a team acquired Jesus Christ. If the fans of a team think that their team has acquired The Answer, they will place bets driving down the odds. That explains the "radical" change in the odds. It was Cub fans surrendering their money from their disability checks.

... which follows along with the last sentence in my previous post. ("Methinks the acquisitions of Piniella and Soriano had something to do with that, and it's most likely all the sCrUB fans are following that logic and placing their bets accordingly.")

MarySwiss
01-01-2007, 07:18 PM
No, the bookmakers don't base the odds on any acquisitions. As mentioned above, the odds are based on where the bets are being placed. If a lot of people start betting a certain team will achieve a certain result, the odds go down for that result. It's the most basic study of supply and demand you can find anywhere.

But if you go back to the original post you'll notice that at the start of the off-season the Cubs were at 50-1 (coming off of their last-place finish, no doubt). What else could possibly explain such a radical shift from 50-1 to 12-1 in such a short time span? Methinks the acquisitions of Piniella and Soriano had something to do with that, and it's most likely all the sCrUB fans are following that logic and placing their bets accordingly.

Oh, boys....

Unless I forgot how to read, you guys are agreeing with each other, kind of. However, I do believe that the Cubs' odds always go short during the offseason because that's when all their fans are drinking deeply of that Kool-aid. The acquisition of Soriano, et al., no doubt made the Kool-aid more tempting, though.

RedHeadPaleHoser
01-02-2007, 12:20 PM
Who determines the odds? Baseball analysts?

Jeff Brantley and John Kruk, Baseball Tonight.