[biggamer3]

Guys they are one 4th quarter hold vs the Pats and an Extra point chip shot from Vinitieri from being the undefeated team

No reason why they are still 6-1

Who else is pounding them?

[mofome]

Guys they are one 4th quarter hold vs the Pats and an Extra point chip shot from Vinitieri from being the undefeated team

No reason why they are still 6-1

Who else is pounding them?

good find. if they go, im gonna be there. would be nice to have a little added interest.

[Wheell]

I am not with you, they could just have easily lost to the Jags. They aren't as good as the Patriots and could be more than a 3-1 dog in that game alone. A home game against Pittsburgh or San Diego, a road game at New England, and then a neutral field game against Dallas or GB? Unless you feel they win all 3 of those one out of 7 times, I'd stay away. Personally I put their odds at around 11%.

[mofome]

I am not with you, they could just have easily lost to the Jags. They aren't as good as the Patriots and could be more than a 3-1 dog in that game alone. A home game against Pittsburgh or San Diego, a road game at New England, and then a neutral field game against Dallas or GB? Unless you feel they win all 3 of those one out of 7 times, I'd stay away. Personally I put their odds at around 11%.

good post. i doubt they will be a +300 at NE, but overall the value of +600 may not be as great as it seemed at first. i believe that the winner of ne/indi will win it all....which is def a +600 risk to me. but...ive been wrong many times before.

[2Pac]

It is great value, but look at it from both sides. They are also a few plays away from being 10-5 or even 9-6.

The reason why it is +600 is because they will have to go to a freezing cold (probably) New England, and upset the best team in the history of the NFL.... and that's IF they can get past the first playoff game.

[mofome]

It is great value, but look at it from both sides. They are also a few plays away from being 10-5 or even 9-6.

The reason why it is +600 is because they will have to go to a freezing cold (probably) New England, and upset the best team in the history of the NFL.... and that's IF they can get past the first playoff game.

the 1987 redskins wont be in new england. the 2007 pats should be there though.

[LT Profits]

Indy +600 is only good value if you don't think New England will reach the AFC Championship. The Pats WILL beat the Colts by at least 10 points at Foxboro, I am extremely confident of that.

That said, I made one Super Bowl future bet, and it is JACKSONVILLE at 20-1! I think THEY are the only team capable of beating the Pats right now, and if they do, we'd probably both be happy with a Jax/Indy AFC Championship, as 6-1 suddenly becomes great for you and I could hedge a bit against my 20-1. Then, the Super Bowl will become almost anticlimatic, as either NE, Indy or Jax would all wn handily vs. Dallas or GB, and if I am fortunate enough to see Jax go that far, I would not hedge in Super Bowl.

[prop]

I certainly don't consider it great value, in fact still think its -EV, but also don't think its as nearly of a bad bet as some have suggested

I have Indy in +650 range as a true line.
Considering juice the line seems about right and this is not a ton of juice for a big dog so Indy would certainly not be the worst of bets.

[LT Profits]

But I like Jax +2000 better.

[jrcaces]

Sucker bet.... Pats win Superbowl easy only team I see that has A chance to beat New England is Jax and thats still a stretch..

[jrcaces]

But I like Jax +2000 better.

100 % correct

[matskralc]

<---got Jacksonville +3000 at Matchbook a few days ago.

[donjuan]

Indy +600 is only good value if you don't think New England will reach the AFC Championship. The Pats WILL beat the Colts by at least 10 points at Foxboro, I am extremely confident of that.

That said, I made one Super Bowl future bet, and it is JACKSONVILLE at 20-1! I think THEY are the only team capable of beating the Pats right now, and if they do, we'd probably both be happy with a Jax/Indy AFC Championship, as 6-1 suddenly becomes great for you and I could hedge a bit against my 20-1. Then, the Super Bowl will become almost anticlimatic, as either NE, Indy or Jax would all wn handily vs. Dallas or GB, and if I am fortunate enough to see Jax go that far, I would not hedge in Super Bowl.

Rather than talking in retarded absolutes, how about providing some estimated percentages for each game so that you can actually see if there is any value or not?

[LT Profits]

Rather than talking in retarded absolutes, how about providing some estimated percentages for each game so that you can actually see if there is any value or not?

Well all that really matters is the first two rounds, because if the Jags get past that, I will have zero risk, giving me a free pop at +1800 of my orginial wager (or +1700 if Indy is somehow -300). At most, Jacksonville will be +180 in first round and +500 vs. Pats. Yes, those could/should be lower, but I am using highest possible price (IMO). So a moneyline parlay of the first two rounds at these prices yeilds +1580, significantly lower than what I would get with no risk. At that point, I will bet to win the amount of my original wager on Jax's opponent in ATS Championship, giving me the zero risk. Not to mention the fact that Jacksonville would be the favorite if they got to the Super Bowl.

Technically speaking, ANY profit with zero risk is good, so the key is to bet a live dog that would allow you to get to the point where you could do this.

[LT Profits]

Put another way, I would not really be getting 18/1 but actually 18/0, making any calculated odds moot. Now, if you are asking if 20-1 is good odds if someone intends to ride the Jaguars out to the end with no buyback, then I would say NO, it would be better to parlay the moneylines all the way through. Then again, that is almost always the case with future odds, as the books aim to make the payouts less than calculated parlays. The only exceptions occur sometimes when huge favorites get knocked out early.

[donjuan]

I'm not asking you where you think the lines will be, I'm asking you for specific percentages or fair value moneylines for each game like this:

First round: 50%
vs. Pats: 20%
vs. Colts/other opponent (weighted based on probablity of facing each possible team): 40%
Super Bowl: 70%

With those kind of estimates, you are looking at a probablity of less than 3% which makes +2000 a definite -ev bet.

[donjuan]

The problem with that is that you can't simply make a -ev bet combined with -ev hedges into a +ev bet.

[Wheell]

Um, why does everyone love Jacksonville? by my analysis they are "scrub crushers" who excel against bad teams, but struggle mightily against strong teams. I know they beat Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh but I wouldn't count on them to repeat that feat. They have to win road games at SD or Pitt, NE or Indy, and then most likely at NE or Indy again. Tough road. If you want a longshot to win the Super Bowl you probably should look to the NFC. Might I advise, say, TB? Shrug.

[LT Profits]

I'm not asking you where you think the lines will be, I'm asking you for specific percentages or fair value moneylines for each game like this:



First round: 50%
vs. Pats: 20%
vs. Colts/other opponent (weighted based on probablity of facing each possible team): 40%
Super Bowl: 70%

With those kind of estimates, you are looking at a probablity of less than 3% which makes +2000 a definite -ev bet.

I think I answered that when I said if someone intends to bet Jags to win out, Moneyline parlay is better than 20-1, so it seems we are actually in agreement.

For the record, I would make the first two rounds very close to yours, but probably shaded a tad closer to Jax.

First Round: 52.5% (Yes they will be underdogs in reality, but I think they beat SD or Pitt)
Second Round: 25% (I make them +300 when they will be closer to +500)

But those are just what I would make the odds, which isn't as important as what the true odds will be.

[donjuan]

Those weren't my odds, just something I threw out there as an example.

But those are just what I would make the odds, which isn't as important as what the true odds will be.

To clarify, are you defining "true odds" as fair value?

[LT Profits]

Um, why does everyone love Jacksonville? by my analysis they are "scrub crushers" who excel against bad teams, but struggle mightily against strong teams. I know they beat Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh but I wouldn't count on them to repeat that feat. They have to win road games at SD or Pitt, NE or Indy, and then most likely at NE or Indy again. Tough road. If you want a longshot to win the Super Bowl you probably should look to the NFC. Might I advise, say, TB? Shrug.

Um, where have you been the last eight weeks?

The Jaguars have been the second best team in the NFL in the second half of the season, amassing at least 24 points and 400 yards in every game, with the only loss being by three points at Indy. More importantly, they are the best rushing team in football, which is golden in cold weather and also plays against the Pats' lone weakness (well weakness may be strong, but the weakest part of their team).

[LT Profits]

I guess it's subjective, but "fair" odds are what I think the odds should be, which is what I gave, while "true" odds are what they will actually be, which is closer to your numbers. Based on that, I DO think that Jax has a +ev the first two rounds.

[donjuan]

Please explain how you plan to make 2/3 -ev bets into a +ev proposition, again.

[matskralc]

Not to mention the fact that Jacksonville would be the favorite if they got to the Super Bowl.

Provided the Cowboys (and maaaybe the Packers) aren't their opponent, sure.

[Thremp]

Please explain how you plan to make 2/3 -ev bets into a +ev proposition, again.

You can make 2 of 3 -EV bets with one +EV into something for optimal growth in a situation such as this with a future and progressive hedging if you feel there is an inefficiency with the MLs in each game. But it may not be the best way to exploit it and I'm fairly sure the above poster (I can't figure out what he is talking about) isn't really trying to do that. His talk about freerolls and stuff and taking live dogs is about to make my head asplode.

[LT Profits]

donjuan,

I disagree that betting Jags to win and buying out after first two rounds is -ev. I think the Jags win the first game and they will be underdogs, so +ev there. I give the Jags a 25% chance to win second game (+300) and they will be closer to +500, so +ev there again. I then buyout and get a free roll at a minimum of 17 x my original wager. So where exactly is the -
ev?

-----------------------------------------------------------

mtskralc,

Jags will be favored over ANY NFC team. Remember that they will probably have beaten Pats and Colts to get there. They would be around -3 vs. Cowboys, -4/4.5 vs. Packers.

[matskralc]

I'm not sure which is more unbelievable: that the Jags will be underdogs in the first round, or that they'll be favored over the Cowboys or Packers in the Super Bowl.

[matskralc]

I'm not sure which is more unbelievable: that the Jags will be underdogs in the first round, or that they'll be favored over the Cowboys or Packers in the Super Bowl.

Thought about it. Still the latter, although I can envision Jags as slight favorites if they play Pittsburgh (without Willie Parker) in Pittsburgh.

[LT Profits]

You can make 2 of 3 -EV bets with one +EV into something for optimal growth in a situation such as this with a future and progressive hedging if you feel there is an inefficiency with the MLs in each game. But it may not be the best way to exploit it and I'm fairly sure the above poster (I can't figure out what he is talking about) isn't really trying to do that. His talk about freerolls and stuff and taking live dogs is about to make my head asplode.

It is not as complicated as you are making it seem.

From the top, I bet $1 to win $20 on Jags to win Super Bowl.

I think they will win the first game (meaning I give them better than 50% chance of winning), and they will be underdogs, so that is +ev.

I give them a 25% chance (+300) to beat the Pats in Round 2, and they will be closer to +500, so +ev again.

I then bet Colts -300 (probably less) to win $1 in AFC Championship. I now have no risk on the bet in totality with a chance at a free $17 (probaly close to $18).

[durito]

Jags will play San Diego or Pittsburgh in round one, right? Are they automatically on the road as the wild card? I'm pretty sure they are. If so, they will not be favored IMO. I'd expect Pitt/SD to both be around -2 in such a game (not thats how i rate those teams).

In terms of the Super Bowl. One must remember that the line on this game is more reflective of public opinion than any other line all season. Remember when the Steelers were 4pt favorites over a Seattle team that had been the best team in the NFC all season. If they'd played that game after the regular season, Seattle would've been favored. But, after Pitt had 3 impressive road wins, they ended up favored.

I rate both Dallas and Green Bay at quite a bit better than Jacksonville at the moment -- but if they were to say take out New England and Indy who knows exactly where that line would come out -- but I would guess it would be a lot closer than it would be today.

[LT Profits]

I'm not sure which is more unbelievable: that the Jags will be underdogs in the first round, or that they'll be favored over the Cowboys or Packers in the Super Bowl.

Agree to disagree.

Yes, if they play Pittsburgh in first round, line may be closer to Pick, But if they get San Diego, I don't think there is a question San Diego will be around -3 at home.

Where we strongly disagree is the Super Bowl. The Jags will have already beaten the two perceived best teams in the NFL, and don't forget about the AFC vs. NFC factor. Similar to when the Steelers made the Super Bowl as a wild card, and opened at -4.5 over Seattle, which I think was the #2 seed that year.

Or maybe you are just undervaluing the Jags, who I think have the third best team in the NFL right now behind NE and Indy.

[donjuan]

Thremp,

I'm aware of that. When I said 2/3, I meant 2 or 3, not 2 of 3. I'm aware of using -ev bets to hedge for higher bankroll growth, although I still am in the dark as for how to do so optimally.

LT,

Risk free? What happens in your scenario if Jax loses in the Super Bowl?

[LT Profits]

durito

This hardly ever happens, but I disagree with you.

Not only do I not rate Dallas and Green Bay "quite a bit" higher than Jacksonville, but I actually rate Jacksonville slightly ahead of both of them. I guess I put more emphasis on strength of schedule and recent play than you do.

No worries, I still love you!

[Thremp]

don,

Okay. I misunderstood. My mistake. I was a little confused by that, but figured I'd toss that out as clarification in case someone got confused when sifting through this stuff.

FWIW my math isn't in the same ballpark as what I need to get optimal growth hedging on things resembling portfolios. I just hope to get in good and get there mostly. Or ask for help when the time comes

[matskralc]

One must remember that the line on this game is more reflective of public opinion than any other line all season.

Which is mainly why I think a Dallas/Jacksonville Super Bowl would open with the Cowboys favored (not necessarily by a lot, but favored nonetheless).