PATs 8-1 odds to win SB 2007

[JR4]

Still can't understand why Colts keep coming in Tops.
I guess many feel they'll win it sooner or later and this may be the year.

http://www.onlinecasinonews.com/ocnv2_1/article/article.asp?id=10839

 

[Coast2CoastPatsFan]

Still can't understand why Colts keep coming in Tops.
I guess many feel they'll win it sooner or later and this may be the year.

http://www.onlinecasinonews.com/ocnv2_1/article/article.asp?id=10839

It's the same old story, same old song and dance my friends.......................

Did you happen to catch the spelling of Pittsburgh 'Stealers' in the second paragraph? Humorous faux pas, or a little sarcasm being exhibited?

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

It is worth noting that this is not a power ranking, these guys are professional bookies who are trying to take our money, nothing more!

These guys probably know which teams get a lot of action and which teams don't. Having three teams in the NFC East as having similar odds to win the superbowl is WAY strange indeed! I think that they know they will get lots of betting on these popular, big city teams! So they give them an artifically low pay-out to compensate for the fact that big cities have more homers, and they don't need to offer enticing odds to get lots of action. The Redskins ought to be 100-1, in my opinion. At these 15-1 odds, a Skin fan is wasting his money, and taking a bad bet.

I would like to hear some theories on how betting odds like these are established!

 

[Coast2CoastPatsFan]

These guys probably know which teams get a lot of action and which teams don't. Having three teams in the NFC East as having similar odds to win the superbowl is WAY strange indeed! I think that they know they will get lots of betting on these popular, big city teams! So they give them an artifically low pay-out to compensate for the fact that big cities have more homers, and they don't need to offer enticing odds to get lots of action. The Redskins ought to be 100-1, in my opinion. At these 15-1 odds, a Skin fan is wasting his money, and taking a bad bet.

I would like to hear some theories on how betting odds like these are established!

Yes, what you are saying partially is taken into account in determining odds. Sports 'futures' odds are basically determined by recent past performance and current team situation and prediction of how they'll perform in the upcoming or current season. They are then adjusted depending upon the amount of action on that particular team. It is true that lines or odds for certain popular or 'public' teams such as USC are skewed because the oddsmakers know that a lot of money will come in on these teams due to their strong following. The player will always pay a premium, so to speak, odds-wise on popular teams or defending champions. The opening line for a particular game is typically set to get as close to a 50-50 split in the action as possible so that Vegas, etc. will make their money off the vigorish, or the extra amount of money (typically 10%) the player must put up to make a wager. This is how sports books make their money. If the Redskins were posted at 100-1 to win the SB there would be a flood of action on them and Vegas would take a bath should the 'Skins actually pull it off.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

So why do they pick the Pats to go 8-1, ahead of popular preseason favorites? I'm actually surprised by the 'respect' the Pats get here in comparison to other 'power rankings'. I am wondering how the Pats' odds fit into the bookie's moneymaking scheme.

 

[spacecrime]

I would like to hear some theories on how betting odds like these are established!

Simple. In head on games, odds (or point spread) are adjusted so that half the bets are on each team. If too many people bet on one team, the odds (point spread changes). Nothing to do with the best team or who they think will win. Just trying to keep the bets even. Since bookies take 10% of the winnings, they are guaranteed 5% of all money bet, as long as it stays 50-50.

In the case of superbowl odds, with 32 teams to monitor, it gets trickier, but the concept is still the same. SPread out the action, and that way they are guaranteed to make money no matter who wins.

 

[JR4]

Simple. In head on games, odds (or point spread) are adjusted so that half the bets are on each team. If too many people bet on one team, the odds (point spread changes). Nothing to do with the best team or who they think will win. Just trying to keep the bets even. Since bookies take 10% of the winnings, they are guaranteed 5% of all money bet, as long as it stays 50-50.

In the case of superbowl odds, with 32 teams to monitor, it gets trickier, but the concept is still the same. SPread out the action, and that way they are guaranteed to make money no matter who wins.

So the high odds on the colts and pats is because too many betting people
think they will win so the odds makers are trying to get people to bet on other teams by giving better odds. Is this true by what you said?

This would seem to say lots of people are betting on the COLTS and PATs.

 

[Coast2CoastPatsFan]

So why do they pick the Pats to go 8-1, ahead of popular preseason favorites? I'm actually surprised by the 'respect' the Pats get here in comparison to other 'power rankings'. I am wondering how the Pats' odds fit into the bookie's moneymaking scheme.

It's based partly on past performance, partly on betting public perception. Naturally, you wouldn't see the Pats at 100-1, just like you wouldn't see the Texans at 8-1 because everyone knows they are a longshot to go all the way and nobody would bet on them at those odds. The oddsmakers know more about the game than the so-called 'experts' in general, thus more respect for the Pats than what's being seen in the power rankings, preseason mags, etc.

 

[nescott]

my odds are 8-1 that the Colts don't win it

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Can't believe anybody's complaining...

I don't think you can go into this season saying the Pats should be the odds-on favorite. "Same old story" my big white furry behind. There's a lot of morons out there saying we're "done" too, but the truth is in the middle. Denver just beat us, Watson-projected-ball-arguments aside, and handily at that. And then Denver got whomped. True, the big whompers (Steelers) have had a passel of departures and screwups since then, and the Colts have not bettered themselves appreciatively. True, the Pats' departures are pretty skillfully addressed in many areas... but I think you have to look at a #2 "seed" as a gift at this point.

I just cannot wait for the real season to begin so we can stop haggling about what people think will happen.

PFnV

 

[arrellbee]

The posts are pretty correct in most respects. Except that the odds makers have NO interest in who is actually most likely to win or the 'real' odds of a team winning the SB. Their expertise IS strictly an ability to assess what the odds have to be set at in order to balance their books. Therefore it is an expertise in assessing how the BETTING fans view the teams and what odds it takes to get an equal amount of payoff money bet on all teams, as has been said. Actual knowledge or expertise in assessing the strength of teams is useful ONLY in the sense that it may help them figure what the fans are likely to think and bet accordingly. Note that big market teams (or national favorites) with large numbers of betting fans who are loyal no matter what the reality is (Dolphins fans come to mind at the moment) will get unrealistically lower payoff odds while low market teams or teams who have few fans who believe in them will get unrealistically higher payoff odds.

The fascinating phenomenom this year, again, are the Colts who are the darlings of the national betting public. Obviously Indiana is NOT a big market so it is very much a national (delusional) following.

One thing that is rather interesting. The Patriots are getting their own national following of betting believers and are consistently the second most favorite team, even above such teams as Pittsburgh (the new team to 'get no respect'), Seattle, and Denver.

Another interesting note is that different betting books tend to have their own core group of bettors which shows up in the varying odds posted by the various books. If you are interested in seeing what the odds for the superbowl are for a number of different books, try:

http://www.oddschecker.com/betting/mode/o/card/americanfootball-nfl/odds/2007313x/sid/828117

 

[JR4]

good one arrellbee,

colts are ... "a national (delusional) following"

I like that.

 

[Keegs]

I'm at work and any site gambling related is blocked but im guessing their are 7-1 or 6-1. It won't get much higher than that for a while as long as peyton is playing the way he plays. If the spread ever got to 10-1 or higher, everybody and their brother would bet on the Colts, and if they won the bookies would lose their shirts. They have to keep it this low. It has nothing to do with who they think is going to win. They could care less.

 

[Coast2CoastPatsFan]

"Same old story" my big white furry behind.

My comments were not in reference to the Patriots deserving to be SB favorites (or anything to do with the Patriots at all), but were referring to the comments that JR4 made regarding the Colts being the odds-on favorites and that many people believe (again) that they will win it all eventually and that this may be their year.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Sorry, just got ornery there. I really need it to be football season.

PFnV

 

[ilduce06410]

they really do fit nowhere

So why do they pick the Pats to go 8-1, ahead of popular preseason favorites? I'm actually surprised by the 'respect' the Pats get here in comparison to other 'power rankings'. I am wondering how the Pats' odds fit into the bookie's moneymaking scheme.

oddsmakers are only publishing ratings when they think they can money for it. they want to attract bets, and rite now for an event that's 7 months away, they got it like this. soon you'll see the patriots favored 'narrowly. ' any bets they're getting now are just sucker money anyway.