This might give some perspective:
Odds to win NCAA Championship 2012-13
Louisville 8-1
Syracuse 12-1
Creighton 25-1
Gonzaga 30-1
Cincinnati 50-1
Butler 60-1
Pitt 60-1
Notre Dame 60-1
Georgetown 60-1
Marquette 80-1
George Mason 100-1
VCU 100-1
Dayton 120-1
Perspective on what?
Present state of various teams. Creighton has much better odds than VCU and Dayton (and Marquette!)
I don't know how much bearing the PRESENT championship odds are on anything. Creighton has a top 5 player in the country this year. There really isn't anything to see here.
Quote from: DSEEagle on December 26, 2012, 02:27:38 AM
I don't know how much bearing the PRESENT championship odds are on anything. Creighton has a top 5 player in the country this year. There really isn't anything to see here.
I know you love the A10 but other than Xavier and new joiner Butler they are not worth bringing into the new conference. All the odds say is that Creighton, Xavier, and Gonzaga have a better shot at winning it all than VCU and Dayton. Derive whatever conclusion you wish.
Quote from: keefe on December 26, 2012, 01:46:50 AM
Present state of various teams. Creighton has much better odds than VCU and Dayton (and Marquette!)
This is a single season snapshot and not at all indicative of the long-term strength of the program. Without a link there's no verification of other programs, but I found this (http://www.handicappershideaway.com/updated-odds-to-win-the-2012-2013-mens-ncaa-basketball-championship/) that has San Diego State at 40-1, Wisconsin at 50-1, and Miami at 66-1. Does that mean they are all in better shape long-term than Marquette at 100-1? Of course not.
These numbers really mean absolutely nada if you think big picture.
Odds are not forecasting tools, they are tools by which bookies attract an equal volume of dollars bet on each side.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on December 26, 2012, 08:59:42 AM
Odds are not forecasting tools, they are tools by which bookies attract an equal volume of dollars bet on each side.
+1 This is the single hardest concept for people to understand.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on December 26, 2012, 08:59:42 AM
Odds are not forecasting tools, they are tools by which bookies attract an equal volume of dollars bet on each side.
Exactly. That's why the odds on the Cubs winning the World Series in any Vegas sports book are always much better than their actual probability of winning. You have a disproportional number of hopeful (if not delusional) Cubs fans putting down bets on them (especially at the beginning of the season).
I did make a $20 bet on MU to win the NCAA in November (Vegas) at 75-1. I do not expect to collect, but it would pay $1,520. Of couse I was dumb enough to bet on MU +11 against Florida.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on December 26, 2012, 08:59:42 AM
Odds are not forecasting tools, they are tools by which bookies attract an equal volume of dollars bet on each side.
This isn't exactly true. Vegas and their computers establish what they believe to be the "fair value" of a given event/game. If the public bets one side heavily the odds may be adjusted, but not by much as the casino doesn't want to be "middled" and lose both sides.
Would they love it if every game had the same amount of action on both sides and they could just pocket the vig? Sure, but in cases where it doesn't they still believe in their "numbers" - and "fair value" dictates that heavy betting on one side by the public will be wrong as often as it is right. So as long as you have to bet $11 to win $10, they'll win over time.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 26, 2012, 09:54:19 AM
This isn't exactly true. Vegas and their computers establish what they believe to be the "fair value" of a given event/game. If the public bets one side heavily the odds may be adjusted, but not by much as the casino doesn't want to be "middled" and lose both sides.
Would they love it if every game had the same amount of action on both sides and they could just pocket the vig? Sure, but in cases where it doesn't they still believe in their "numbers" - and "fair value" dictates that heavy betting on one side by the public will be wrong as often as it is right. So as long as you have to bet $11 to win $10, they'll win over time.
+1 The best books in the world take sides. A moderate bet by a sharp is far more likely to move a line than a huge bet by the public.
Quote from: warriorchick on December 26, 2012, 09:32:03 AM
Exactly. That's why the odds on the Cubs winning the World Series in any Vegas sports book are always much better than their actual probability of winning. You have a disproportional number of hopeful (if not delusional) Cubs fans putting down bets on them (especially at the beginning of the season).
Vegas gives fair odds on games because you can bet on a team to win or lose.
On a proposition bet like winning the world series there is no "two sided" market where the public can bet both on and against the Cubs. These are major "sucker" bets (if you add all the odds of all the teams together they don't come close to 1 -1) and the most unfair odds (as you point out) will always be on the sentimental or popular teams. These kind of bets are fun but the edge for the casino is huge.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 26, 2012, 07:18:35 AM
This is a single season snapshot and not at all indicative of the long-term strength of the program. These numbers really mean absolutely nada if you think big picture.
As I said, it is indicative of relative strength today. Nothing more. As for Big Picture, I would say relative odds of winning the national championship is pretty Big Picture. Unless you are Mike Deane then getting to the NIT is a Big Picture.
Quote from: keefe on December 26, 2012, 12:16:37 PM
As I said, it is indicative of relative strength today. Nothing more. As for Big Picture, I would say relative odds of winning the national championship is pretty Big Picture. Unless you are Mike Deane then getting to the NIT is a Big Picture.
No, it's not. Big Picture isn't one year. It isn't two years. It isn't even 5 years. It's where these teams will be a decade down the road and beyond. It's the overall health and sustainability of the conference. So as I said, these numbers are not at all indicative of long-term strength of the program.
I put $25 on each of my alma maters before the season started.
MU was 60 to 1 at the time
IU was 5 to 1
Kansas was 22 to 1...I liked this bet, thought they were undervaluing the Jayhawks.
Looking back on it, some values out there. Florida was 12 to 1, Illinois 60 to 1, Michigan 15 to 1, Missouri 80 to 1, and Duke 18 to 1....wish I had put something down on Duke back then.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 26, 2012, 12:59:51 PM
Looking back on it, some values out there. Florida was 12 to 1, Illinois 60 to 1, Michigan 15 to 1, Missouri 80 to 1, and Duke 18 to 1....wish I had put something down on Duke back then.
Sounds like your personal "preseason poll" was as off as the dreaded coaches and writers ;)
Not at all. The preseason polls had Duke in the top 10 along with Kentucky in the top 5. They got Duke right, they whiffed badly on UK. I stayed away from Kentucky big time, knew they were way overrated by the media. I go with what I believe, who's coming back, etc.
Right now, their preseason poll, as usual, looks pretty poor. Of course the season is young. A number of top 15 teams that aren't even ranked right now..UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina, etc. They're lazy.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 26, 2012, 12:27:31 PM
No, it's not. Big Picture isn't one year. It isn't two years. It isn't even 5 years. It's where these teams will be a decade down the road and beyond. It's the overall health and sustainability of the conference. So as I said, these numbers are not at all indicative of long-term strength of the program.
You can define "Big Picture" any way you wish. For many here, Big Picture was defined by the single year 1977. Pretty Big Picture.
Quote from: keefe on December 26, 2012, 01:46:50 AM
Present state of various teams. Creighton has much better odds than VCU and Dayton (and Marquette!)
25:1 is not what I call a sure bet. I think I'd rather have the 80:1 because if you're going to beat a long-shot, make darn sure it pays well. Marquette would pay 3x better than Creighton.
Of course, neither has a chance this year.
Quote from: dgies9156 on December 26, 2012, 04:24:14 PM
25:1 is not what I call a sure bet. I think I'd rather have the 80:1 because if you're going to beat a long-shot, make darn sure it pays well. Marquette would pay 3x better than Creighton.
Of course, neither has a chance this year.
Villanova?
Quote from: dgies9156 on December 27, 2012, 09:38:12 AM
That's sniffing glue!
That's not what JTII said after Rollie upset G'Town for the win