Indians-Reds. It's all about Ohio.

Boston Red Sox 22/1

Baltimore Orioles 25/1

So much for the Red Sox becoming irrelevant and the Orioles rising.

The Twins ahead of the Royals? No way. They won't even finish ahead of them in that division.

So much for the Red Sox becoming irrelevant and the Orioles rising.

That is quite a move for both teams, just six months ago nobody would have believed that Sox and Orioles would be roughly equally favored in 2013.

Also, Astros at 150/1 is the biggest ripoff in the history of gambling. The true odds are more like a squintillion to one.

Anyone inside of 10 to 1 is a bad bet. I don't think I would ever consider a team at less than 12 to 1. The Nats seem like solid value, of the odds posted potentially the best value.

The Nats seem like solid value, of the odds posted potentially the best value.

I agree with that one.

Cincy at 14/1 and Tampa at 20/1 seem good too.

Cincy at 14/1 and Tampa at 20/1 seem good too.

I don't know about the Rays. Considering the old "playoffs are a craps shoot" thing, and the huge disadvantage of the WC play-in, I think I'd rather put my money on a weaker team that has the clearer path to a division title than a better team in a strong division.

I wonder how big a factor Ron Washington is in figuring the Rangers' odds.

The Brewers at 25 and the Mets at 40 are my two picks. But it's way too early.

I sure hope that no teams add or lose any players. That might mess up the odds.

I suppose this is not saying that the Tigers are the best team, just that they are most likely to make the playoffs and then perhaps slightly more likely to succeed in the playoffs than some other teams, is that right?

I'm not sure I'd pick the 2013 Tigers to finish first in any division except the one they're in.

I suppose this is not saying that the Tigers are the best team, just that they are most likely to make the playoffs and then perhaps slightly more likely to succeed in the playoffs than some other teams, is that right?

I'm not sure I'd pick the 2013 Tigers to finish first in any division except the one they're in.

I'm sure that's the reasoning. I imagine whenever the division odds come out that the Tigers will be the heaviest favorite to win a division mostly due to competition. When the team win total bets come out I'm sure there will be a handful of teams with higher numbers than the Tigers.

The initial lines for Bovada have the Rangers at 12:1 odds to win the 2013 World Series.

I remember last year after Ron Washington blew the World Series the common refrain was that it was ok because "the Rangers would be back."

Hmm. Sounds like Rizzo and the Nats.

Can you bet parlays on the opposite? Get it as close to 1:1 as you can by saying neither Oakland, Boston nor Philadelphia will win?

Mets at 40-1! Woohoo!

Can you bet parlays on the opposite?

Heck, I'd be happy to take "not Tigers" at 1:6. A 16% return on that investment would look sweet in my portfolio.

I wonder how big a factor Ron Washington is in figuring the Rangers' odds.

And Nelson Cruz...

And his "glove"...

As an Angel fan I never grow tired of that play.

So, I'm not a gambler (obviously) and I suppose I'm not a big fan of Kenny Rogers, either, but what would a minimum bet have to be to actually wager on one of these lines?

Seriously, betting at only 6:1 for any team is pretty nutty.

Even if you guaranteed that a team won its division, that's still only 1 in 8 if all teams are even. So to start at 6:1 is to say that this team is clearly the best in baseball. Basically a 1/3 chance of winning the AL pennant. The Tigers are nowhere near that good.

With the play-in game, I think it's hard to bet on any team at lower odds than 16:1.

Seriously, there are 6 teams at better than 12:1. Two of them (Rangers and Angels) are in the same division. There are 10 teams at better than 16:1 ... that's crazy.

To be honest, I don't think I'd bet on any of those. The closest I'd come is maybe the Padres at 60:1. They won 76, went 42-33 in the 2nd half (or 59-51 after May). I doubt that's predictive of anything but a 1/3 chance of making the top 5 and maybe 1/20 to win it if they do ... I can almost talk myself into break even.

Pirates at 30:1... that's got to be their best opening odds in years.

I think the Rays at 20-1 are a great bet. Right now I'd pick them to win the division and they have the sort of pitching that you'd feel good about in a playoff series. Among NL teams the Dodgers at 18-1 plus the Nats or the Reds all look like good bets to me.

Rays at 20:1

Basically for that to be a better than break-even bet, you essentially have to put their chances of making the round of 8 (by winning the ALE or the WC play-in) at 40% and then give them a better than random shot at winning the WS once in the round of 8. For a team that just missed the playoffs by 3 games (albeit under-playing their pythag by 5).

If I did the math right, those odds add up to a 136% probability that some team will win the WS. That strikes me as a little high, even by baseball's 110% standard. :-) The average probability should be 3.3%, instead they're priced at 4.5%. On average, you should be getting 29:1 odds, instead you're getting an average of about 21:1. I doubt there's a single good bet in the bunch.

Now, the Rays have odds close to the average but are most likely a well above-average team so they are probably one of the better bets here but that doesn't make them a good bet. They probably are about fairly priced but I wouldn't touch a single team with lower odds.

The Rockies at 75/1 might be my pick from these. Yes, they were terrible, but they have a lot of money and a couple superstars. Their starting pitching was historically awful - just dump the stupid 75 pitch limit plan and buy an Anibal Sanchez or two, and they can improve by a huge margin.

I doubt there's a single good bet in the bunch.

I know nothing about gambling but is that a common starting position? Start heavily favored to the house and then let the bets bring the odds to their "natural" state?

That is, it seems to me your initial line is very unlikely to be right on. Thus, you'll either favor the house or the player. Seems obvious they wouldn't favor the player.

Someone should post the current over/under win totals and everyone can make picks for each team, including some 'locks' that they feel strongly about.

It would seem like Josh Hamilton's destination should have a big impact on if the Rangers are favorites or not. Despite the angst at the end, he's a pretty decent player.

So, I'm not a gambler (obviously) and I suppose I'm not a big fan of Kenny Rogers, either, but what would a minimum bet have to be to actually wager on one of these lines?

I have a Bovada account and have never seen a wager too low to be taken by them. I'm sure you could wager a dollar on any of these--probably less.

Now getting funds into the account--that's a different issue. Since Black Friday in 2011 it has been very difficult to deposit money into Bovada and I haven't really pursued it too hard.

The Denver Nuggets are 60 or 65 to 1 to win the NBA championship.(*) Now that's a bet.

None of these are remotely as compelling.

(*) Or at least were as of 2-3 weeks ago.

The Denver Nuggets are 60 or 65 to 1 to win the NBA championship.(*) Now that's a bet.

None of these are remotely as compelling.

(*) Or at least were as of 2-3 weeks ago.

In the latest press release I got from the Bovada sportsbook, they were down to 33/1.

The Denver Nuggets are 60 or 65 to 1 to win the NBA championship.(*) Now that's a bet.

That's pretty high considering their O/U on wins is like 51 (according to Bill Simmons podcast).

Astros at 150/1 is the biggest ripoff in the history of gambling. The true odds are more like a squintillion to one.

In the 1984 (or 1983 -- the one before the 84 season) Baseball Abstract, Bill James argued that it made sense to take the Cubs, coming off a 71-91 season, at 125-1. His basic reasoning was that no team should ever be 125-1 -- there are too many miracle temas in baseball history. Secondarily, he noted that their Pythagorean was 79-83. Of course, the 84 Cubs came up just short. Sandberg went from promising to superb, Sutcliffe was amazing, the other starters had career years and a lot of aging veterans hitters had better than expected years. Nothing shocking.

I don't follow the Astros enough to identify thier Sandberg or Ron Cey, but I would still take the bet at 150-1, except I don't bet.

His basic reasoning was that no team should ever be 125-1

That was a much safer bet in those days. Randomly the Cubs were 1 in 6 to make the playoffs and 1 in 4 to win the WS. The random probability for an NL team has shifted from 1/24 to 1/30. That 125:1 bet on the Cubs is about equivalent to the 150:1 odds on the Astros (I get 157:1).

But somebody should double-check my math on those probabilities, I was just using the windows calculator on the fly, easy to make some mistakes.

For those that don't know, it's easy to confuse probability and odds -- even for those of us who work with them a lot. A 1/24 probability are 1/23 odds (or 23:1 odds in terms of a payout).

I know nothing about gambling but is that a common starting position? Start heavily favored to the house and then let the bets bring the odds to their "natural" state?

I know pretty much nothing about this type of gambling. I'm never quite clear -- if I buy the Nuggets at 65:1 but they shift to 33:1, do I still get paid out at 65:1?

I assume that if you buy the Tigers at 6:1 you are stuck with them even if they shift to 20:1 due to later sensible betting.

(Odds shift to balance the money so if they don't get enough action on the Tigers at 6:1, the odds will go up.)

, Bill James argued that it made sense to take the Cubs, coming off a 71-91 season, at 125-1. His basic reasoning was that no team should ever be 125-1 -- there are too many miracle temas in baseball history.

But that was a reasonable team, they had talent, things could break their way. The Astros are a bunch of flukes from being mediocre.

if I buy the Nuggets at 65:1 but they shift to 33:1, do I still get paid out at 65:1?

Yes, the exception is if the bets are run through a totalizator (or whatever it is called). I think that is only ever used for horses in most countries, in Sweden the monopoly does that for betting on exact scores, but no sane person would ever use them for sports betting.