Cubs 6-1 odds to win 2012 World Series?

[Old Style]

Just saw this on SportsCenter. The Tigers are now 4-1 and the Yankees are 16-2. WTF? I think they said these odds were from MGM Grand in Vegas.

[davell]

Maybe lots of people blindly threw money down when we signed Theo? I know our odds are typically skewed somewhat, because of our large fanbase, but wouldn't have thought something like this was possible.

[Backtobanks]

Maybe they meant 60-1.

[Guest]

That's weird, I just had a buddy tell me on facebook the Cubs were 25/1.

[wade]

So, I know that Vegas odds are a reflection of who bookmakers feel the best teams are. But, they are also a reflection of who the most popular teams are. For instance, nationally popular teams like the Dallas Cowboys often see their lines skewed simply because they have a ton of fans who will bet them no matter what.

 

It's possible that after over a hundred years, the Cubs' odds are consistently driven down to win the World Series because they are nationally popular and that people would love to have a bet on them the year they finally win the World Series.

 

That said, this has to be a misprint.

 

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7177016/theo-epstein-lowered-odds-chicago-cubs-winning-world-series

 

This article is from back in November and shows that the Epstein hire lowered the Cubs to 25-1 in a futures bet. I can't believe it's been bet down that much since then.

[bcl412]

Hope it's correct and they know something we don't know as far as the team goes as opposed to an absurd amount of bets on the team for no reason.

[SouthSideRyan]

16-2 isn't a real line.

 

ETA: As in it's not possible to have a 16-2 line, that's 8-1.

[jersey cubs fan]

No way you saw that right, the Cubs are like 25-30/1. They are right in the middle and that is only because of how often people put money on the Cubs as a longshot. They are like 15/1 to even make the World Series.

[Old Style]

16-2 isn't a real line.

 

ETA: As in it's not possible to have a 16-2 line, that's 8-1.

Yeah, it was probably 17-2. I know it looked odd to me.

 

And I am positive that ESPN had the Cubs up there at 6-1. I was half asleep, but awake enough to see & hear them correctly. Not positive on their source, though.

[jam1975]

16-2 isn't a real line.

 

ETA: As in it's not possible to have a 16-2 line, that's 8-1.

Yeah, it was probably 17-2. I know it looked odd to me.

 

And I am positive that ESPN had the Cubs up there at 6-1. I was half asleep, but awake enough to see & hear them correctly. Not positive on their source, though.

 

I saw the same thing last night before bed as well and thought that line was odd.

[champaignchris]

I saw that on SC, too, and told my wife, "That's crazy."

 

The thing to remember is that odds more than anything are set by the market. It opens where the experts think it should be but the more money placed on the team the worse the payout gets.

 

So I have to think two things...

 

1. A bunch of people blindly placing money on the Cubs due to the Theo hire;

 

2. A bunch of joke bets placed on the Cubs because 2012 is supposed to be the end of the world.

[Brian707]

I was in Vegas last month at Harrahs and they were indeed at 6-1, it also shows the opening line which was posted 10-1-11, they were 40-1 at that point. The guy working the sportsbook said the Cubs always are bet heavy, thus the low odds, but especially when Theo was hired, they got a lot of action and dropped the line to discourage betting. Ever since the Rams won the SB in 1999 at 200-1 Vegas is very touchy about futures bets.

[Ryne Ween]

Cubs not winning the world series at -900?

[Backtobanks]

Possible reasons the Cubs might be 6-1:

 

1. Signing Theo

2. Pujols out of NL Central

3. Fielder out of NL Central

4. Braun's 50 game suspension

 

but the real reason the Cubs were listed 6-1:

 

Vegas opened the betting line on 2015 early.

[MADD_DOG_31]

i just found this...

 

 

Odds to win the 2012 World Series

All wagers have action

 

 

Philadelphia Phillies 11/2

Los Angeles Angels 13/2

New York Yankees 13/2

Detroit Tigers 9/1

Texas Rangers 9/1

Boston Red Sox 10/1

Miami Marlins 15/1

San Francisco Giants 16/1

Arizona Diamondbacks 20/1

Atlanta Braves 20/1

St. Louis Cardinals 20/1

Tampa Bay Rays 20/1

Cincinnati Reds 25/1

Washington Nationals 25/1

Milwaukee Brewers 28/1

Colorado Rockies 30/1

Los Angeles Dodgers 30/1

Toronto Blue Jays 30/1

Chicago Cubs 35/1

Chicago White Sox 50/1

Cleveland Indians 50/1

Minnesota Twins 50/1

Pittsburgh Pirates 65/1

Kansas City Royals 75/1

New York Mets 75/1

Oakland Athletics 75/1

Seattle Mariners 75/1

San Diego Padres 90/1

Baltimore Orioles 100/1

Houston Astros 100/1

[rocket]

i like the reds at 25/1

[Guest]

It's been a long time since a bookie lost a bet on the Cubs winning the World Series. I think I'll stay away from that sucker's bet.

[Backtobanks]

It's been a long time since a bookie lost a bet on the Cubs winning the World Series. I think I'll stay away from that sucker's bet.

 

Actually it's been about 5 generations of bookies.

[Guest]

I'd lay down a fin on the Pads @90:1

[Guest]

It's been a long time since a bookie lost a bet on the Cubs winning the World Series. I think I'll stay away from that sucker's bet.

 

Actually it's been about 5 generations of bookies.

 

It has to be extremely tough for them to muffle the laughter until after you hang up.

[erik316wttn]

It's been a long time since a bookie lost a bet on the Cubs winning the World Series. I think I'll stay away from that sucker's bet.

 

There were bookies in the Stone Age?

[Little Slide Rooter]

I'm surprised as how middle of the pack we are, but looking at the 11 teams below us, there are some truely bad teams this year. Of those below us, I think that the Royals, Indians, and White Sox are better than we are, but depending on when these were released, they could have taken into consideration the Tigers aquisiion of Fielder putting them well above the rest of their sickly division and the fact that none of them are likely to beat out the AL East usuals for the Wild Card.

[Tyrant]

Dumb question maybe, but anyone have a recommendations on good sites for bets like this? I'm asking for a friend.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's been a long time since a bookie lost a bet on the Cubs winning the World Series. I think I'll stay away from that sucker's bet.

 

There were bookies in the Stone Age?

 

The stone age was a lot further back in history than you are thinking.

[Guest]

It's been a long time since a bookie lost a bet on the Cubs winning the World Series. I think I'll stay away from that sucker's bet.

 

There were bookies in the Stone Age?

 

The stone age was a lot further back in history than you are thinking.

 

now THAT was a good joke

 

 

(and what happen to dexter's post?)