Outside The Box
Posted: May 6th, 2008 | Filed under: Last Decade | 15 Comments »
Boston -2.5 Games +120 (Risking 1)
Boston -2.5 Games +110 (Risking 1)
If Boston defeats Cleveland in 5 games or less, I win. Any other result for that series and I lose. Pretty square and stupid bet huh?
Not exactly. I admit that if you had shown me a bet like this two years ago I would have immediately laughed and labeled you a sucker, but I am a lot smarter and open minded now then I was back then.
The reasoning behind this bet is simple. Based off what the lines figure to be for the series I was able to come up with the nifty little probability chart below.
| Result | Probability |
| Boston In 4 | 26.0% |
| Boston In 5 | 37.3% |
| Boston In 6 | 16.5% |
| Boston In 7 | 13.5% |
| Cleveland In 4 | 0.4% |
| Cleveland In 5 | 0.8% |
| Cleveland In 6 | 3.2% |
| Cleveland In 7 | 2.4% |
By my math Boston will win this series in 5 games or fewer a whopping 63% of the time. That makes the wager above an incredible value. If someone offered you +120 on a coin flip you would take it. This is way better. I tried to make a 3rd bet once The Greek dropped the odds down a second time to even money, but they wouldn’t allow me to.
How does a play on a 66 win team actually have value? Because the Celtics “struggled” to beat 37 win Atlanta in Round 1. I use the word struggled loosely because they were never really in danger of losing a game on their own floor.
It doesn’t hurt that they are matched up with the most overrated team in the league. A good chunk of the population just assumes that Lebron alone is worth two wins in a Best of 7 series, regardless of opponent. Apparently these same people missed the NBA Finals last year.
Because of these misconceptions there is also tons of value in the Boston -700 series line, but I am not about to lay 7 to win 1.
MLB:
Nationals +109 (1)
I am taking my chances with Hill against Chacon.
San Diego +141 (1)
The Over looks pretty nasty as well, but I am only willing to lose one unit as a result of the Padres failing to score a run.
Texas +146 (1)
I have to play Fat Sidney once this year. Might as well be against Batista.
Tampa Ray +129 (1)
I understand the calculated odds behind it, but in short, my gut reaction is that I think the Celtics series play is a bad bet. You may (probably will) win it, but for someone who has let it be known that he thinks the refs give King James preferential treatment, it appears that the coinflip analogy doesn’t hold.
There can’t/won’t be as much of that this series. Any conspiracy theories in this series would actually favor Boston.
Believe me, I feel awful shady making this play. But if my math is right, and there is pretty much no way it is wrong, I am not sure how I don’t play this.
That edge is ridiculous.
At BetED right now, they are offering the following two bets:
Boston wins 4-0 … +280
Under 4 1/2 games … +320
Am I missing something? You can bet on either team sweeping at +320, or only one team sweeping at +280?
What did you use for the line in Cleveland?
DavidH,
Stuff like that happens all the time. They probably have a matrix that automatically updates odds as they are bet into. Somebody must have recently played Boston to sweep.
Zach,
I used Boston -3.5
You said… “I admit that if you had shown me a bet like this two years ago I would have immediately laughed and labeled you a sucker, but I am a lot smarter and open minded now then I was back then.”
When you say smarter and more open-minded, do you just mean an ability to use math on props? Or do you mean something else? I agree, I was at first dismissive of NFL Teasers being +EV (through the 3,4,6,7 and especially those with smaller O/Us) but I’m starting to change my tune slightly as I learn more of the math behind it (I still haven’t bet any, but I’m not completely laughing at the thought.)
I like it, especially at + money like you got on the first bet. I think your average idiot would make a snap judgment towards Cleveland.
RB,
When I first started applying contrarian thinking to betting, I would refuse to even consider playing popular name teams like the 2008 Celtics, regardless of circumstance.
In a way this was good because I got used to backing bad teams in a hurry, but it was still way too narrow of a way to think.
I am not saying that it is a good idea to run around laying chalk on a consistent basis with the best teams in the league, but sometimes the circumstances will justify it.
Very slipper slope though.
ML,
Don’t forget that four years ago, contrarian chalk was very hard to come by. It’s only been in the last eighteen months or so that the average square bettor has learned about the “edge” that there is with dogs and Vegas has started setting lines to trap them.
“When I first started applying contrarian thinking to betting, I would refuse to even consider playing popular name teams like the 2008 Celtics, regardless of circumstance.”
This, at least in my fucked up mind, is reminiscent of the whole sabermetric “revolution” or what have you. At the beginning, you have these shocking revelations like “Clutch hitting doesn’t exist”, and “Pitchers have no control over balls in play”. These, like never laying chalk, are for the most part correct, but not 100%. Over time, people establish that the original statements were generally true, but not all the time.
Point being, it seems like the way to perfect the “contrarian” strategy is to go way overboard with it at first- say, never play a single favorite- learn that, understand that, and then adjust it to something less dramatic.
If that makes sense. Which I doubt.
At the beginning, you have these shocking revelations like “Clutch hitting doesn’t exist”, and “Pitchers have no control over balls in play”. These, like never laying chalk, are for the most part correct, but not 100%.
Ok, off-topic, but I’ll bite. For whom are these not true? Because I am still clinging to the notion that they are, indeed, true.
The notions are true. All I’m talking about is stuff like this:
“While overall, DIPS theory—which states that pitchers have little control over whether or not a ball put into play becomes a hit—has been shown to work pretty well, it has also become clear that it does not apply consistently to every pitcher…For example, in his second version of DIPS, McCracken adjusted for the fact that knuckleballers tend to allow lower batting averages on balls in play (BABIP) than the average pitcher, and that lefties tend to allow more hits on balls in play.”
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/dips-again/
The notions are true. All I’m talking about is stuff like this:
“While overall, DIPS theory—which states that pitchers have little control over whether or not a ball put into play becomes a hit—has been shown to work pretty well, it has also become clear that it does not apply consistently to every pitcher.
For example, in his second version of DIPS, McCracken adjusted for the fact that knuckleballers tend to allow lower batting averages on balls in play (BABIP) than the average pitcher, and that lefties tend to allow more hits on balls in play.”
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/dips-again/
I believe what vegaswatch means is that there are very SMALL correlations for babip and clutch.
AM19PSU,
This is true. There are more dog bettors out there now and this in turns creates some good chalk lines.
The best part is that 95% of these ‘edgy’ dog bettors are consistently playing the wrong pups.
Squeeky has mentioned this before, but a lot of the so called contrarians out there are fakes. They play some of the proper sides, but they water them down with a bunch of borderlines plays that only contain value in their own minds.
I don’t think contrarianism can ever be stemmed. There is just too much dumb money out there.
Vegaswatch,
I think that is a good analogy. It took me almost two full years to get comfortable dropping large sums on unpalatable sides. I am not sure if I would ever gotten used to it if I was getting to play good teams along the way.