Is the actual rotation the worst in the last 10 Y?

[iortiz]

Well, the lines have changed since the last time I checked out. The lowest line is for the Nats +600. Then you have LAD+700, LAA +900, Det +1100, STL +1200 and the Sox +1400. Seems like the casinos are not that confident anymore about the WS but we are still ahead of the other teams of the division. Edited February 5, 2015 by iortiz

[jd98]

Red Sox had the lowest odds to win the WS among the AL teams. Dodgers were always lower for sure, and I think a couple of other NL teams, maybe Nats and Cards.

[mvp 78]

That's not how the betting lines work. It's bot about who the casinos think will win, but rather about who the casinos think the betting public will put their money towards.

[a700hitter]

That's not how the betting lines work. It's bot about who the casinos think will win, but rather about who the casinos think the betting public will put their money towards.

preseason lines largely reflect the odds makers opinions on who will will. These are adjusted to reflect that certain teams do get a disproportionate amount of action. After the bets start rolling in, they do adjust for the bets taken to spread their risk. Keep in mind that sports bettors usually know something about the sport, so the odds do reflect conventional wisdom.

[Bellhorn04]

Preseason prognostications always bring out the philosopher in me. What were the preseason odds on SF and KC last year? What were the odds on the Red Sox in 2013? I wish somebody would keep track of the preseason calls and compare them to the actual results. But nobody does it because it would make the whole concept of preseason picks look foolish. It would also be pretty tedious.

 

Nobody knows s***, and your guess is as good as mine.

[Bellhorn04]

There's so much stuff that happens in baseball that completely defies logic. Look at Oakland last year. On July 31 they were 66-41. In August and September, after acquiring Lester and the two guys from the Cubs, they went 22-33. Unfathomable.

[a700hitter]

Preseason prognostications always bring out the philosopher in me. What were the preseason odds on SF and KC last year? What were the odds on the Red Sox in 2013? I wish somebody would keep track of the preseason calls and compare them to the actual results. But nobody does it because it would make the whole concept of preseason picks look foolish. It would also be pretty tedious.

 

Nobody knows s***, and your guess is as good as mine.

 

Agreed. With a 162 game season, 4 wild card teams, and 3 post season rounds, it is almost impossible to be accurate with projections. However, the odds do reflect the conventional wisdom of the relative strength of the teams on paper at this point in time.

[a700hitter]

That's not how the betting lines work. It's bot about who the casinos think will win, but rather about who the casinos think the betting public will put their money towards.

 

What BS are you going to come up with next? Are you going to try to tell me that my selection of the Super Bowl box with Pats 8 Seahawks 4 (winning me $4k) was not a result of my superior skill and knowledge. . I guess that it wasn't also skill the year that I picked the final score right on the head. Jeesh.

Edited February 5, 2015 by a700hitter

[Spudboy]

The bitching shouldn't bother you. You can tune that out. You will not be able to ignore that we will be rolling out a mediocre pitcher to start 4 out of every 5 games. That should bother you.

 

Both will bother me.

[Spudboy]

Preseason prognostications always bring out the philosopher in me. What were the preseason odds on SF and KC last year? What were the odds on the Red Sox in 2013? I wish somebody would keep track of the preseason calls and compare them to the actual results. But nobody does it because it would make the whole concept of preseason picks look foolish. It would also be pretty tedious.

 

Nobody knows s***, and your guess is as good as mine.

 

Truth.

[cp176]

Preseason prognostications always bring out the philosopher in me. What were the preseason odds on SF and KC last year? What were the odds on the Red Sox in 2013? I wish somebody would keep track of the preseason calls and compare them to the actual results. But nobody does it because it would make the whole concept of preseason picks look foolish. It would also be pretty tedious.

 

Nobody knows s***, and your guess is as good as mine.

 

I couldn't agree more. Making the predictions though is part of what helps us all get through the winter. For instance there are a lot of people here who I think expect Ramirez to put up stats that he has not seen in quite a few years. I hope that he stays healthy and I hope that the people who really like this deal are right. I see him as a future dh with that contract. I can't remember going in to a season with as many question marks. If everything works out, it could be a great year. It is a big year for the front office. To date I think that they have been faced with some very difficult decisions. I am glad that I don't have to make them. Read something about Masterson this am. Sure everybody else did as well. He sounds healthy and ready to go.

[a700hitter]

Both will bother me.

Bitching and moaning is a lot easier to take if the team is winning.

[iortiz]

That's not how the betting lines work. It's bot about who the casinos think will win, but rather about who the casinos think the betting public will put their money towards.

 

Lol whata load of BS.

[iortiz]

preseason lines largely reflect the odds makers opinions on who will will. These are adjusted to reflect that certain teams do get a disproportionate amount of action. After the bets start rolling in, they do adjust for the bets taken to spread their risk. Keep in mind that sports bettors usually know something about the sport, so the odds do reflect conventional wisdom.

Correct. First off, the odd makers are who set the lines based on a lot of things like stats, projections, etc. Then, once the bets are rolling and even before a game/event starts the offer/demand (The line is always changing) is considered as well mostly in those casinos or betting pages where you can book a bet even when the game is already started. What I found interesting is that in the long run when you correlate the odds and the wins, it is practically even reason why the house always win since the majority of the bettors chose fav teams.

[mvp 78]

Lol whata load of BS.

 

Moving the line is the oddsmaker's effort to balance betting action, and often times such moves can have a major impact on a bettor's decision.

 

This has nothing to do with "oh, who will win the AL East" but rather where is all the money being put down. For example, if the Sox were 12/1 to win the WS, but there's a huge influx of betting on that line, the odds makers will reduce it to 10/1 or even further. However, if no one is betting on the Sox at 12/1 they'll increase the odds to 14/1 or wherever. It's about the casinos hedging their bets and knowing historically where people are putting their money. The onfield moves are secondary at best.

 

But I just don't know what I'm talking about I guess.

 

Welcome to the world of gambling, you must be new here.

[mvp 78]

It's about hedging the money first and foremost.

[sk7326]

First of all - yeah Vegas lines are built for action and they know Boston fans like to gamble and will bite.

 

Second - Red Sox glasses I think tend to deflate the value of guys knowing how Boston fans roll.

 

Moreover - the complaints about the rotation gloss over the reality.

 

1. The team as constituted, does not seem poised to win three best-of series against increasingly difficult competition in October. I totally agree. The defense is not amazing and there is a lack of the anchor sorts you'd like to have in a short series. The bullpen looks solid but we all know that good bullpens are largely a matter of attrition and luck. Of course, there is so much baseball luck involved in doing this that the Sox could win these series anyway. I just would not favour it.

 

2. This team as constituted, should have favorable pitching matchups in most of its games, with most of those being #3 v #3, #4 v #4 and so on. The offense has the potential to be able to beat up mediocre pitching and there is enough projectable youth in the lineup that the offense could be better than even that. This team is capable of winning enough against "not prime time" caliber opposing starters to create a winning season generally.

 

It'd be nice to have both - the title winners had them - but it's not necessary to get to the playoffs. But with a serious dearth of sellers (of good starting pitching) - leaning on #2 and figure out #1 on the fly is a defensible strategy.

[mvp 78]

Lol whata load of BS.

 

Remember everybody, I'm the ******* that starts everything, right?

[iortiz]

Moving the line is the oddsmaker's effort to balance betting action, and often times such moves can have a major impact on a bettor's decision.

 

This has nothing to do with "oh, who will win the AL East" but rather where is all the money being put down. For example, if the Sox were 12/1 to win the WS, but there's a huge influx of betting on that line, the odds makers will reduce it to 10/1 or even further. However, if no one is betting on the Sox at 12/1 they'll increase the odds to 14/1 or wherever. It's about the casinos hedging their bets and knowing historically where people are putting their money. The onfield moves are secondary at best.

 

But I just don't know what I'm talking about I guess.

 

Welcome to the world of gambling, you must be new here.

As I said, once the line is published it is about offer/demand and still they read between the lines other facts which could affect the event. On the other hand, when the line is going to be set for the very first time, the odd makers consider a lot of things like stats, projections etc and Not who the casinos think the betting public will put their money towards as you are presenting.

[a700hitter]

It's about hedging the money first and foremost.

Yes, that is true. Keep in mind that the initial lines are established before bets are placed and they are established based on statistical projections. Once the money starts rolling in, the lines do adjust to hedge and spread risk, but another variable that you are ignoring is that sports bettors have a degree of knowledge about the sports. Many of them are experts. It is the betting of the experts that drives the lines, not the jagoffs that just bet their favorite team.

[User Name]

I'm going to profess my bro-love for my good buddy MVP here by defending him in the same manner that a700 does for his good buddy iortiz.

 

iortiz, you don't know what you're talking about. a700 is partially correct though.

 

First off:

 

There is a common misconception that point spreads represent the oddsmakers' prediction of how many points the favorite will win by. That is not the case at all - their intent is NOT to evenly split the ATS result between the teams; rather, their goal is to attract equal betting action on both sides. Stated another way, they want to create a line that half the people find appealing to bet one way while the other half find it appealing to bet the other way (known as 'dividing the action').

 

Divided action means the sportsbook is guaranteed a profit on the game because of the fee charged to the bettor (called juice or vig - typically $11 bet to win $10).

 

On another note:

 

Since the oddsmaker's ultimate goal is equally dividing the betting action, public perception and betting patterns must be taken into account. For example, the public might have heavy betting interest week after week on a popular college football team such as USC. If an oddsmaker comes up with a preliminary line of USC -7, then an adjustment up to -7.5 or -8 would be made in response to the public's expected USC bias.

 

Betting lines are created with a certain amount of projections in mind, but they're usually just made to hedge funds. This is being said by people who actually know what they're talking about.

 

iortiz, do some research before you run your mouth.

 

http://www.pregame.com/EN/main/sports-betting-basics/gambling-rules-advice/12878.html

[jd98]

On the other hand, when the line is going to be set for the very first time, the odd makers consider a lot of things like stats, projections etc and Not who the casinos think the betting public will put their money towards as you are presenting.

 

I'm not an oddsmaker, but it's almost certainly some of both, and not one or the other.

[User Name]

Note: In MLB's specific case, it mostly caters to popular teams, which is why you tend to find some of the big-fanbase teams having good preseason odds although they may have relatively weak rosters. This is why i never, ever put stock into preseason betting line projections.

[iortiz]

Yes, that is true. Keep in mind that the initial lines are established before bets are placed and they are established based on statistical projections. Once the money starts rolling in, the lines do adjust to hedge and spread risk, but another variable that you are ignoring is that sports bettors have a degree of knowledge about the sports. Many of them are experts. It is the betting of the experts that drives the lines, not the jagoffs that just bet their favorite team.

I couldn't put it better.

[sk7326]

http://www.oddsshark.com/mlb/mlb-odds-world-series-futures

 

Funny thing about the Vegas odds is looking at them cardinally. From what I pulled up just now.

 

Nats at 11-2 ... Nats are clearly the league's best team on paper. But it is hard to say anybody short of the 1998 Yankees is this far in front of the field.

Dodgers at 8-1

Sox, Cubs, Angels, Cardinals at 12-1 ... given the level of change in the former two relative to the latter, Sox and Cubs seem like crazy bets. Angels and Cards look much safer I'd think.

 

Pirates at 33-1, Guardians at 28-1, Orioles at 25-1 seem like the actual smartest values (if there is such a thing)

[iortiz]

I'm not an oddsmaker, but it's almost certainly some of both, and not one or the other.

 

When the lines are already published, yup.

[jd98]

When the lines are already published, yup.

 

I was referring to setting the initial line. Are you really saying the oddsmakers do not consider at all how they think the public will bet when they are setting the initial line? It's obvious they do with straight wagers, and UN? has already posted things showing that. Even if you're just talking about futures bets, let's look at the Cubs for example. There will be a decent amount of bets on the Cubs solely because of hype surrounding the Lester signing. So if the oddsmaker after using his stats and projections, as you mention, comes up with 15-1 for the Cubs, maybe he lowers it to 12-1 because he knows the Cubs are going to get bet harder than they should. You don't think this happens?

[iortiz]

I'm going to profess my bro-love for my good buddy MVP here by defending him in the same manner that a700 does for his good buddy iortiz.

 

iortiz, you don't know what you're talking about. a700 is partially correct though.

 

First off:

 

 

 

On another note:

 

 

 

Betting lines are created with a certain amount of projections in mind, but they're usually just made to hedge funds. This is being said by people who actually know what they're talking about.

 

iortiz, do some research before you run your mouth.

 

http://www.pregame.com/EN/main/sports-betting-basics/gambling-rules-advice/12878.html

We both see the thing eye to eye but one has not idea, and the other is partially correct haha. As always, you are bitching just for the sake of bitch. You are presenting s*** and waiting if it sticks since you do not know what we are even talking about.

[iortiz]

I was referring to setting the initial line. Are you really saying the oddsmakers do not consider at all how they think the public will bet when they are setting the initial line? It's obvious they do with straight wagers, and UN? has already posted things showing that. Even if you're just talking about futures bets, let's look at the Cubs for example. There will be a decent amount of bets on the Cubs solely because of hype surrounding the Lester signing. So if the oddsmaker after using his stats and projections, as you mention, comes up with 15-1 for the Cubs, maybe he lowers it to 12-1 because he knows the Cubs are going to get bet harder than they should. You don't think this happens?

 

 

I'm saying this since I have a couple of friends who are odd makers and work for the largest casino chain here in Mexico (Caliente). They told me that the main factors which are considered when they are going to publish for the very first time a line are stats, projections, casino's benchmarkings and their sport knowlage. Of course, when you look at handicap bet lines, they try to balance the lines in order to make them attractive but still the +\- points/runs/goals etc given to a team are based on what I just explained. On the other hand some handicap bets like over/under, have their standards based mainly on history. For example, the over/under for soccer games is usually 2.5 goals and so on.

Edited February 5, 2015 by iortiz

[Bellhorn04]

I'm basing my point since I have a couple of friends who are odd makers and work for the largest casino chain here in Mexico (Caliente). They told me that the main factors which are considered when they are going to publish for the very first time a line are stats, projections, casino's benchmarkings and their sport knowlage. Of course, when you look at handicap bet lines, they try to balance the lines in order to make them attractive but still the +\- points/runs/goals etc given to a team are based on the what I just explained. On the other hand some handicap bets like over/under, have their standards based on history. For example, the over/under for soccer games is usually 2.5 goals and so on.

 

Betting the over/under on soccer games sounds like self-inflicted torture to me.