What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** OFFICIAL *** FFA WAGERING THREAD - Merry Christmas!!! (15 Viewers)

Cowboys +6

Under 48.5

Why in the heck are the Seahawks only favored by 1 point?  overreaction to the Falcons win over the Cowboys?  Chancellor and Sherman injuries?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TripItUp said:
Cowboys +6

Under 48.5

Why in the heck are the Seahawks only favored by 1 point?  overreaction to the Falcons win over the Cowboys?
Click to expand...
With you on both of these tonight.

Hawks it's about the beat up defense I think. 1/4 of Legion left.  I'm still all over Seattle at home on a Monday night.  I want to bear Russ's children.

 
facook said:
Hawks it's about the beat up defense I think. 1/4 of Legion left.  I'm still all over Seattle at home on a Monday night.  I want to bear Russ's children.
Click to expand...
Really hard to lay off the Hawks at home at that number vs. what has been an inconsistent Falcons team...even with the defensive injuries.

 
This is such a ####### wet-blanket ### post, I'm going to put it in spoilers:

Refresher on implied probability here: https://help.smarkets.com/hc/en-gb/articles/214058369-How-to-calculate-implied-probability-in-betting

For a standard NFL or NBA game, each side is -110, for an implied probability of 52.38%. So the total would be 52.38% x 2 = 104.76%. A "no-vig" game would be +100/+100, 50% * 2 = 100%. 

So this evening I calculated the entire implied probability of every listed bet on BOL for 1st TD in SNF. Every possibility was accounted for in the field, maybe save for some random OL or a kicker or something scoring, but they had both team defenses, "no TD", etc. etc.

For the whole thing, it was 166%. That is a lot of vig.

I looked at some other "pool" bets, usually futures, where there were several options but only one would win. Although that one is usually at significant underdog odds.

For the MLB 2018 winner, it's 163%. NCAA basketball is 176%. The Champions League was a little better at 148%. Last year's Kentucky Derby odds slightly better than that, around 137%. 

Considered another way, if you bet 1 unit on three different players each MNF, for each of the 17 MNF weeks of the year, you'd have to hit five 10-1 shots just to break even. Or 7 +700 plays, or 2 +2500 ones. Granted, hitting a long-shot is fun, but I think even a sharp NFL bettor would be better off scratching lotto tix.

I wish I remembered which podcast it was, but on an episode of Behind The Bets, a Vegas linesmaker named Bob Scucci said that they didn't have any liabilities on futures for the upcoming SB (it was mid-season).  ANY.

cease wet-blanketry.
 
Good Posting Judge said:
This is such a ####### wet-blanket ### post, I'm going to put it in spoilers:

Refresher on implied probability here: https://help.smarkets.com/hc/en-gb/articles/214058369-How-to-calculate-implied-probability-in-betting

For a standard NFL or NBA game, each side is -110, for an implied probability of 52.38%. So the total would be 52.38% x 2 = 104.76%. A "no-vig" game would be +100/+100, 50% * 2 = 100%. 

So this evening I calculated the entire implied probability of every listed bet on BOL for 1st TD in SNF. Every possibility was accounted for in the field, maybe save for some random OL or a kicker or something scoring, but they had both team defenses, "no TD", etc. etc.

For the whole thing, it was 166%. That is a lot of vig.

I looked at some other "pool" bets, usually futures, where there were several options but only one would win. Although that one is usually at significant underdog odds.

For the MLB 2018 winner, it's 163%. NCAA basketball is 176%. The Champions League was a little better at 148%. Last year's Kentucky Derby odds slightly better than that, around 137%. 

Considered another way, if you bet 1 unit on three different players each MNF, for each of the 17 MNF weeks of the year, you'd have to hit five 10-1 shots just to break even. Or 7 +700 plays, or 2 +2500 ones. Granted, hitting a long-shot is fun, but I think even a sharp NFL bettor would be better off scratching lotto tix.

I wish I remembered which podcast it was, but on an episode of Behind The Bets, a Vegas linesmaker named Bob Scucci said that they didn't have any liabilities on futures for the upcoming SB (it was mid-season).  ANY.

cease wet-blanketry.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

This should be pinned, after Bad Lieutenant and Vegas prop shops. 

 
Good Posting Judge said:
This is such a ####### wet-blanket ### post, I'm going to put it in spoilers:

Refresher on implied probability here: https://help.smarkets.com/hc/en-gb/articles/214058369-How-to-calculate-implied-probability-in-betting

For a standard NFL or NBA game, each side is -110, for an implied probability of 52.38%. So the total would be 52.38% x 2 = 104.76%. A "no-vig" game would be +100/+100, 50% * 2 = 100%. 

So this evening I calculated the entire implied probability of every listed bet on BOL for 1st TD in SNF. Every possibility was accounted for in the field, maybe save for some random OL or a kicker or something scoring, but they had both team defenses, "no TD", etc. etc.

For the whole thing, it was 166%. That is a lot of vig.

I looked at some other "pool" bets, usually futures, where there were several options but only one would win. Although that one is usually at significant underdog odds.

For the MLB 2018 winner, it's 163%. NCAA basketball is 176%. The Champions League was a little better at 148%. Last year's Kentucky Derby odds slightly better than that, around 137%. 

Considered another way, if you bet 1 unit on three different players each MNF, for each of the 17 MNF weeks of the year, you'd have to hit five 10-1 shots just to break even. Or 7 +700 plays, or 2 +2500 ones. Granted, hitting a long-shot is fun, but I think even a sharp NFL bettor would be better off scratching lotto tix.

I wish I remembered which podcast it was, but on an episode of Behind The Bets, a Vegas linesmaker named Bob Scucci said that they didn't have any liabilities on futures for the upcoming SB (it was mid-season).  ANY.

cease wet-blanketry.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you know but there's no vig when you win

 
Good Posting Judge said:
This is such a ####### wet-blanket ### post, I'm going to put it in spoilers:

Refresher on implied probability here: https://help.smarkets.com/hc/en-gb/articles/214058369-How-to-calculate-implied-probability-in-betting

For a standard NFL or NBA game, each side is -110, for an implied probability of 52.38%. So the total would be 52.38% x 2 = 104.76%. A "no-vig" game would be +100/+100, 50% * 2 = 100%. 

So this evening I calculated the entire implied probability of every listed bet on BOL for 1st TD in SNF. Every possibility was accounted for in the field, maybe save for some random OL or a kicker or something scoring, but they had both team defenses, "no TD", etc. etc.

For the whole thing, it was 166%. That is a lot of vig.

I looked at some other "pool" bets, usually futures, where there were several options but only one would win. Although that one is usually at significant underdog odds.

For the MLB 2018 winner, it's 163%. NCAA basketball is 176%. The Champions League was a little better at 148%. Last year's Kentucky Derby odds slightly better than that, around 137%. 

Considered another way, if you bet 1 unit on three different players each MNF, for each of the 17 MNF weeks of the year, you'd have to hit five 10-1 shots just to break even. Or 7 +700 plays, or 2 +2500 ones. Granted, hitting a long-shot is fun, but I think even a sharp NFL bettor would be better off scratching lotto tix.

I wish I remembered which podcast it was, but on an episode of Behind The Bets, a Vegas linesmaker named Bob Scucci said that they didn't have any liabilities on futures for the upcoming SB (it was mid-season).  ANY.

cease wet-blanketry.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be rude or anything here, but, no ####?

 
lumpy19 said:
I agree on Lockett/Richardson, both lined at 2.5 rec which is right but lockett at 32.5 and richardson at 47.5.  40 seems like the right number for both.
Click to expand...
both seem to have a little bit better home stats but yes was surprised to see 32.5 for tyler, seems low and I hate overs

 
6 CONCLUSION

I offer some evidence that the NFL point spread betting market is biased by showing that a strategy of betting on the WC team to beat the point spread when it is playing against an EC team in the evening (ET), regardless of location, wins at a rate significantly above breakeven. Economic theory posits that in a competitive market the existence of betting profits on the west coast team should encourage more west coast team betting to the point where profits vanish. However, this does not appear to be the case here. Instead, sports books may be acquiring a partial signal consistent with the circadian advantage from restricted wagers placed by bettors they know to be informed. The sports books then offer spreads that account for the partial signal to uninformed bettors who are unaware of the circadian advantage. From the  perspective of the uninformed bettors, the offered spread makes wagers on the (unknowingly) disadvantaged team relatively cheap. From the sportsbooks perspective, this encourages overbetting on what tends to be a losing wager. The surplus in the losing amount bet, after the winning bets are paid off, becomes the sports books profits above the vigorish. Despite the existence of a bias, after considering the potential  costs of the activities that generate a positive gross return it is still possible that the NFL betting market is capital market efficient after considering the potential costs of the activities that generate a positive gross return. Chin, Daniel M. "A Test of Unbiasedness and Sports Book Profits in the Nfl Point Spread Betting Market Using Circadian Advantage." Journal of Gambling Business & Economics, vol. 5, no. 3, Dec. 2011, pp. 15-26.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

⚡
Options for watching NFL Games in 2025
Replies
49
Views
9K
InDitkaWeTrust
InDitkaWeTrust
snellman
Class of 2026 support thread.
Replies
16
Views
564
FarFromHome
FarFromHome
Max Power
Most Embarrassing Thing Someone in Your Family Does?
2 3
Replies
108
Views
4K
Zow
Zow

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Back
Top