Pats Favorites to Win Super Bowl

50-yard-line · May 7, 2016

SlowGettingUp said:
Actually if you have a 1 in 6 chance repeated 7 times, you have only about a 70% chance of winning at least once in that period.

1-(5/6)**7 = 0.72

Right, but it's mitigated by the possibility of winning more than once.

mgteich · May 7, 2016

supafly said:
How in the world are you coming to that conclusion??!!

So, by your logic, if a racehorse is getting 5-1 odds versus the rest of his competition in that race, he should be winning every fifth race? That's not how this works.

If a race horse is 5-1 in every race he races, then the expectation is that he would win 1 in 6 of his races.

supafly · May 7, 2016

mgteich said:
If a race horse is 5-1 in every race he races, then the expectation is that he would win 1 in 6 of his races.

Why are people mixing betting odds, which are based on the "feel" of the general public, with actual probability of winning?

If you were right, the Indy Colts would've had at least 3 SB's since they've generally had shorter odds throughout the Manning and Luck eras.

supafly · May 7, 2016

50-yard-line said:
If you look at the post to which I was responding:

"Nice to see, but we go through this every single year and it generally hasn't produced the results we'd like."

you might figure out that all I was pointing out is that statistically, they're actually DOING BETTER than the odds.

And yes, it GENERALLY has produced better results than 6-1. If the Patriots had been given 6-1 every year since 2001 and you had bet them every year, same amount, would you be UP or DOWN?

Personally, even if the odds had been this promising (6-1) for the Pats to win the SB, I wish I'd have dropped 10 grand on them every year since 2001. How about you?

The Patriots would not have been given those kind of short odds in 2003, let alone 2001.

They've generally been in the top few most favored teams over the past 12 yrs and have one SB to show for it. It's great to see them favored most years, but it generally means nothing.

jimnance · May 7, 2016

50-yard-line said:
With all due respect, NO **** SHERLOCK.

And you're wrong. 5-1 means that if they played this season, these teams, this schedule, 6 times, they place the probability that the Patriots would win one of those 6 rolls of the dice.

_________________________________________________________________________
In statistics, the odds for an event E are defined as a simple function of the probability of that possible event E. One drawback of expressing the uncertainty of this possible event as odds for is that to regain the probability requires a calculation. The natural way to interpret odds for (without calculating anything) is as the ratio of events to non-events in the long run. A simple example is that the (statistical) odds for rolling six with a fair die (one of a pair of dice) are 1 to 5. This is because, if one rolls the die many times, and keeps a tally of the results, one expects 1 six event for every 5 times the die does not show six. For example, if we roll the fair die 600 times, we would very much expect something in the neighborhood of 100 sixes, and 500 of the other five possible outcomes. That is a ratio of 100 to 500, or simply 1 to 5. To express the (statistical) odds against, the order of the pair is reversed. Hence the odds against rolling a six with a fair die are 5 to 1. The probability of rolling a six with a fair die is the single number 1/6 or approximately 16.7%.

Odds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
___________________________________________________________________________

So if the Patriots go off at 5-to-1 (odds against), what the bookmaker (then affected by the money flowing) is saying that they have a 16.67% chance of winning the Superbowl, and so, statistically, all things starting the same, they should succeed once of out every six rolls - in this case, the season = roll.

Yes, it was a very long time ago, but I was started college as a math major and was particularly adept at statistics, and spent five years working as a financial analyst. And yes, such activities do make me want some weed...

Now don't you feel smarter having read that? And don't you wish that you had worded things a bit less assholishly (new word!)?

No and no. I know how odds are set. Go back and reread your own posts. You said 5:1 meant the pats should not win 5 of 6 SBs. Thats how i how read it . You said nothing about 5 of 6 games this year. If thats what you meant, you need to state it more clearly.And maybe I also whipped through your post a little quicker than i should. I apologize for denigrating you man, but next time be a little clearer. But all that is irrelevant anyway. "How" odds are created means nothing to the betting public. All bettors care about is how much investment, how much return and what are the odds compared to other teams. Thats only about betting. It has NOTHING to do with football. Anyone who bets big$ on a sports event based on odds alone is an idiot. The odds are not necesarily an accurate reflection of a teams true strength respective to other teams. A LOT of factors affect odds besides teams relative strengths or weaknesses. The whim of the public plays a big role. Certain regions and fanbases (incuding the Boston area) are heavy bettors, which skews the odds. Obviously anyone who knows the nfl well would put the Pats as one of the favorites to win it all. Theres no disputing the Patriots success over the last 15 years. Its unprecedented. Some people moan about coulda woulda shouldas-but it is what it is. I dont moan about anything. Im ecstatic with their nonstop success. The tough losses just show how hard it is to even get to a SB, let alone win one.

50-yard-line · May 7, 2016

jimnance said:
No and no. I know how odds are set. Go back and reread your own posts. You said 5:1 meant the pats should not win 5 of 6 SBs. Thats how i how read it . You said nothing about 5 of 6 games this year. If thats what you meant, you need to state it more clearly.And maybe I also whipped through your post a little quicker than i should. I apologize for denigrating you man, but next time be a little clearer. But all that is irrelevant anyway. "How" odds are created means nothing to the betting public. All bettors care about is how much investment, how much return and what are the odds compared to other teams. Thats only about betting. It has NOTHING to do with football. Anyone who bets big$ on a sports event based on odds alone is an idiot. The odds are not necesarily an accurate reflection of a teams true strength respective to other teams. A LOT of factors affect odds besides teams relative strengths or weaknesses. The whim of the public plays a big role. Certain regions and fanbases (incuding the Boston area) are heavy bettors, which skews the odds. Obviously anyone who knows the nfl well would put the Pats as one of the favorites to win it all. Theres no disputing the Patriots success over the last 15 years. Its unprecedented. Some people moan about coulda woulda shouldas-but it is what it is. I dont moan about anything. Im ecstatic with their nonstop success. The tough losses just show how hard it is to even get to a SB, let alone win one.

If you read MGteich's post just above, you'll see it said again.

6-1 (the original) means that if they played seven seasons with exactly this scenario, you they are anticipated to win one.

And of course this isn't an exact science - how could it be? My only point was, the Pats have well outperformed oddsmakers in the BB era, obviously.

jimnance · May 7, 2016

50-yard-line said:
If you read MGteich's post just above, you'll see it said again.

6-1 9the original) means that if they played seven seasons with exactly this scenario, you they are anicipated to win one.

And of course this isn't an exact science - how could it be? My only point was, the Pats have well outperformed oddsmakers in the BB era, obviously.

Okay my bad-I totally missed the "exactly this scenario" part.All i saw was the "if they played seven seasons..", which of course would be ludicrous since odds are only applied to a moment in time, teams change every year etc.. So I do feel a little sheepish since i read through the post too hurriedly(but damn, man the whole discussion WAS going around in circles and i was trying to get through it as quick as i could). In hindsight, i was abit "assholish".Probably not the 1st or last time for that. As far as your main point is concerned-I agree 100%. Now "I" need some wacky weed.

bbobbo · May 7, 2016

BradyFTW! said:
Same here man, it was a great ride start to finish. ****, pretty sure you could get better odds on aliens making contact with the human race than Leicester City winning the EPL. There's too much parity in the NFL to make anything close to an accurate comparison, but it would be like if the entire Browns' starting lineup went on strike, and their backups went undefeated.

there was a good story in the WSJ about how the Leicester City betting line was a blunder (you should be able to read the story without a subscription):

Leicester’s Betting Line Was a 5,000-to-1 Blunder

some excerpts:

Ten months ago, British bookmakers set 5,000-to-1 odds on Leicester City winning the Premier League, hoping the price might convince a few optimists to make a silly bet.

It didn’t mean they thought the Foxes had a one in 5,000 chance of finishing first. Rather, it was a way to rake in a little cash on something that would never happen.

This week, it turned into one of the most glaring mistakes in sports betting history.

Those odds, and the lucky few who took advantage of them, have cost U.K. betting houses around $15 million this season, according to their estimates. Ladbrokes alone was on the hook for $4.35 million in payouts on Leicester City, the company said. William Hill said the odds of 5,000-to-1 were the longest it has ever paid out on in any sport.

No team in any U.S. professional sport ever starts a season with odds that long, even if they are the Cleveland Browns (currently 200-to-1 to win the Super Bowl). The only time odds longer than 2,000- or 3,000-to-1 light up the board of a Las Vegas sportsbook is when they’re next to a 16 seed in the NCAA basketball tournament.

“We’ve always been kind of amazed at some of the prices that come out on EPL teams,” said Jay Rood, the vice-president of Race and Sports Book for MGM Resorts.

The reason is that Las Vegas learned its lesson a long time ago. In 1986, the Minnesota Twins went 71-91. So it didn’t seem crazy when some books listed them as 1,500-to-1 for the following season. Until they won the 1987 World Series.

“That’s where [Vegas] got nailed,” he said. “The days of putting [long odds] up because it seems absurd that they could win, I think those days are long gone.”

The challenge is weighing the betting handle for the smaller teams against the risk. Because the Premier League is such a top-heavy competition, Vegas bookmakers said that its betting patterns most closely resemble the NBA’s, where “the public isn’t interested in betting outside the top five, six teams,” according to Rood.

And that’s where outrageously long odds are born.

“You’re not going to get money on those teams…unless you offer something in the realm of ridiculousness,” Rood said.

supafly · May 8, 2016

bbobbo said:
there was a good story in the WSJ about how the Leicester City betting line was a blunder (you should be able to read the story without a subscription):

Leicester’s Betting Line Was a 5,000-to-1 Blunder

some excerpts:

Thanks for the article. The second line in your linked story proves that bookmakers who set betting odds (based on the amount of money and opinion of the general public) don't have anything to do with how often they expect a team to win. 5-1 odds certainly dosen't mean that a team is expected to win every six years.

Direct Quote from article--"It didn’t mean they thought the Foxes had a one in 5,000 chance of finishing first."

Direct Quote from different article--: "In gambling, the odds on display do not represent the true chances (as imagined by the bookmaker) that the event will or will not occur, but are the amount that the bookmaker will pay out on a winning bet, together with the required stake."

Having 5-1 odds simply means that if you lay down 100 bucks, you're winning back 500. That's all it means. It's not a predictor for how often a team is going to win the championship.
Those predictors consist of something else entirely.

mgteich · May 8, 2016

My conclusion is that many of you think that bettors (including professional) throughout the world are stupid.
===========================
Yes, there are two sets of probabilities: the real expectation of winning, and the bettors expectation of winning. To believe that there is no relationship between the two is simply silly.

If the bettors odds were greatly different from expectations, then other bettors (especially professional bettors) would bet the other side.

For example, let us say that bettor greatly overbet the jets and make them an even bet with say PITT. If the reasonable expectation is that PITT is a 2-1 favorite, then lots of professional money would immediately be bet on PITT.
==============
BOTTOM LINE
The betting line is the bettor's expectation of the probability of events happening. In Europe, folks bet on almost anything. If the bettors are NOT accurate in systematic way, other bettors will make the odds more reasonable.

And, yes, it is my humble opinion that professional gamblers give us the best information on the probability of an event happening. As always, the only "edge" is to know information (like an injury) that they do not.

SammyBlueCat · May 9, 2016

NewFeep said:
I can't help but recall Hans Solo exclaiming: "Never tell me the odds!"

May he rest in peace.

Jercules · May 9, 2016

Donald Brown is gonna rock this year. Former 1st round pick, finally with a functional franchise... He'll be the revelation of 2016.

BobDigital · May 9, 2016

I think people are sleeping on the Panthers a little. Losing your #1 CB is not good obviously but their D will still be very good and getting KB back will make that offense really good. I wouldn't say Seattle is going to be much better than them if at all.

Seattle to me should be weaker on offense this year than the Panthers with the Panthers getting Kevlin Benjamin back.

Rusty Griswold · May 9, 2016

Jercules said:
Donald Brown is gonna rock this year. Former 1st round pick, finally with a functional franchise... He'll be the revelation of 2016.

The homer in me is inclined to agree. I look at it like this:

Brady>Rivers
BB>McCoy
Pats O>Chargers O

I like how he can run inside and out, while being a good pass receiver. Nothing fancy, but we don't need anything fancy at RB.

We just need to see the offense be more balanced, instead of constant substitutions, tipping our plays, to try to be balanced.

Brown and Lewis on the field at the same time, will be nightmares for LBs and Safeties.

You can run draws with either out of the shotgun or kick Lewis into motion from the RB position and still either hand off to Brown or run playaction off of Brown with Lewis, Edelman, Gronk and Bennett unable to be doubled.

PatsFanSince74 · May 9, 2016

Anybody remember the odds on the Pats to win the SB in the 2001/02 season?

supafly · May 9, 2016

PatsFanSince74 said:
Anybody remember the odds on the Pats to win the SB in the 2001/02 season?

Had to have been pretty steep, considering they were the franchise deemed "least likely to win the SB."

PatsFanSince74 · May 9, 2016

supafly said:
Had to have been pretty steep, considering they were the franchise deemed "least likely to win the SB."

I know coming off a 5--11 season with a Coach who'd already been fired once, the odds had to be way long...I was just wondering if anybody remembers what they actually were.

PatsFanSince74 · May 9, 2016

PatsFanSince74 said:
I know coming off a 5--11 season with a Coach who'd already been fired once, the odds had to be way long...I was just wondering if anybody remembers what they actually were.

60--1
Historical Look at Patriots Preseason Odds

supafly · May 9, 2016

PatsFanSince74 said:
60--1
Historical Look at Patriots Preseason Odds

I would've expected something much worse, to be honest with you. Thanks for sharing your findings.

PP2 · May 10, 2016

SammyBlueCat said:
May he rest in peace.

Edited to remove a MAJOR GAFFE.

Guess I better stick to football from now on.

Pats Favorites to Win Super Bowl

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Veteran

Eff you, Shula

Eff you, Shula

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Eff you, Shula

PatsFans.com Veteran

PatsFans.com Supporter

Practice Squad Player

Pro Bowl Player

On the Game Day Roster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Eff you, Shula

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Eff you, Shula

Hall of Fame Poster

Similar threads