Betting Outrights = False Value

moses millsap · 01-16-2006, 12:20 PM

I said this in the "Will Federer win the AO" thread and am trying to show that with an experiment in that thread (where I suggest it's better to bet your initial investment on that player you think will win outright and just continually roll that amount over by betting it all on the next match at the match odds), but it'll only work if he actually ends up winning it.

But in Picantel's post in the in-game thread of Colts/Pitt, he cut and pasted a $200 outright ticket where he has them to win the AFC at +1114 odds. His copy and pasted ticket shows that he'd win $2220.80 from his $200 investment if Pitt beats Denver this week (The actual price he should have is $2228.00, NOT 2220.80 from odds of +1114/11.14 to 1 shot, but that's not my point, but if that is the actual ticket, the book shaved off $7.20 of potential profit).

Now, betting Pitt to win the AFC at 11.14 to 1 odds sounds juicy, but let's look at the return if Pitt backers had decided to go for the outright by betting the original investment and rolling it over by betting the Steelers ML every game.

$200 on Steelers ML vs Cincy (-150)
Result: Wins $133.33
New Bank: $333.33

$333.33 on Steelers ML vs Colts (+400)
Result: Wins $1333.32
New Bank: $1666.65

(Of course, we are assuming Pitt beats Denver below to see the actual odds you would've gotten from betting in this manner instead of going for the book's outright odds)
$1666.65 on Steelers ML vs Broncos (+168)
Result: Wins $2799.97
New Bank: $4466.62

So, your new bank after winning an "outright" wager on Pitt at 11.14 to 1 is $2428, that's TWO DIMES less than what you should win on the wager. Now, imagine Picantel has a ticket to win the Superbowl at 17 to 1, meaning his $200 turns into $3600 ($3400 profit) if that comes through. The difference between that and the true odds is ridiculous (You'd bet your whole bank of $4466.62 on the Steelers ML in the SB).

There are very few instances where betting an outright is a smart wager (I explained in the tennis thread, you need to place one fairly long term, like Nadal to win RG last year at the beg. of the year was a 40 to 1 shot, he drifted to 3 to 1 after his amazing run on the clay during the clay court season).

isetcap · 01-16-2006, 01:17 PM

Not to mention you've locked up funds for weeks.

moses millsap · 01-16-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isetcap

Not to mention you've locked up funds for weeks.

I don't think that's such a bad thing unless you are playing on a short bankroll. It just bothers me when people say "oh what value on that outright". There is rarely any value in outrights and NEVER any value when it concerns an event that will be taking place in the near future. It's a goldmine for the books though and I doubt the public will ever learn.

aje · 01-16-2006, 03:32 PM

Solid post. I've always wanted to take a deeper look in to this. I do have some doubts when dealing with such a heavy favorite though. If I threw $200 on Roger @ -139 that would pay me $143.88. Now if I rolled it out your way.

At pinnacle
1 R. Federer -12125
2 D. Istomin +9125

$200 to win $1.65

It would appear that I have a long way to go.

onlòóker · 01-16-2006, 03:59 PM

Sharp post OWNED. Not many would even think of this. Keep this stuff coming.

moses millsap · 01-16-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aje

Solid post. I've always wanted to take a deeper look in to this. I do have some doubts when dealing with such a heavy favorite though. If I threw $200 on Roger @ -139 that would pay me $143.88. Now if I rolled it out your way.

At pinnacle
1 R. Federer -12125
2 D. Istomin +9125

$200 to win $1.65

It would appear that I have a long way to go.

I used the approx. odds of -200 since those were the odds after the notables had withdrawn. But even if we're going with the opener of -139, go with the openers on his matches, because they always drift up as you know, he opened at -8340 at Pinny, I'm running that exp. in the other thread.

isetcap · 01-16-2006, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aje

Solid post. I've always wanted to take a deeper look in to this. I do have some doubts when dealing with such a heavy favorite though. If I threw $200 on Roger @ -139 that would pay me $143.88. Now if I rolled it out your way.

At pinnacle
1 R. Federer -12125
2 D. Istomin +9125

$200 to win $1.65

It would appear that I have a long way to go.

WOOHOO!!!
I just checked my Pin account and I hit on this one!
When are they posting the lines for round 2?
I love betting tennis.

moses millsap · 01-16-2006, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isetcap

WOOHOO!!!
I just checked my Pin account and I hit on this one!
When are they posting the lines for round 2?
I love betting tennis.

100 to 1 shots are solid investments, don't let people tell you otherwise. Who wouldn't be happy with a 1% ROI. WOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

pags11 · 01-17-2006, 04:42 AM

good stuff owned...

LVHerbie · 01-17-2006, 08:50 AM

I always wondered why parlay players don't just make one bet and double it up the next day on another game...

100 on 2 team parlay pays 260...

-110 lines - 100 bet wins 90.90 and second bet of 190.90 (if first wins) to 173.45 for net of 264.44...
-105 lines - 100 to win 95.24 and 195.24 to win 177.49 = net 272.73

then again the people making parlay bets and futures bets are exactly the type to be looking for this kind of edge to begin with...

moses millsap · 01-17-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LVHerbie

I always wondered why parlay players don't just make one bet and double it up the next day on another game...

100 on 2 team parlay pays 260...

-110 lines - 100 bet wins 90.90 and second bet of 190.90 (if first wins) to 173.45 for net of 264.44...
-105 lines - 100 to win 95.24 and 195.24 to win 177.49 = net 272.73

then again the people making parlay bets and futures bets are exactly the type to be looking for this kind of edge to begin with...

Exactly, the whole point of making parlays is to bet two games that are going on at the same time. Thing is that a lot of books now give you true parlay odds, so that's a good thing, plus most books will give you true odds on your parlay wager as long as every wager within that specific parlay is not of the standard -110 juice.

The only value the typical book (i.e., they have solid odds, like 2.6, 6, 10, 18, etc.) gives is the 3 team parlay where they pay 6 to 1 when the true odds are less than that by a smidgen.

aje · 01-17-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OWNED

I used the approx. odds of -200 since those were the odds after the notables had withdrawn. But even if we're going with the opener of -139, go with the openers on his matches, because they always drift up as you know, he opened at -8340 at Pinny, I'm running that exp. in the other thread.

Cool. I'll be checking up on it.

Ira Wilton · 01-17-2006, 03:24 PM

While what OWNED says about futures is probably true in some cases and false in others, his theory does not apply if one is to bet on a team in the regular season - that is where there is often value.

moses millsap · 01-17-2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ira Wilton

While what OWNED says about futures is probably true in some cases and false in others, his theory does not apply if one is to bet on a team in the regular season - that is where there is often value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OWNED

The only time would be to bet a fairly long term outright where you think the odds will only get worse as it nears the slam, a la Nadal last year, before the AO, he was a 41 to 1 shot to win the French Open.

That quote was from me in the other tennis thread, which states there is only value in long term situations. I'd think we'd both agree a full season in any of the major sports constitutes a long term situation.

Ira Wilton · 01-17-2006, 05:47 PM

Sorry, owned, i didn't read that: yes i agree with you. I think it is definitely an interesting experiment. Good luck!