[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

OT: Is Denver really the better Superbowl bet?

Posted By: Chuck Bower
Date: Wednesday, 4 January 2012, at 9:15 p.m.

In Response To: OT: Is Denver really the better Superbowl bet? (leobueno)

If we then calculate the return on each bet ($0.87) it looks like the book's take is $0.13 per dollar bet.

The "Delta" column is the defference between the implied and the relative odds.

It looks like all bets have equal expected return, so no bet has an an advantage.

The way you did the math, the ratio had to be the same for all positions (i.e. the rake). The fact is that the "true odds" are unknown to everyone unless the game is fixed. One might think that the implied odds are what the sportsbook thinks the true odds should be (i.e. their estimate) but that isn't usually the case. In general the books try to balance the incoming bets so that they can lock in a profit. This is harder to do for outcome bets like the one you are referring to. It's easier (but still not a cinch/guarantee) for just two possible outcomes instead of twelve.

I've heard that some bookmakers who feel confident they know more than the 'public' will bias their odds so that they entice betting on (what they think is) the wrong side. Of course many of those bookmakers went broke a long time ago.... Similar to arbitraging in the bigger games (e.g. the securities markets), locking in a profit is a lot safer than being heavy on one side. It's just not as fun/exciting.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.