Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, October 29, 2012

Early Line Has Rangers at 12:1 to Win 2013 World Series

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

The Washington Nationals and Anaheim Angels join the Rangers at 12:1.

The favorites, according to Bovada, are the Detroit Tigers, at 6:1. The New York Yankees and the San Francisco Giants are the other two teams more heavily favored than the Rangers, with the Yankees coming in at 7:1 and the Giants at 10:1….

The entire list is as follows:

Detroit Tigers 6/1

New York Yankees 7/1

San Francisco Giants 10/1

Texas Rangers 12/1…

Houston Astros 150/1

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 29, 2012 at 04:57 PM | 34 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: astros, gambling, giants, rangers, tigers, world series, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Gonfalon B. Posted: October 29, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4287664)
Indians-Reds. It's all about Ohio.
   2. Gamingboy Posted: October 29, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4287688)
Boston Red Sox 22/1

Baltimore Orioles 25/1


So much for the Red Sox becoming irrelevant and the Orioles rising.
   3. geonose Posted: October 29, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4287698)
The Twins ahead of the Royals? No way. They won't even finish ahead of them in that division.
   4. Swedish Chef Posted: October 29, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4287699)
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.
   5. MHS Posted: October 29, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4287715)
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.
   6. deputydrew Posted: October 29, 2012 at 07:02 PM (#4287743)
The Nats seem like solid value, of the odds posted potentially the best value.


I agree with that one.
   7. AJMcCringleberry Posted: October 29, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4287778)
Cincy at 14/1 and Tampa at 20/1 seem good too.
   8. Bhaakon Posted: October 29, 2012 at 08:18 PM (#4287822)
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.
   9. The elusive Robert Denby Posted: October 29, 2012 at 08:54 PM (#4287865)
I wonder how big a factor Ron Washington is in figuring the Rangers' odds.
   10. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: October 29, 2012 at 09:55 PM (#4287927)
The Brewers at 25 and the Mets at 40 are my two picks. But it's way too early.
   11. silhouetted by the sea Posted: October 29, 2012 at 09:55 PM (#4287929)
I sure hope that no teams add or lose any players. That might mess up the odds.
   12. Cooper Nielson Posted: October 29, 2012 at 10:13 PM (#4287949)
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.
   13. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: October 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM (#4287958)
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.
   14. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 29, 2012 at 10:42 PM (#4287977)
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.
   15. Dale Sams Posted: October 29, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4288002)
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?
   16. Lassus Posted: October 29, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4288004)
Mets at 40-1! Woohoo!
   17. Walt Davis Posted: October 29, 2012 at 11:40 PM (#4288025)
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.
   18. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: October 30, 2012 at 02:32 AM (#4288093)
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.
   19. Toothless Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:37 AM (#4288100)
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?
   20. Walt Davis Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:59 AM (#4288102)
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.
   21. Russ Posted: October 30, 2012 at 06:04 AM (#4288103)
Pirates at 30:1... that's got to be their best opening odds in years.
   22. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: October 30, 2012 at 06:25 AM (#4288106)
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.
   23. Walt Davis Posted: October 30, 2012 at 07:35 AM (#4288119)
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.
   24. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:34 AM (#4288134)
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.
   25. bunyon Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:48 AM (#4288139)
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.
   26. CONservative governMENt! Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:57 AM (#4288143)
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.
   27. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: October 30, 2012 at 09:09 AM (#4288146)
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.
   28. Gary Truth Serum Posted: October 30, 2012 at 09:19 AM (#4288150)
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.
   29. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 30, 2012 at 09:29 AM (#4288152)
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.
   30. The Buddy Biancalana Hit Counter Posted: October 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM (#4288241)
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.
   31. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 30, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4288405)

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).
   32. something like a train wreck Posted: October 30, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4288726)
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.
   33. Walt Davis Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:57 PM (#4288838)
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.)
   34. Swedish Chef Posted: October 30, 2012 at 09:19 PM (#4288853)
, 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.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2514 - 1:38pm, Apr 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogKeri: Slump City: Why Does the 2014 MLB Season Suddenly Feel Like 1968?
(37 - 1:38pm, Apr 24)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogMatt Williams: No problem with Harper's two-strike bunting
(17 - 1:35pm, Apr 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogColiseum Authority accuses Athletics of not paying rent
(19 - 1:34pm, Apr 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4-24-2014
(10 - 1:33pm, Apr 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogThe Five “Acts” of Ike Davis’s Career, and Why Trading Ike Was a Mistake
(63 - 1:28pm, Apr 24)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(506 - 1:23pm, Apr 24)
Last: Jimmy P

NewsblogMichael Pineda ejected from Red Sox game after pine tar discovered on neck
(89 - 1:19pm, Apr 24)
Last: Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige

NewsblogJonah Keri Extended Interview | Video | Late Night with Seth Meyers | NBC
(12 - 1:05pm, Apr 24)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogToronto Star: Blue Jays pave way for grass at the Rogers Centre
(8 - 12:49pm, Apr 24)
Last: Astroenteritis (tom)

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(233 - 12:32pm, Apr 24)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-24-2014
(4 - 12:31pm, Apr 24)
Last: BDC

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox to call up right-hander Alex Wilson, option Daniel Nava
(7 - 12:17pm, Apr 24)
Last: Davo Dozier (Mastroianni)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4/23/2014
(183 - 12:12pm, Apr 24)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(239 - 12:00pm, Apr 24)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.5604 seconds
54 querie(s) executed