Super Bowl odds and smart bets (1 Viewer)

[ditka...mike ditka]

So last year when the lions came out at 100-1 to win the superbowl, I thought they were way to low and should be at least double that. My coworker overheard this and thought I was wrong, so we came up with the bet of $100 bucks and id give him the 150-1 odds. (i know, i could get better odds if I bet against it elsewhere, but I said it was way low, so I bet to bet)...anyway, he now still says that it was a smart bet on his end, because "anytime you can get better odds than offered in vegas, you should take it" Do you guys believe this statement to be true? My arguement was that just because thats the line, doesnt mean they think thats really the odds that would happen, and they place the lines to make money, not to actually predict what would happen (ie, just because the colts were 6 pt favorites in the superbowl this year, doesnt mean they thought he colts were going to win by 6, they just thought the public would think that).

He then went on to say that if they played this season 150 times (obviously different injuries would occur) that the lions would of won it at least once. Which I dont believe to be the case either. I said even in the extreme example that every starting nfl qb got hurt, so they all used 2nd string qbs, the lions still wouldnt win the sb this year if they had 0 injuries.

Is my thinking correct here or am I way off base?

I think Vegas sets the line at like 100-1 because they feel that there will always be the people that bet the lions (or any other team) to wint he superbowl, regardless of the spread...and the amount extra that would bet it if they raised the odds to a more realistic 500-1, would not offset the added risk by raising it to 500-1 (ie even at 500-1 alot of people would still think its a dumb bet so only so many extra people who werent already betting at 100-1 would bet...making the risk not worht it to raise it for the limited extra bets they would get)...does that logic make sense???

 

[AB in DC]

The Lions were closer to 1000-1 than 100-1

 

[ditka...mike ditka]

The Lions were closer to 1000-1 than 100-1

That was what I was thinking, but Vegas had them as 100-1. He was convinced that meant they would win 1 out of 100 times they played...I dont think thats the case and wanted other thoughts and see if anyone had any info on how they are really set.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Lions were closer to 1000-1 than 100-1

That was what I was thinking, but Vegas had them as 100-1. He was convinced that meant they would win 1 out of 100 times they played...I dont think thats the case and wanted other thoughts and see if anyone had any info on how they are really set.

Vegas didn't "have" the Lions at 100-1. That was just the pay-off. And since no one would pay more than something's worth, we can reasonably assume that the Lions were much less likely than 1% likely to win the Super Bowl. Factor in that the vig on futures bets is about 35%, and it's more like the Lions were 1 in 135 odds to win the SB.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So last year when the lions came out at 100-1 to win the superbowl, I thought they were way to low and should be at least double that. My coworker overheard this and thought I was wrong, so we came up with the bet of $100 bucks and id give him the 150-1 odds. (i know, i could get better odds if I bet against it elsewhere, but I said it was way low, so I bet to bet)

I really don't think you could.Let's use Chase's figure that the book estimates the "true" odds of Detroit winning at 135-1. With a 35% vigorish, that means they'd offer 100-1 for Detroit to win, and something like 1-185 for Detroit not to win. So the 1-150 you laid was probably a better deal than you'd get in Vegas. By betting with each other at 150-1, you and your friend probably both got significantly better deals than you could have gotten in Vegas.

That's why no Super Bowl futures bet (placed before the season starts) is profitable. The vig is just way too high.

 

[ditka...mike ditka]

So last year when the lions came out at 100-1 to win the superbowl, I thought they were way to low and should be at least double that. My coworker overheard this and thought I was wrong, so we came up with the bet of $100 bucks and id give him the 150-1 odds. (i know, i could get better odds if I bet against it elsewhere, but I said it was way low, so I bet to bet)

I really don't think you could.Let's use Chase's figure that the book estimates the "true" odds of Detroit winning at 135-1. With a 35% vigorish, that means they'd offer 100-1 for Detroit to win, and something like 1-185 for Detroit not to win. So the 1-150 you laid was probably a better deal than you'd get in Vegas. By betting with each other at 150-1, you and your friend probably both got significantly better deals than you could have gotten in Vegas.

That's why no Super Bowl futures bet (placed before the season starts) is profitable. The vig is just way too high.

Thanks Chase and Maurile. This is the kind of info I am looking for. Though it begs the question, do you guys (or anyone else here) really think that even if this season was played 135 times, the Lions would of won it even once? I mean I would argue the colts and saints would probably win a combined 50-60 of those. I dont see how the Lions even win it once.

 

[ditka...mike ditka]

Mods, I have posted this in the FFA instead as I have realized it more applies to all sports, and all long shots. I think they set the odds to attract those "what if" bettors that think "if I put 20 and 100-1 ill win $20,000" rather than thinking that the real odds are probably much higher. I figured this woudl get mre action in the FFA. Please feel free to delete. Thanks!!!

 

[Chase Stuart]

So last year when the lions came out at 100-1 to win the superbowl, I thought they were way to low and should be at least double that. My coworker overheard this and thought I was wrong, so we came up with the bet of $100 bucks and id give him the 150-1 odds. (i know, i could get better odds if I bet against it elsewhere, but I said it was way low, so I bet to bet)

I really don't think you could.Let's use Chase's figure that the book estimates the "true" odds of Detroit winning at 135-1. With a 35% vigorish, that means they'd offer 100-1 for Detroit to win, and something like 1-185 for Detroit not to win. So the 1-150 you laid was probably a better deal than you'd get in Vegas. By betting with each other at 150-1, you and your friend probably both got significantly better deals than you could have gotten in Vegas.

That's why no Super Bowl futures bet (placed before the season starts) is profitable. The vig is just way too high.

Thanks Chase and Maurile. This is the kind of info I am looking for. Though it begs the question, do you guys (or anyone else here) really think that even if this season was played 135 times, the Lions would of won it even once? I mean I would argue the colts and saints would probably win a combined 50-60 of those. I dont see how the Lions even win it once.

There were (at least) two distinct ways for the Lions to win the Super Bowl.1) The Lions actually outproduced expectations and were one of the best teams, if not the best, in the league

2) The Lions weren't that good but were really lucky and won the Super Bowl.

I've only seen one piece of evidence on the subject of how likely each team really is to win the Super Bowl. And that article said that, roughly speaking, the three best teams in the league win about 50% of the Super Bowls: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=57

However, that's the actual three best teams; not the three teams you think in the pre-season are the most likely to be in the three best. The odds of any one of the actual 8 worst teams to win the Super Bowl, as a group, are (according to the above article) about 1 in 161. Of course, that's 8 teams. The odds of the 18th best team to win the Super Bowl is about 1 in 138.

You'd need to figure out the odds of the Lions being the 1st, 2nd, 3rd... and 32nd best teams in the league. Then perform a weighted average of the likelihood of the X best team winning the Super Bowl. I don't think 1 in 150 (or 1 in 135) is unreasonable, but I haven't really spent much time thinking about it. They'd have needed Johnson and Smith to have big years, Stafford to play pretty well, and Schwartz to do a good job on defense. Then maybe Favre and Rodgers underperform and the Lions win the division.

 

[Doug Drinen]

About a hundred years ago, I wrote this blog post over at p-f-r. In it, I estimated that the best team in the NFL has about a 24% chance of winning the SB, the second-best team has about a 15% chance, the third-best 11%, and so on. You can read the full table at the link above.

From that, it appears that 100-1 is a fair price for the 17th- or 18th-best team in the NFL. [Note: I'm not talking about the team that you would have ranked 17th-best before the season; I'm talking about the team that actually turned out to be 17th-best.] So, very roughly speaking, if you think the Lions had a better-than-average chance of being a better-than-average team, then 100-1 is decent odds. I don't think many people thought that before the season.

I think the main point is yours from the OP, together with MT's observation that the vig is absurd on futures bets. If Vegas was forced to post vig-free odds corresponding to their true probability estimates, I'd guess the Lions would have been something like 300-1.

In other words, you're right and your friend is wrong in this particular case. Although I do think that your friend has a pretty solid general rule of thumb with his "anytime you can get better odds than in Vegas, you should take it" rule. I would amend it to, "in most cases, if you can get better odds than offered in Vegas, it's probably a good idea to take it."

EDIT: Chase is a faster typer than I am.

 

[ditka...mike ditka]

About a hundred years ago, I wrote this blog post over at p-f-r. In it, I estimated that the best team in the NFL has about a 24% chance of winning the SB, the second-best team has about a 15% chance, the third-best 11%, and so on. You can read the full table at the link above.

From that, it appears that 100-1 is a fair price for the 17th- or 18th-best team in the NFL. [Note: I'm not talking about the team that you would have ranked 17th-best before the season; I'm talking about the team that actually turned out to be 17th-best.] So, very roughly speaking, if you think the Lions had a better-than-average chance of being a better-than-average team, then 100-1 is decent odds. I don't think many people thought that before the season.

I think the main point is yours from the OP, together with MT's observation that the vig is absurd on futures bets. If Vegas was forced to post vig-free odds corresponding to their true probability estimates, I'd guess the Lions would have been something like 300-1.

In other words, you're right and your friend is wrong in this particular case. Although I do think that your friend has a pretty solid general rule of thumb with his "anytime you can get better odds than in Vegas, you should take it" rule. I would amend it to, "in most cases, if you can get better odds than offered in Vegas, it's probably a good idea to take it."

EDIT: Chase is a faster typer than I am.

Wow, Doug that is a great article and exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much for sharing it and answering my questions! Info like this is why I frequent this board and subscribe every year. Thanks guys!

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Vegas didn't "have" the Lions at 100-1. That was just the pay-off. And since no one would pay more than something's worth

Wait, isn't this how Vegas makes money?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Vegas didn't "have" the Lions at 100-1. That was just the pay-off. And since no one would pay more than something's worth

Wait, isn't this how Vegas makes money?

Well, I mean Vegas wouldn't offer 100-1 payout on something they thought was 2% likely to occur. If they offer a 100-1 payout on something, they must think the odds that it will come true are less than one percent.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Vegas didn't "have" the Lions at 100-1. That was just the pay-off. And since no one would pay more than something's worth

Wait, isn't this how Vegas makes money?

Well, I mean Vegas wouldn't offer 100-1 payout on something they thought was 2% likely to occur. If they offer a 100-1 payout on something, they must think the odds that it will come true are less than one percent.

Ah, got ya.

 

[Dragon1952]

Anyone wasting $100 on the Lions to win the SB last year, regardless of the Vegas odds, doesn't like their money very much. So what if the payoff is $10K, or even $100K, if it ain't gonna happen it's immaterial. They had about as much chance winning the SB as I had sleeping with Jennifer Aniston.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

However, that's the actual three best teams; not the three teams you think in the pre-season are the most likely to be in the three best.

From that, it appears that 100-1 is a fair price for the 17th- or 18th-best team in the NFL. [Note: I'm not talking about the team that you would have ranked 17th-best before the season; I'm talking about the team that actually turned out to be 17th-best.]

Yes. This question looks different in hindsight. Right now, we know that the Lions weren't very good in 2009. We know that Matt Stafford wasn't a rookie Dan Marino. We know that Calvin Johnson and Kevin Smith underperformed expectations, and that the defense didn't improve all that much from 2008.Knowing all of that, it looks like the Lions were nowhere near 100-1, or even 200-1, to win the Super Bowl.

Before the season started, however, while things still looked pretty bleak for them, they did at least have a chance to pull a 1999 Rams (or Colts) or 2008 Cardinals (or Dolphins) and come out of nowhere to actually become a good team overnight.

 

[DoubleG]

Anyone wasting $100 on the Lions to win the SB last year, regardless of the Vegas odds, doesn't like their money very much. So what if the payoff is $10K, or even $100K, if it ain't gonna happen it's immaterial. They had about as much chance winning the SB as I had sleeping with Jennifer Aniston.

So you're saying there's a chance!

 

[Doug Drinen]

Before the season started, however, while things still looked pretty bleak for them, they did at least have a chance to pull a 1999 Rams (or Colts) or 2008 Cardinals (or Dolphins) and come out of nowhere to actually become a good team overnight.

I factored that in to my 300-1 estimate.

 

[Dragon1952]

Anyone wasting $100 on the Lions to win the SB last year, regardless of the Vegas odds, doesn't like their money very much. So what if the payoff is $10K, or even $100K, if it ain't gonna happen it's immaterial. They had about as much chance winning the SB as I had sleeping with Jennifer Aniston.

So you're saying there's a chance!

LOL.....unfortunately not