Vegas '07 W.S. Odds

[b_wiggy_66]

Yankees-7:2

Tigers-5:1

Chicago Cubs-9:1

Boston-9:1

Mets-10:1

Cardinals-10:1

White Sox-10:1

Angels-10:1

Blue Jays-15:1

Dodgers-16:1

Phillies-16:1

 

Worst Odds

K.C.-350:1

T.B.-350:1

 

Lets hope the oddsmakers are right and the Cubs get to the W.S.

Edited February 10, 2007 by b_wiggy_66

[Mephistopheles]

of course the odds makers are right. the odds are that way so they win.

[nilodnayr]

of course the odds makers are right. the odds are that way so they win.

 

Cubs odds are always like that because they get a ton of action. Vegas needs to cover itself so they give them bad odds in the off chance that the cubs actually win.

[Mephistopheles]

that was my point..."they" the bookies.

[hawkcub]

If the oddsmakers were right the Cubs would have 4 World series championships in the last 25 years.

[Shilzzz]

i'd take that line on boston. barring major devestation they will be tough to beat.

[CubsWin]

of course the odds makers are right. the odds are that way so they win.

 

Cubs odds are always like that because they get a ton of action. Vegas needs to cover itself so they give them bad odds in the off chance that the cubs actually win.

I'm assuming that by bad odds you meant good odds because otherwise this sentence doesn't really make any sense, unless I'm just not getting what you're saying.

 

If, as you say, Vegas is covering itself in the off chance the Cubs actually win because so many people bet money on them, then they would want to give the Cubs better than their actual odds (lower number:1), so that if they did win the payout would be smaller. Bad odds or worse than actual odds (higher number:1) would increase the amount the casinos would have to payout.

[nilodnayr]

of course the odds makers are right. the odds are that way so they win.

 

Cubs odds are always like that because they get a ton of action. Vegas needs to cover itself so they give them bad odds in the off chance that the cubs actually win.

I'm assuming that by bad odds you meant good odds because otherwise this sentence doesn't really make any sense, unless I'm just not getting what you're saying.

 

If, as you say, Vegas is covering itself in the off chance the Cubs actually win because so many people bet money on them, then they would want to give the Cubs better than their actual odds (lower number:1), so that if they did win the payout would be smaller. Bad odds or worse than actual odds (higher number:1) would increase the amount the casinos would have to payout.

 

sorry, to clarify, i meant bad odds from a better's perspective

[nilodnayr]

i'd take that line on boston. barring major devestation they will be tough to beat.

 

If you believe that every team that gets in the playoffs has an equal shot at winning the WS (1/8). Then you are basically saying that the Red Sox have an 89% chance of making the playoffs. And in order to do so, as Nate Silver shows, that would mean the Red Sox would have to be projected to win 102 games.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I'm not too good with the gambling numbers stuff. So basically if I put $1000 down on the Cubs to win it all I just wasted $1000?

[Mark_R]

I'm not too good with the gambling numbers stuff. So basically if I put $1000 down on the Cubs to win it all I just wasted $1000?

 

If the Cubs were to win the World Series, you'd win 9,000 dollars.

 

If you put 1,000 on the Rays, you'd win 350,000 :shock:

[imb]

of course the odds makers are right. the odds are that way so they win.

 

Cubs odds are always like that because they get a ton of action. Vegas needs to cover itself so they give them bad odds in the off chance that the cubs actually win.

I'm assuming that by bad odds you meant good odds because otherwise this sentence doesn't really make any sense, unless I'm just not getting what you're saying.

 

If, as you say, Vegas is covering itself in the off chance the Cubs actually win because so many people bet money on them, then they would want to give the Cubs better than their actual odds (lower number:1), so that if they did win the payout would be smaller. Bad odds or worse than actual odds (higher number:1) would increase the amount the casinos would have to payout.

 

you couldnt just infer that?

[nilodnayr]

I'm not too good with the gambling numbers stuff. So basically if I put $1000 down on the Cubs to win it all I just wasted $1000?

 

If the Cubs were to win the World Series, you'd win 9,000 dollars.

 

If you put 1,000 on the Rays, you'd win 350,000 :shock:

 

Read it again...IPT was making a joke.

[ConstableRabbit]

The over-under on Billy Joel's national anthem at the superbowl was 1:44. By my count, he finished at 1:41.

 

They're usually pretty damn good.

[Soul]

Just give us the NL pennant right now.

[rocket]

out of curiosity what are the cleveland indians odds?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

out of curiosity what are the cleveland indians odds?

 

20:1

[rocket]

out of curiosity what are the cleveland indians odds?

 

20:1

 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooh

[BigbadB]

Cleveland is probably another year away, but might be worth dropping a couple of bucks on to win it all. They have a lot of exciting young players in Marte, Barfield, Peralta, Garko, Shoppach, Sowers, Guthrie, Carmona, etc...

 

Now that they've pretty much blocked Franklyn Gutierrez in the Cleveland outfield, he's a guy I wouldn't mind having as a 5th outfielder.

[Amazing_Grace]

In all seriousness, these odds reflect how much money is bet on which team. It has nothing at all to do with which team is actually most likely to win. It has everything to do with which teams the betters think are most likely to win. That being said, betters are usually wrong, and casino owners are usually rich. This is meaningless from a baseball standpoint.

 

EDIT: If I were betting, I'd put a dollar on each of the top 10 payrolled teams in MLB behind the Yanks and Sox (perennial favorites low payouts).

[CubsWin]

of course the odds makers are right. the odds are that way so they win.

 

Cubs odds are always like that because they get a ton of action. Vegas needs to cover itself so they give them bad odds in the off chance that the cubs actually win.

I'm assuming that by bad odds you meant good odds because otherwise this sentence doesn't really make any sense, unless I'm just not getting what you're saying.

 

If, as you say, Vegas is covering itself in the off chance the Cubs actually win because so many people bet money on them, then they would want to give the Cubs better than their actual odds (lower number:1), so that if they did win the payout would be smaller. Bad odds or worse than actual odds (higher number:1) would increase the amount the casinos would have to payout.

 

you couldnt just infer that?

Bad odds are bad odds. I've never heard good odds referred to as bad odds before. You're a little late, though. He explained it already. He was coming at it from the bettors point of view. I get it now. :oops:

 

What am I to infer from your post, IMB? Hmm, I wonder. Certainly nothing of a personal nature.

 

Oh, and thanks for your response to the evidence on Rusch that you requested and that I PM'd you. You're right, the evidence is undeniably clear and my statements about Rusch are irrefutably supported by them. It was big of you to take the time to respond as graciously as you did.

[nilodnayr]

of course the odds makers are right. the odds are that way so they win.

 

Cubs odds are always like that because they get a ton of action. Vegas needs to cover itself so they give them bad odds in the off chance that the cubs actually win.

I'm assuming that by bad odds you meant good odds because otherwise this sentence doesn't really make any sense, unless I'm just not getting what you're saying.

 

If, as you say, Vegas is covering itself in the off chance the Cubs actually win because so many people bet money on them, then they would want to give the Cubs better than their actual odds (lower number:1), so that if they did win the payout would be smaller. Bad odds or worse than actual odds (higher number:1) would increase the amount the casinos would have to payout.

 

you couldnt just infer that?

Bad odds are bad odds. I've never heard good odds referred to as bad odds before. You're a little late, though. He explained it already. He was coming at it from the bettors point of view. I get it now. :oops:

 

What am I to infer from your post, IMB? Hmm, I wonder. Certainly nothing of a personal nature.

 

Oh, and thanks for your response to the evidence on Rusch that you requested and that I PM'd you. You're right, the evidence is undeniably clear and my statements about Rusch are irrefutably supported by them. It was big of you to take the time to respond as graciously as you did.

Ohh Ohh, whats the Rusch argument, I want to get in on that!

[imb]

of course the odds makers are right. the odds are that way so they win.

 

Cubs odds are always like that because they get a ton of action. Vegas needs to cover itself so they give them bad odds in the off chance that the cubs actually win.

I'm assuming that by bad odds you meant good odds because otherwise this sentence doesn't really make any sense, unless I'm just not getting what you're saying.

 

If, as you say, Vegas is covering itself in the off chance the Cubs actually win because so many people bet money on them, then they would want to give the Cubs better than their actual odds (lower number:1), so that if they did win the payout would be smaller. Bad odds or worse than actual odds (higher number:1) would increase the amount the casinos would have to payout.

 

you couldnt just infer that?

Bad odds are bad odds. I've never heard good odds referred to as bad odds before. You're a little late, though. He explained it already. He was coming at it from the bettors point of view. I get it now. :oops:

 

What am I to infer from your post, IMB? Hmm, I wonder. Certainly nothing of a personal nature.

 

Oh, and thanks for your response to the evidence on Rusch that you requested and that I PM'd you. You're right, the evidence is undeniably clear and my statements about Rusch are irrefutably supported by them. It was big of you to take the time to respond as graciously as you did.

Ohh Ohh, whats the Rusch argument, I want to get in on that!

 

He said that Rusch was good 75% of the time he was a cub. I asked him to go ahead and explain himself. He wasn't secure enough in his facts, so he just pm'd me. The pm was basically word for word his post from an earlier thread that I had already responded to, so I didnt feel the need to go through it again, especially since it was just in pm form.

 

Oh, this was months ago, so this whole thing is pretty childish and expected. Way to go cubswin, you reached new low. Your ridiculous Rusch argument has nothing to do with you expressing your pathetic desire to feel superior to someone (nilo) who was harmlessly stating something that only a complete mongoloid couldnt figure out on his own.

[CubsWin]

of course the odds makers are right. the odds are that way so they win.

 

Cubs odds are always like that because they get a ton of action. Vegas needs to cover itself so they give them bad odds in the off chance that the cubs actually win.

I'm assuming that by bad odds you meant good odds because otherwise this sentence doesn't really make any sense, unless I'm just not getting what you're saying.

 

If, as you say, Vegas is covering itself in the off chance the Cubs actually win because so many people bet money on them, then they would want to give the Cubs better than their actual odds (lower number:1), so that if they did win the payout would be smaller. Bad odds or worse than actual odds (higher number:1) would increase the amount the casinos would have to payout.

 

you couldnt just infer that?

Bad odds are bad odds. I've never heard good odds referred to as bad odds before. You're a little late, though. He explained it already. He was coming at it from the bettors point of view. I get it now. :oops:

 

What am I to infer from your post, IMB? Hmm, I wonder. Certainly nothing of a personal nature.

 

Oh, and thanks for your response to the evidence on Rusch that you requested and that I PM'd you. You're right, the evidence is undeniably clear and my statements about Rusch are irrefutably supported by them. It was big of you to take the time to respond as graciously as you did.

Ohh Ohh, whats the Rusch argument, I want to get in on that!

 

He said that Rusch was good 75% of the time he was a cub. I asked him to go ahead and explain himself. He wasn't secure enough in his facts, so he just pm'd me. The pm was basically word for word his post from an earlier thread that I had already responded to, so I didnt feel the need to go through it again, especially since it was just in pm form.

 

Oh, this was months ago, so this whole thing is pretty childish and expected. Way to go cubswin, you reached new low. Your ridiculous Rusch argument has nothing to do with you expressing your pathetic desire to feel superior to someone (nilo) who was harmlessly stating something that only a complete mongoloid couldnt figure out on his own.

Ain't amateur psychology grand.

 

For the 2nd time, I misunderstood nilodnayr. He explained it. I got it. In the post in which I supposedly desired to feel superior to someone else, I wrote,"unless I'm just not getting what you're saying". Yep, pretty superior sounding to me.

 

I PM'd you the Rusch evidence so as to not hijack a thread anymore than had already happened and you know it. I suggest we do the same in this thread.

 

Mods, does it get anymore needlessly personal than this? What is this guy's problem?

[NCCubFan]

OK, let's not get personal here. No need to be insulting back and forth. Differences in opinion can be handled civilly.