Who's going to win? Jones: 65%, DC: 35%

[odog]

I'm not an expert on betting odds, but as far as I know they are based on how people are betting, not on the expected outcome.

 

[BOTTICELLI]

Odds are an educated guess

 

[MilesAbove]

Odds are an educated guess

An educated guess on what numbers will entice people to bet more. Not even on who they think will win.

Oddmakers play both sides. It's about how to trick the largest amount of people so that you don't lose either direction. Doesn't always work, but the good oddsmakers get the majority to bet the wrong way the majority of the time.

 

[mmass]

I'm not an expert on betting odds, but as far as I know they are based on how people are betting, not on the expected outcome.

Only partly. They can be priced to intentionally lose money for promotions and also to be in profit no matter what the outcome and also what risks the trader is willing to take. It's anything really.

I work for one.

 

[Raphael]

Good god. Bookmakers dont care about what the actual result of the fight is, their goal is to set a line which receives equal action on both favorite and underdog (this means an equal payout not equal amount of money paid). Then they have guaranteed profit.

Thank you.

 

[mmass]

Good god. Bookmakers dont care about what the actual result of the fight is, their goal is to set a line which receives equal action on both favorite and underdog (this means an equal payout not equal amount of money paid). Then they have guaranteed profit.

It can be done that way but the big bookmakers do actually set the odds to have money on the line. If they don't another bookmaker will take the action. You have to offer competitive pricing. This does mean you can go through periods of losing huge money and indeed it happens. They are most afraid of people placing big bets that might have insider information. It's a cat and mouse game. The major bookmakers are geared up to make profit but there really is some risk of ballsing it up.

 

[mma midwest fan]

DC by decision.

 

[StoicSD]

Is what the bookmaker odds imply. Their track record of prediction is much better than that of any sherdogger or "experts".

If you disagree with those chances, for instance, if you think DC is going to win..

1) Bet the house on DC
2) Explain why you're right
3) Prepare to be called irrational

If you base your life decisions simply on the statistics you read:

1) Good luck in life

 

[tjohnsont]

The bookmaker knows just about as much as you do in terms of "pre-fight information."

When the fight actually happens though, anything can happen. GSP lost to Matt Serra by TKO.

The bookmaker plays for the run long, that is thousands and millions of bets. In the short run, you can still bet on the underdog and win here and there.

Yea sure. LOL

 

[tjohnsont]

If you think there's anything rational about a fist fight, you're fucking high.
Plus, oddsmakers don't really care who they think will win, but rather where they think the person placing their money will win.

I've gotten teams at +220 at smaller sports book and they've been -250 at a busier sports book.

Odds shift, change and update.

Were those the updated odds or the current odds?

That's unheard of. You can bet both as dogs and make profit with no risk.

 

[tjohnsont]

An educated guess on what numbers will entice people to bet more. Not even on who they think will win.

Oddmakers play both sides. It's about how to trick the largest amount of people so that you don't lose either direction. Doesn't always work, but the good oddsmakers get the majority to bet the wrong way the majority of the time.

They have to kinda have an idea who's gonna win in order to entice the wrong bet.

 

[podsox]

ohio st +350 yesterday
Oregon was -320
it goes both ways

 

[Da Speeit]

That's unheard of. You can bet both as dogs and make profit with no risk.

Casino A's odds didn't shift on Tottenham Hotspur, Casino B obviously got some action on it or adjusted their odds and they were heavy favorites.

Obvious error on Aliante's part that didn't get checked, but it's just more evidence that bookies aren't always the 100% stone hard fact when it comes to sports betting. Of course mine was an anomaly, and a fight like this will be heavily monitored, but odds are not as objective as TS thinks

 

[mkess101]

It can be done that way but the big bookmakers do actually set the odds to have money on the line. If they don't another bookmaker will take the action. You have to offer competitive pricing. This does mean you can go through periods of losing huge money and indeed it happens. They are most afraid of people placing big bets that might have insider information. It's a cat and mouse game. The major bookmakers are geared up to make profit but there really is some risk of ballsing it up.

Most of the major books in Vegas aren't in the business of gambling if they can help it. I know two guys who work(ed) for them (one doesn't anymore). The guy who still does is actually involved in setting lines. They want the "action" of course, but they do generally **attempt** to get equal action on both sides to where the losers pay the winners and they collect the juice.

You say "competitive" pricing, but it's the same few guys that all the major books usually turn to to set the lines, so there's not a ton of variance (though admittedly with something like MMA where there's less overall action you will see more variance in lines as books try not to leave themselves too exposed).

But again, this is all in theory. A few years ago all the top ranked college football teams were covering the spread literally every week. The books kept jacking the lines higher, but the public just kept hammering the favorites and they kept covering. The books got bloodied up, they just couldn't get anyone to bet the dogs. So like you said, it happens where the books get burned and there's nothing they can do.

As for this fight, odds currently have it where you have to believe Jones wins more than about 60% of the time to make it worth betting him. I think he wins it about 2/3 of the time, so I have some action on him. I think the value is in Jones, though it's not amazing value. DC is certainly a live underdog.

 

[tjohnsont]

Casino A's odds didn't shift on Tottenham Hotspur, Casino B obviously got some action on it or adjusted their odds and they were heavy favorites.

Obvious error on Aliante's part that didn't get checked, but it's just more evidence that bookies aren't always the 100% stone hard fact when it comes to sports betting. Of course mine was an anomaly, and a fight like this will be heavily monitored, but odds are not as objective as TS thinks

I've never seen that before. If it was an online book and you won they would probably cancel your win based on an error.

Supposedly when there's alot of action on one side, the books probably even the action by trading/selling it off to other books that have heavy action on the other side.

 

[catchwrestle1]

Well the Poll of Pros has Cormier over Jones.....20 to 11.....I think Cormier will win also...but it's MMA, anything can happen...I mean an errant eyepoke could change the game....

well said, sir

 

[podsox]

Most of the major books in Vegas aren't in the business of gambling if they can help it. I know two guys who work(ed) for them (one doesn't anymore). The guy who still does is actually involved in setting lines. They want the "action" of course, but they do generally **attempt** to get equal action on both sides to where the losers pay the winners and they collect the juice.

You say "competitive" pricing, but it's the same few guys that all the major books usually turn to to set the lines, so there's not a ton of variance (though admittedly with something like MMA where there's less overall action you will see more variance in lines as books try not to leave themselves too exposed).

But again, this is all in theory. A few years ago all the top ranked college football teams were covering the spread literally every week. The books kept jacking the lines higher, but the public just kept hammering the favorites and they kept covering. The books got bloodied up, they just couldn't get anyone to bet the dogs. So like you said, it happens where the books get burned and there's nothing they can do.

As for this fight, odds currently have it where you have to believe Jones wins more than about 60% of the time to make it worth betting him. I think he wins it about 2/3 of the time, so I have some action on him. I think the value is in Jones, though it's not amazing value. DC is certainly a live underdog.

auburn and Oregon. best betting yr of my life

 

[prometheus]

the accuracy of bookies odds tend to be useful when looked at over a long series, they have little meaning in each isolated event

 

[mkess101]

auburn and Oregon. best betting yr of my life

LOL my buddy said the books in Vegas were freaking out. He said the only thing that saved them was that NFL underdogs did pretty well during that run and there was more $ bet on favorites than normal there too.

He said that's the first time he'd seen books turn away action for less than $1k on a football game. Guys wanting to bet $700 on a football game and a big casino sportsbook telling them "Sorry, we have a $500 limit for that game today." Can you imagine?

 

[Da Speeit]

I've never seen that before. If it was an online book and you won they would probably cancel your win based on an error.

Supposedly when there's alot of action on one side, the books probably even the action by trading/selling it off to other books that have heavy action on the other side.

Nah, local casinos in Vegas. They keep the Soccer odds up only for like 24 hours since there are isn't a lot of action and one big bet can sway their picks.

You have to pay really close attention and the one by my house gets the least foot traffic just due to location. Some of their World Cup odds were way off, especially with how many Brazilians live here. I got Germany at ridiculous odds.