Odds to win NCAA Super Regionals:


Vanderbilt +295
Texas -355

Florida State -140
Arkansas +120

Arizona +320
Long Beach State -390

Georgia +145
Georgia Tech -165

East Carolina +175
South Carolina -210

Tulane +290
Cal State Fullerton -350

Texas A&M +245
LSU -290

Florida +265
Miami-Florida -325

Take the underdog in each one and make some good money.

How Exactly do you figure these out?

If its a + that is the amt you win off a $100 bet. If its a - that is the amt of money you must put up to win $100.

mj- you bettin on all of them??

Yeah, I actually just got back from Vegas and put down a few units on Ark +125, Tulane +300, Georgia +150 and A&M +275. All of those have some nice value and I think 2 or 3 out of the 4 could happen.

Sorry - you're gonna probably come up empty. Arky might be the one team that pulls something out for you and I can't say that I'm very confident about that. I fully expect ya'll to give us a struggle and it'll likely need all 3 games but I think that we'll win. UGA and Tech will be a great series to watch, while Tulane has never beaten CSF in their history. Fullerton is going to KILL them.

MSN tech support - you have problems, we have morons...

As mj put it: its not about what will necessary win, its about what has value.

I know its weird to hear it, but guys that just try and "pick winners" don't end up winning long-term... It's those that look for value and realize all the time that a bet they are making most than likely won't win that end up in the positive long-term.

[This message has been edited by mhayden (edited 6/11/2004 4:27a).]

You make some valid points...

Hey, with one obvious exception (naturally, I want LSU to win over A&M) I hope his bets work out. I've left more than my share of $$$ behind in Vegas over the years, so I'm all for someone who can beat them hehe

MSN tech support - you have problems, we have morons...

Give me UGA and the Hogs. Actually, and I hate to say this, give me the SEC teams and I'll probably clean up.

Playing favorites in baseball is generally a rip-off, especially in Major League Baseball.

If one team has even a slight apparent advantage over another, you will end up wagering $130 - $150 to win $100. This is true, even though in actuality the odds of the favortie winning are more like 50 / 50 or 55 / 45.

I have also seen many MLB games with heavy favorites at -200 or more where the game could have been decided by a timely hit by either team. These games can often easily go either way, and are certainly not worth putting down $200 - $300 to win $100. Thats crazy.

The results of MLB games are unpredictable for all practical purposes. Especially in a sport like baseball, the worst team can and will beat the best team on any given day. Long term profit can be made not by predicting the winner, but by predicting a team's chance of winning. If a team has a relatively good chance of winning vs a favorite, they are a good value.

As previously stated, value is what it is all about in baseball.

The reason I took Tulane was first off they are 4 to 1 underdogs and I watched the Fullerton regional while out in California for a wedding. Yeah, they killed Pepperdine the last day twice but they also seemed to struggle mightily the first two days. This is college baseball and that's what makes these dogs such a good value. Anyone can win once you get down to 16.

Sweet, Georgia is looking good in Game 1.

GT has been known to choke before. One game however, does not a series make.

Lets keep this thread handy. After Monday I will be very curious to see what % of the favorites won.

Both of my dogs won today. Maybe the Ags or Green Wave can steal a game tomorrow.

I was in vegas last week and put $20 on the Ags to win the entire world series and pays 32 to 1. If A&M wins I $640. I almost put $10 on t.u. to win at 4 to 1 to offset the misery if they pull it out.

Nice job mj... Going in late guaranteed up +0.75 units.

Thanks, too bad Tulane looked terrible last night.

What were the results then?

ended up .75?

I'm not getting this. Why would anyone want to put up $290 for LSU just to win $100? I realize the whole point of Vegas is to balance the books, but how are the books balanced if everyone takes A&M at a 245% payout and the Aggies had won?

Or, is the whole point here to get everyone to bet on the Aggies, for example, and the odds are that 5-7 of the favored teams will win, balancing everything out?

They fix and move the lines to attract the most betting on BOTH sides as possible. They figure that if things balance themselves out, the percentages guarantee them a profit...

MSN tech support - you have problems, we have morons...

quote:

---

I realize the whole point of Vegas is to balance the books, but how are the books balanced if everyone takes A&M at a 245% payout and the Aggies had won?

---

First of all, everyone wouldn't take A&M, but if a lot of money came in on A&M at +245, the line would be adjusted downward, enticing more money to come in on the LSU side.

quote:

---

They fix and move the lines to attract the most betting on BOTH sides as possible.

---

Except in the case of the Super Bow, it's a myth that balancing the action is the purpose of the line. The public generally bets on the same team, and most sportsbooks are usually heavy on one side -- but they've learned over the years that they make more money doing this, as the public is generally wrong long-term. If books balanced the action, they would be decreasing profit.

In addition to that, with the major influx of online sportsbooks, balacing the action has all but disappeared. 99% of books out there don't shift their line based on where the money is coming in on their book, but rather what the Don Best screen says other major books are shifting too. It's perfectly common now to see a book take thousands and thousands of dollars on one side of a line but actually shift the *opposite* direction in favor of the heavy wagered side.

mhayden:
Where are you getting you information? That just isn't true.

mhayden - you are way off here.

There is an old saying in sports book making that "you can't out run 11 to 10". It is that juice that makes any successful bookmaker successful, and to screw with it and start participating in the actual gambling would be suicide.

[This message has been edited by Thethreeyardout (edited 6/16/2004 7:08p).]

Sorry guys... Been working with people close to the industry on various websites for years now -- if you think that these books are all trying to balance action, you're wrong.

Online sportsbooks don't care about balanced action at all -- as I said 99% of them shift their lines based on the Don Best screen.

Brick and mortar sportsbooks only really care about balanced action on the Super Bowl -- everything else you'll find almost all books let the money roll in on one side that they believe to be the wrong side.

CWS Odds:


Bracket 1 Winner:

Texas -250
Arizona +650
Georgia +600
Arkansas +300


Bracket 2 Winner:

Miami +100
South Carolina +280
Cal State Fullerton +300
LSU +300


Team from Bracket 1 to get eliminated first:

Texas +500
Arizona +165
Georgia +175
Arkansas +200


Team from Bracket 2 to get eliminated first:

Miami +280
South Carolina +220
Cal State Fullerton +210
LSU +190



-----

Odds to win it all:

Texas +250
Miami +300
LSU +600
South Carolina +550
Cal State Fullerton +550
Arkansas +825
Georgia +1200
Arizona +1400

quote:

---

the public is generally wrong long-term

---

This is interesting, but confusing too. I have never looked at the data, but always thought the public was about 50% right/wrong.

How can it be possible that the public can pick the losers ? The ablity to predict the outcome, even if it is a loss, indicates some level of skill or working method or system that could be turned into $$$. Seems if this were true that the public would catch on and just fade themselves.

Public long-term generally hits right around 47-48%... No one really picks worse than 43%, because as you said -- that means fading would produce a record well over 57%, which doesn't often happen.

The percentage that the public is wrong climbs even higher when you have stuff like Monday Night Football, NCAA Tournament, NBA Finals, etc... The big time televised events bring out all of the squares who usually throw a whole lot of money on the wrong side.