OnLine Bettors Favor Pats to Win Super Bowl

[PatsFaninAZ]

You didn't hijack the thread.

Thanks pP. The redemptive power of the message board!

I felt like I was rambling a bit.

 

[italia44]

Pats were 10-1 two weeks ago on Bodog.com I almost bet it but missed the board. Doh!

I did put $250 on the Patriots at 10/1 to win SB the day they signed AD,also Denver $100 at 15/1.Good value there,IMO

 

[VJCPatriot]

I did put $250 on the Patriots at 10/1 to win SB the day they signed AD,also Denver $100 at 15/1.Good value there,IMO

Yeah you struck before the hype hit so you got real good odds on your bets. Hopefully you lose that Broncos bet though, no offense. I hate the Donks.

 

[ironwasp]

There are still good odds available here in the UK (where online betting is legal) on the Pats although they have come in during free agency. Right now they are at 9.5 (8.5-1), but not yet favourites. Colts are at 8 (7-1) and the Chargers at 8.8 (7.8-1).

I don't see a lot of value in the odds at present, the best available might just be the Saints at 25.

 

[Water Boy]

Pats were 10-1 two weeks ago on Bodog.com I almost bet it but missed the board. Doh!

Crap! Me too.

 

[zippo59]

Um Don't you guys realize making us the favorite to win the Super Bowl is a Jinx?....Can anyone remember the last time Vegas had a team favored to win the Super Bowl and they actually did?

I can't remember any year in recent memory of at least 15 years that the favorite team on the board actually won it all....and that includes the 2003 Champion Patriots who won again in 2004,That year I believe they were 8-1

Last year the betters favored the Colts before the season started.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I did put $250 on the Patriots at 10/1 to win SB the day they signed AD,also Denver $100 at 15/1.Good value there,IMO

This is an interesting question -- by betting on two mutually exclusive outcomes, did you actually decrease your odds on each bet? I'm tempted to say yes. It seems to me that since you can only win one of these bets but never both, your odds on each have gone down. Basically, you have $350 at stake in the game now and you can't possibly win both bets. If the Patriots win, you've won $2500, but it cost you $350 to get there, so your pay off is really 7/1. If the Broncos win, you've won $1500, but it cost you $350 to get there. So your pay off there is really about 4/1.

That said, on the other hand, you've increased your odds of winning some amount of money (either $2500 or $1500) by now having two horses in the race instead of 1, so maybe it all evens out and doesn't change anything. Not sure. I'm no good with probabilities. But I guess the question is whether your odds stay the same when you make these two bets as if you'd only picked one. Probably they do, although it seems to me almost like making two inconsistent bets on the same black jack hand or something.

 

[ironwasp]

Can anyone tell me how you guys can bet on places like Bodog if online betting is illegal in the US?

 

[workhorse]

Can anyone tell me how you guys can bet on places like Bodog if online betting is illegal in the US?

Because it's really hard to enforce. These gaming sites are run outside of the US, so the US government can not force them to shutdown or to turn over their records. The only way to get anyone is for them government to go after those placing the bets. But how do you find people in a manner that makes it worth while? It's kind of like Napster, but you can't go after the people with all the records.

 

[Elway]

Because it's really hard to enforce. These gaming sites are run outside of the US, so the US government can not force them to shutdown or to turn over their records. The only way to get anyone is for them government to go after those placing the bets. But how do you find people in a manner that makes it worth while? It's kind of like Napster, but you can't go after the people with all the records.

All the US accounts were closed with funds returned....how can you open up a new account with no funding options available unless you live in Europe/Asia/Canada?

 

[workhorse]

All the US accounts were closed with funds returned....how can you open up a new account with no funding options available unless you live in Europe/Asia/Canada?

Mine wasn't. I closed it myself.

You can open an account with Sportsbook.com here.

 

[Elway]

Mine wasn't. I closed it myself.

You can open an account with Sportsbook.com here.

I was talking more about Pinnacle because they are one of the best if not the best.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Because it's really hard to enforce. These gaming sites are run outside of the US, so the US government can not force them to shutdown or to turn over their records. The only way to get anyone is for them government to go after those placing the bets. But how do you find people in a manner that makes it worth while? It's kind of like Napster, but you can't go after the people with all the records.

Actually, none of this is true any more. Enforcement was not the only problem in the past -- the problem was that there was uncertainty whether off-shore betting was even illegal under then in effect laws.

Not so anymore. It turns out that a handful of congressmen have a real hard-on for online gambling, viewing it as immoral. So, just before the last election, they tucked a new law into the back of the "Port Security Act." What does on-line gaming have to do with Port Security you ask? Not a thing. But these congressmen knew that their bill would never pass standing alone. By working through committees to get it attached at the last minute to an anti-terrorism act which passed nearly unanimously, they ensured its enactment. Who can vote against an anti-terrorism bill on the eve of an election? Indeed, it is questionable whether their colleagues even knew that this little act was tucked in at the end of a 500 page act, although the President plainly was excited about the act when he signed it. The white house has had an interest in on-line gambling legislation for years, and I think they knew that prior to the mid-term election it was their last real chance to get it done during Bush's term, because they wouldn't want to do it before the next Presidential election.

Anyway, the new law doesn't have the problems you've identified with enforcement. It recognizes that it's hard to go after the off-shore companies that provide the gambling sites. And, although it arguably makes the bettor criminally liable, it also recognizes enforcement or resource problems with actually trying to arrest people for betting on line. So instead, it targets another group with the power to bring this stuff to a grinding halt: The financial institutions and internet service providers that facilitate or clear your on-line gambling transactions. So if you use a bank, or paypal, or a credit card to fund your gambling account or clear your winnings checks, they are potentially liable as the act's provisions gradually become effective. So too your ISP through which you've placed a bet. There is some dispute whether poker will be covered. And the horseracing lobby is apparently very strong, because they got an exception at the last minute. (Otherwise, even OTB would have been made illegal.)

There are likely to be some challenges to the act as well as more legislation, but if it holds up, the screws are really going to tighten very quickly.

Your government hard at work!

 

[italia44]

This is an interesting question -- by betting on two mutually exclusive outcomes, did you actually decrease your odds on each bet? I'm tempted to say yes. It seems to me that since you can only win one of these bets but never both, your odds on each have gone down. Basically, you have $350 at stake in the game now and you can't possibly win both bets. If the Patriots win, you've won $2500, but it cost you $350 to get there, so your pay off is really 7/1. If the Broncos win, you've won $1500, but it cost you $350 to get there. So your pay off there is really about 4/1.

That said, on the other hand, you've increased your odds of winning some amount of money (either $2500 or $1500) by now having two horses in the race instead of 1, so maybe it all evens out and doesn't change anything. Not sure. I'm no good with probabilities. But I guess the question is whether your odds stay the same when you make these two bets as if you'd only picked one. Probably they do, although it seems to me almost like making two inconsistent bets on the same black jack hand or something.

nicely written.......since my object is to win money,I place more emphasis on the perceived "value" of the bet........rather than the "luck" factor
of longer odds.

For example,you mentioned horse racing,but to me NFL football teams are more like the Stock Market............This is where the "value" part comes
in.Take Denver for example.....
IMO,they are in the top five teams in football and at 15/1 represent an excellent "value" pick to me with an investment of only $100.

Now that I have made my initial "early" bets,I'll look at the lines again when the season starts and again,in January,when the playoffs begin.

Last year in the playoffs in the AFC,both NE and Indy were 8/1 to win the SB.I bet $100 on each and ended up winning a net of $700,when Indy won.I didn't bet SD at 4.5/1,because I didn't think the "value" was there at the smaller odds.

Next January,I may increase my action on the Patriots and Denver or add more teams into the mix,just like an investor would do.

It is all about the "benjamins",but it is also a lot of fun for me.....just keep your emotions in check and your head on straight.

(also your wallet closed,but,that's a story for another time.)