Weighing the Odds

End of Blog

2009-02-09T09:02:00.002-05:00

I have not posted in this blog in a long time. Unfortunately, I just lost interest. I will restart writing articles for the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine. I have agreed to write sports betting articles for the April issue through the October issue. I have no plans to post in this blog again. It is possible that may change, but right now, I don't see it happening. Thank you everyone.

2-0 and 0-2 preseason teams

2008-08-19T18:28:00.004-04:00

There is often discussion by thinking football bettors that it is good to bet against 2-0 teams in the preseason and bet on 0-2 teams in the preseason. The idea is that 2-0 teams don't need a win to feel good, so they have no incentive to win whatsoever. They probably played well in the first two games and they can afford to give their backups more work. Or something to that effect. The reverse is that 0-2 teams need to work harder and want a win.

Has this theory held up? yes and no.

2-0 teams in their 3rd game since 1996 have gone 49-37-4 against the spread.
0-2 teams in their 3rd game since 1996 have gone 46-36-1 against the spread.

These are small sample sizes. While it may be decent news for betting on 0-2 teams, it doesn't look good for betting against 2-0 teams.

Teams this week that are 0-2: CHI, ATL, NE, DAL, GB, CLE
Teams this week that are 2-0: TB, WAS (3-0), DET

What to make of this? I'm not sure, I wouldn't recommend betting any of these teams blindly.

Interesting article on Robert Walker of MGM Mirage

2008-06-24T23:31:00.002-04:00

Here is a good article on Robert Walker of MGM Mirage. He is retiring from his position as the MGM Mirage sports book director. It surprised me a bit that the article talks more about sportsbooks and Walker specifically dealing with pro bettors more than anything else.

Good plan doesn't pan out

2008-06-14T14:13:00.004-04:00

Yesterday I took the Houston Astros in the 2nd Half at +130. I made this bet before the game started. The 2nd Half in baseball is the 6th inning and beyond. I liked the bet but it lost. I thought it was well thought out given the Yankees situation and had positive EV. Historically, in games with the road team around -155 favorites, the home team has been worth about +130 in the 2nd Half. If the NYY/HOU game was a normal game with a line of -155 for the Yankees, then I would have thought I had a zero-EV bet. But I knew that Mariano Rivera was unlikely to pitch, and even if he did, he would not be at 100% strength. Rivera had pitched in 4 straight games from June 7th to 10th, then took the 11th off, but then pitched again on the 12th. That's 5 out of 6 days! Incredible for a closer these days.

With Rivera out and Joba Chamberlain now in the starting rotation, the Yankee bullpen for last night's game was very suspect.

To top it off, Chamberlain was going into his 3rd start and was still probably on a pitch count. Although it would be higher than his previous start, I would have been shocked if he threw more than 100 pitches. So I didn't think he was likely to pitch much in the 2nd half of the game. If it was another pitcher, like Andy Pettitte, then there would have been the possibility of the starter going deeper into the game and pitching the 7th and 8th too. But with Chamberlain, there is a much lower chance of that. And that meant the bullpen would be pitching most or all the innings in the 2nd half. It turned out that Chamberlain threw 89 pitches over 6 quality innings.

But it didn't work out. Veras and Farnsworth pitched three scoreless innings and the Yankees scored one run in the 8th inning on a Derek Jeter solo HR. I still like the thought process and the rationale for the bet. At worst, I had a zero-EV bet. But likely, I had a positive EV bet given the reasonings shown above.

comments on the Donaghy issue

2008-06-12T23:33:00.004-04:00

I don't think it is a good idea to accept Donaghy's accusations as the truth. But I also don't think it is a good idea to assume he is lying. NBA commissioner David Stern is pleading with everyone to believe the latter.

I'll make a couple of comments from one of the ESPN.com articles: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3439554

Here are the comments made by the Maloofs, owners of the Sacramento Kings, on the 2002 Game 6 game against the Lakers.

We believe we have the best fans in the NBA and are so grateful for their continued passion and support," the Maloofs said in a statement. "We certainly didn't like all the calls in that Game 6 and were extremely disappointed with the outcome. However, we have been associated with the NBA for many years and feel in no way that the league was conspiring for the Kings to lose."

This is exactly what any sane person would say. The Maloofs are part of the league. No matter what they truly believed, it does not help to stab the NBA and David Stern now. It can only hurt them, and hurt them immensely. This is the case with everyone that has any connection to the NBA. Owners, players, coaches, broadcasters. Everybody. Even some reporters are probably too close to the NBA to make disparaging remarks on this issue. Imagine a reporter saying he believes Donaghy and that something fishy happened in the 2002 game. What do you think Stern, Phil Jackson, Kobe, Shaq or many others will respond to him the next time he calls them for an interview.

Next comment is on David Stern's comments:

At his news conference Thursday, Stern made his strongest statements ever regarding the 2002 Kings-Lakers game, saying: "You can watch it, you can look at it again, and you could see what we call the correct, incorrect and non-call incorrect. ... My guess is it won't be pretty, but it won't be dishonest and it won't be illegal. Of that I assure you."

It should be tough for anyone to be assured by David Stern. He now says there were many bad calls (or at least he implies it). Did he say that back then. I don't think so. Just think about Stern's motives, and you know he has to say what he says. The other thing is that he cannot prove a negative. Before the Donaghy issue, he would have claimed all his referees were clean, and he would have been wrong.

From a gambling standpoint, I would think twice about betting the home team in the playoffs when they are down 0-2 in the series. Is it possible that one of the reasons they have such a great record in that spot is the referees helping them out in some way, however slight? Possibly. And that might be enough to think about laying off those bets in the future.

Interview with a NBA bettor regarding Donaghy and betting in general

2008-06-11T23:54:00.001-04:00

This article on a sports bettor's view on Donaghy is interesting. I saw it linked by "MadLib" on LVA Sports.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-32-308/A-Professional-Gambler-s-Take-on-the-Tim-Donaghy-Scandal.html

new review of Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting

2008-06-07T11:46:00.001-04:00

Here is a nice Review of Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting by Allen Moody at About.com

NBA Finals Home/Away is different than other playoff series

2008-06-04T13:43:00.002-04:00

The Home-Away schedule is different in the NBA Finals than it is for other playoff series. In all other playoff series, the schedule is:

1. A
2. A
3. B
4. B
5. A
6. B
7. A

But in the NBA finals, the schedule is like a baseball playoff series:

1. A
2. A
3. B
4. B
5. B
6. A
7. A

I have no idea why they change. They shouldn't. It really isn't a big deal traveling from coast to coast these days, and if it was, all they have to do is build in an extra day or two of rest between games 4-5 and 5-6.

This scheduling change probably makes a small difference in the series pricing, but it makes a huge difference in series props. Such as: Lakers to win in 5 games or Celtics to win in 6 games. The Lakers are the home team in game 5, the Celtics are the home team in game 6. If the linemaker did not adjust for the scheduling change, there may be value in those series props. Hint hint. That's all I'll say on that topic.

Official scoring in baseball

2008-05-28T15:13:00.003-04:00

Statistics can sometimes be arbitrary as it is up to the official scorer to make a decision on certain things. For example, sometimes it is difficult to tell if a batted ball should be counted as a hit or an error by the fielder. Here is a story of the Chicago White Sox shortsop calling up official scorers to complain.

Story of White Sox Cabrera calling the official scorer

From a sports betting perspective, it makes me wonder about the accuracy of the data that sports bettors rely on. Not only is there some randomness in the official scorer's judgments, but there is also randomness in umpire calls (balls and strikes and on the basepaths as well), managerial decisions and other randomness. To me, a story like this is a reminder not to count on past statistics as if they are completely written in stone. They may have become that way with a little push from randomness. And there may be enough pushes in the same direction to make past statistics possibly misleading. The tough part is how to figure out when they can be misleading, and when you can count on them.

Some prop bets have horrible lines

2008-05-25T06:58:00.002-04:00

I love prop bets as they are interesting to think about and sometimes offer value. But sometimes the lines are just so ridiculous. Here is an example:

LA Lakers to win game 3 and WIN series +175

In order for this prop to win, the Lakers have to win Game 3 and then also win the series. Given that they have won Game 3, they are huge favorites to win the series, but the problem here is that the money line for Game 3 alone is Lakers +210! Any bettor that bets +175 on this prop should seriously consider burning their money instead, it would probably be more fun.

Updates to tables/charts and other random thoughts

2008-05-13T07:06:00.002-04:00

Over the last few months, I've received a few emails asking if I had or if I was going to update some of the tables and charts in Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting. I have not updated any tables so far. If I do, I will post it on this blog.

Random thoughts
It is only May, but it is already time to start working on NFL projections!

I don't know why the media is so willing to quickly dismiss the Walsh-Goodell meeting. They seem to think that it's a useless meeting and think what Goodell will say afterwards is already predetermined. I think that is just jumping to conclusions for the sake of having to fill airtime.

The NBA playoffs has been interesting. Lebron James makes Kevin Garnett look like an ordinary player. The Spurs looked old just a few weeks ago, now they look refreshed and experienced. Why are the Jazz a bigger underdog by 2 points in Game 5 than they were in Game 2, especially given that Kobe has some back issues? If I didn't already have Utah in series bets, I'd seriously consider betting them in the pointspread in Game 5. I bet very few NBA games outright, and honestly have no documented winning record (or any real documented record to speak of on straight point spread plays), so take that for what it is worth.

Scoring has been lower in baseball. Is there a true reason behind it or is it just some randomness. I see people looking at these numbers which is fine...but some are breaking down the data too fine. The more you break down the data, the more randomness can play a part, so be careful with looking only at Petco Park data in 2008 for example.

Home Court Advantage in the NBA Playoffs

2008-05-10T12:48:00.002-04:00

The Home Court Advantage in the NBA playoffs seem to be stronger this year with all home teams winning every game so far in the 2nd round. I wouldn't put too much weight on that though. In my opinion, it is just randomness. Remember, the home teams were all favoritess in their games in Round 2, so 11-0 isn't as incredible as it sounds. Although I admit it is a nice 10-1 run against-the-spread. Still, I think this is just due to randomness as opposed to a change in the funadamental nature of home court advantage in the playoffs. Betting on the home teams based on this small sample size is using randomness over a short term to dictate a change in the fundamentals, and that is a mistake.

Historical stats on ESPN

2008-05-06T08:14:00.002-04:00

I was watching SportsCenter on ESPN last night. After showing the Hornets and Pistons go up 2 games to 0 in their respective series, they showed the number of times the home team that were up 2-0 won the series in 4, 5, 6 and 7 games...as well as the number of times the home team lost the series.

How meaningful are these numbers when it comes to the Hornets and Pistorns? Without any other information about the teams or other valuation numbers, I think they are pretty good. But we do have more information.

The Detroit Pistons were 6.5- and 6-point favorites in their games against the Orlando Magic.
The Hornets were 3-point favorites in each of their games against the San Antonio Spurs.

Assuming a 4-point home court advantage in the playoffs, and a zigzag effect of one point for game 3 when down 2-0 going back home, that would make the lines for game 3 about:

Orlando -2.5 Detroit
San Antonio -6 New Orleans

These quick estimates may be off a little bit, but they should be pretty close. San Antonio will be a bigger favorite than Orlando in game 3 and probably in game 4 as well. And if there is a game 5 or other future games, San Antonio will probably have a higher chance to win each of their games than Orlando. So San Antonio has a higher chance of winning their series than Orlando.

There wasn't any need to use point spreads to make that judgement. This is probably obvious to any NBA fan. But this should also be obvious even if you don't know a single player on either team. And that makes the historical stats that ESPN shows not very meaningful.

NBA playoff series odds

2008-04-28T15:05:00.002-04:00

With the playoffs well underway in the NBA, I wanted to remind readers of the Excel spreadsheet that is available for free at SharpSportsBetting.com. On the left margin, under "Links", click on Prop Tools. You will be able to save a file titled SSB_Prop_Analysis which includes other work that Stanford Wong has done. In the last tab on the right is the spreadsheet I made up to value NBA Playoff odds given certain inputs. The user has to put in the value of a point as well as the expected point spread for each game. It is a static spreadsheet, meaning that the point spreads is assumed to stay constant regardless of previous results in the series. In reality, NBA lines often follow a zig-zag pattern where the team that lost the previous game usually gets a half-point or full-point in their favor for the next game. So, keep that in mind. The spreadsheet, just like any formula with user inputs, is only as good as the inputs. As they say, garbage-in makes garbage-out.

Paying too much attention to the games

2008-04-22T22:07:00.002-04:00

I've been paying too much attention to the baseball games. That sounds odd, but I think that is the case. I've been watching too many games, spending too much time marking my bets as wins and losses as they occur, and sitting on the couch just watching baseball all day long. I should be using that time into analysing teams, players and working on collecting data. It is really easy to watch and keep score as the games are played. Watching games can be useful, but I think it is only useful to a certain extent. So I'm kicking myself in the pants to get to work instead of sitting back and watching games.

nice article on the NBA MVP

2008-04-17T10:51:00.002-04:00

In past posts, I've gotten on Bill Simmons - and more specifically ESPN.com - about all the Boston-centric stuff written in his ESPN.com pieces. So I've got to give him and ESPN.com credit for his recent columns over the past few months. I doubt if my input had anything to do with it, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

Simmons' column today is on his vote for the NBA MVP. It is a nice read - a long read. Not that it matters much, but I agree with his pick for the most deserving - Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics.

Harrah's sportsbook: the worst in Nevada

2008-04-14T17:18:00.003-04:00

A real-life story about Harrah's unfair treatment of gamblers that aren't completely clueless.

Jeff Haney just can’t seem to get a fair shake at Harrah’s sports book

NFL schedule

2008-04-14T15:56:00.004-04:00

Apparently the NFL will release their schedule tomorrow at 2PM, and ESPN is doing a special on it. The teams that each team plays has been known since the end of the regular season since the NFL has a formula.

Basically each team plays the other three teams in their division twice (that's 6 games), each of the teams that finished in the same place as them in the other three divisions in the same conference (that's 3 games), one particular division in the other conference on a rotatin basis (4 games) and one particular division in their conference not counting the team that they already play that finished in the same place as them (3 games).

The schedule that the NFL will release simply shows the day, time and TV schedule for each game. So what's the big deal? Does it really matter? Maybe it matters it a little bit. MIA, TB and JAX may have a small edge playing September home games in humid Florida, GB, CHI and PIT may have a small edge playing December home games in the cold. But those edges are pretty small in my opinion, and often the home/away schedule is spread out fairly evenly. For example, it would be surprising to see any team play at home or away for three straight games.

The schedule that comes out tomorrow should not be a big deal. However, it may prompt some sportsbooks to release regular season wins, lines for the first week and "games of the year". Now that would be a big deal to me!

Woa, you can drive a truck through the MLS lines

2008-04-11T23:57:00.003-04:00

I was checking out some lines for Major League Soccer and I was shocked. Even books with great reputations are dealing 40 cent lines! 40 CENT LINES! It is embarrassing. Why even bother offering the league if these books are going to embarrass themselves with those lines? They would be better off not listing them at all.

April article

2008-04-10T10:07:00.000-04:00

Here is my article for the April Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

Taking advantage of Static Lines and Oddsin Dynamic Situations

Using the randomness of sports to your advantage

2008-04-09T16:27:00.003-04:00

Over the weekend, I was talking to a non-gambling friend about sports betting. He asked me an interesting question. "Sports is so random, doesn't that screw up a lot of your bets?"

I thought for a bit and responded, "Yes, it does screw up a lot of bets. Turning some probable winning bets into losing bets but also vice versa. But also, good sports bettors can take advantage of randomness."

Over the next few blog posts, I will try to go into further detail on how good sports bettors can take advantage of randomness.

"Super Crunchers"

2008-04-03T00:36:00.003-04:00

I just finished Super Cruncers by Ian Ayres. Interesting book. He describes how statisticians with large databases are changing the world in many different fields. There probably isn't anything in the book that will make anyone a better handicapper or bettor, but I think it is useful to read about what other people in other fields are doing. It opens up a few pathways of thought. I recommend the book.

Note: one thing I didn't like about the book was how Ayres presented Justin Wolfer's work on college basketball. I won't get into that today and I may never get to it, but just wanted to note that in case someone read the book based on this recommendation.

some random thoughts

2008-04-01T15:25:00.002-04:00

There's been lots of complaining by so-called sharp players that things aren't going there way. Lots of soul-searching about what to do differently and why they aren't winning. I say "so-called" because probably not all the guys complaining are as sharp as they think they are. I do agree that this is a topic that should be explored in-depth. Are line makers sharper than they were in the past? I think so. Is the public sharper than they were in the past - or at least less square? I think so too. Are there more sharps now than before? Probably. Those all add up to make a tougher, more efficient marketplace.

Yesterday was 30 degrees where I live. Today it is 55. Although there was a little rain, the wind was that familiar spring wind that is so inviting in the Northeast - as opposed to the biting, ship winter wind. And baseball is back! My favorite sport from a fan's perspective, but not from a betting perspective.

I'm surprised there are no day baseball games today. They usually have some early in the year. I haven't checked the schedule, but I hope more teams have games during the day.

test post

2008-03-31T10:30:00.000-04:00

I just got a new phone. This is just a test to see if I can post entries into the blog.

more NCAA tourney futures

2008-03-22T10:28:00.001-04:00

additional futures bets before the Round of 32.

West: Xavier 12-1 9.6%
East: Butler 45-1 2.7%
East: Washington State 18-1 8.4%
South: Pittsburgh 9-1 10.6%

I bet Washington State at 17-1 before the tournament started, so it seemed like just a goofball mistake by the book.

Futures lines are not consistent between books, so don't be surprised if you don't see any of these available.

some prop bets I made for March Madness

2008-03-19T21:31:00.003-04:00

For March Madness props, I use market information from game lines and (more liquid) futures lines to interpret how they reflect where other odds. I know very few players or coaches in college basketball. I made these bets based on market information and manipulation of one line to another. It is possible these lines aren't available anywhere anymore. I also list my projected probability of the bet winning in percentages.

Midwest: Clemson 12-1 10%
Midwest: Kent 100-1 1.4%
Midwest: Wisconsin 9-1 10.6%

East: Washington State 17-1 6.4%

To make it to the Elite 8:
Davidson +1375 7.4%
West Virginia +1185 8.6%
Notre Dame +1250 11.6%
Oklahoma +1665 7.2%
Butler +1250 7.5%
Michigan State +955 13.9%
Marquette +835 14.1%

Texas is eliminated in the Sweet 16 +300 28.5%
Tennessee is eliminated in the Round of 32 +350 23.6%
Tennesee is eliminated in the Sweet 16 +300 29.4%
Georgetown is eliminated in the Sweet 16 +350 28.5%

Number of #1 seeds to make the Final Four: 1 +250 31.3%

Free March Madness Tournaments

2008-03-19T16:29:00.003-04:00

For the NCAA Tournament, there are a bunch of free March Madness bracket pools with zero entry fees and free prizes. Except for a little spam here and there from the sponsoring companies (there are probably ways to minimize those if you read through the fine print carefully), these freebies are nice. Whether you know anything about this year's teams (I certainly don't as I haven't followed college basketball at all this year), these tourneys still offer positive EV, especially the free ones! All it takes is a two or three minutes if you go through the selections quickly.

off for a month

2008-02-18T15:55:00.002-05:00

I'm taking a month-long trip. I'll be back posting in mid- to late-March.

SportsConferenceCall.com

2008-02-14T22:10:00.003-05:00

Jon in Oakland's conference calls are often interesting, and he gets great guests. Last week, he had Jay Kornegay of the Las Vegas Hilton. The conference calls are archived. Here is the link (scroll down to 2/6/08-Jay Kornegay), it is a good listen, thanks Jon!

http://www.sportsconferencecall.com/

4th and 13

2008-02-05T22:00:00.000-05:00

In the first drive of the 3rd Quarter, with about 7 minutes left, the Patriots had the ball at the Giants 31 yard line, 4th down and 13 to go. They decided to go for the first down. Was that the right decision?

I believe Belicheck knows more about this stuff than almost anyone, including me. But it is still fun to analyze it instead of just saying "well, Belicheck always make the right decision." So, let's analyze it. Let's assume there was nothing wrong with Gostkowski. Throughout the post, I'll make a ton of other assumptions also. Changing any of the assumptions may change the evaluation. I don't pretend to think that all of my assumptions are spot on, I may be wrong on some of them. I do think it is useful to detail the process so any adjustments of assumptions can easily be made to give a better answer.

First, how likely was it for Gostkowski to make a 48-yard FG? I estimate 65%. It is tough to get detailed information on FG length, unless one wanted to pour through every boxscore, so this is how I got the estimate:

All NFL kickers this year in 50 yard or longer attempts were 47 for 99 for a 47.5% success rate. This stat was easy to get from NFL.com.

All NFL kickers this year in the 40 to 49 yard range were 201 for 266 for a 75.6% success rate.

I assumed 48 yards was tougher than the 40-49 yard range, but easier than 50+. I also assumed it is easier to kick a long FG in the dome on turf than in an average NFL game. So I picked 65%. Maybe I am off by 5% ... maybe it should be 60% or 70%...but I'll use 65% in this post.

If they miss the FG, the Giants will get the ball on their own 38. They get the ball at the spot it is kicked, which is about 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage. How much is the additional 7 yards worth? I estimate it is worth .7 points. This is just a guess. Let's also assume a blocked punt won't happen.

So we can now look at the EV in terms of points for going for the FG:

Make the FG: 65% x 3 = +1.95 points
Miss the FG: 35% x -.7 = -.25 points

Total in trying for the FG: +1.70 points

Now let's see what the value is if NE tries for the first down.
First, I will assume they have a 25% chance of completing the first down. This is just a guess.

I'll assume if they don't convert, it is worth 0 points.
I'll assume if they make the 4th down, it'll lead to a 65% chance of a TD, 25% chance of a FG and 10% chance of no score. However, if they don't score but do make the first down, it is likely that NYG get the ball deeper in their own field, I'll assume a value of +1 point for the Patriots if they make the 4th down but don't eventually score. They could intercept it and run it back, but on average, I'd estimate they get the ball at a worse position than their own 31.

The numbers:
Make 4th: 25%
Miss 4th: 75%

If Make 4th:
TD: 65%
FG: 25%
No Score: 10%

If the Patriots do score, to make it simpler, I'll assume the ensuing kickoff gives the Giants the ball at their own 31, which is where the ball is before the 4th down attempt.

TD: 65% x 7 = 4.55 points
FG: 25% x 3 = 0.75 points
No score: 10% x 1 = 0.10 points

That adds up to 5.4 points if they get the first down. If they have a 25% chance of converting the 4th down attempt, then:

Going for it: 25% x 5.4 = +1.35 points

So using these assumptions, I have the value of attempting a FG at 1.7 points, which is greater than the value of going for the first down at 1.35 points. But what if my assumptions are wrong? Let's just change one number....instead of assuming the Pats had a 25% chance of getting a first down, let's assume it is 32%. With that small adjustment, it makes going for it worth +1.73 points, slightly more than going for the FG.

Overall, I think Belicheck made a mistake. Of course, he could still be right, I doubt he'll correct my mistake if he thinks I made one. Some other thoughts:

I don't think the assumption of converting the first down at 25% is too low. Maybe it was for the Patriots in the regular season, but given the way the Pats offense and the Giants defense were playing, 25% seems right. 32% seems way too high.
Even if going for the FG or the first down had equal value, it is better to go for the FG in this position. That's because NE had the lead - 7 to 3, and 3 points makes a difference as a TD from the Giants only ties the game and does not give them the lead. The team that is ahead is willing to reduce variance. Teams that are ahead should be willing to give up a little EV (in terms of total points) if it means reducing variance. Reducing variance brings up the idea of punting.
So what is the EV if the Patriots punted? Let's say on average they get the Giants the ball at their own 10 - only gaining 21 net yards on the punt. How much is that worth? Well, if 7 yards is worth 0.7 points as we used in the missed FG example above, then 21 net yards equals 3 x 0.7 or 2.1 points. Maybe punting was the best option.

Conclusion:

There are a ton of assumptions in this post. Change any of them drastically enough, and the answer may change. Overall, I really do think going for the first down is a mistake in this spot. Punting may not be better than trying for a FG, but I think those are the two options, not going for the first down. If anyone reading this thinks any of the assumptions should be changed, or if there is an error in my thought process, feel free to email me at kingyao@gmail.com I'm hoping for an email from a guy with BB initials, and I don't mean Barry Bonds.

Giants winning is good for future Super Bowls

2008-02-05T00:02:00.000-05:00

The Giants winning is a good thing for opportunities in the money line in future Super Bowls. The money line of -400 is too cheap relative to a point spread line of -12, although Jeff Fogle (a guy I respect tremendously) disagrees - see this thread on LVA Sports for a discussion on that issue.

Anyway, if you agree with me that the money line of -400 is too cheap and grabbing that along with +12 on the Giants was a good combination (in appropriate amounts of course), then the Giants winning the game wasn't good (but it wouldn't have been any worse in that combo than the Patriots covering the -12 points if you bet the correct amounts). But to keep things optimistic, it is a good thing for future Super Bowls. The public won big on the money line, the sports books got scared. This means the money line will be that much better of a bet in the future. Gotta look on the bright side.

More on Brady passing TD props

2008-02-02T12:29:00.000-05:00

Some people have asked me where I estimated Brady's average passing TDs in the Super Bowl. When I posted some of my bets earlier in the week, I was using around 2.65. That made Under 2.5 +170 look like a good bet.

But since then, a few things has happened. First, the total has gone up. That means slightly more points for the Patriots. Second, the team total for the Patriots is 34 at most books. That means Brady should be expected to pass for slightly more TDs. Lastly, there has been rumors from some seemingly credible sources that the Patriots will be passing much more often early in the game. I don't know if that's true or not, but I wouldn't discount it. So, let's assume for a second that Brady's estimated average TD should be 3.0. That's a big move from 2.65. What does that do to the Under 2.5 wager? Using the Poisson Distribution, Under 2.5 would be worth +136. +170 is still a good bet given that scenario. Of course, Under 3 is probably a better bet, but it is all price relative. Under 3 -119 is equal to Under 2.5 +136.

So did I lose value on this bet? Probably. But I also gained value on other bets that was pro-Brady. Bets such as:

1Q Brady TD Pass Yes +140 +124
4Q Brady TD Pass Yes -120 -130
Brady TD Pass before INT -280 -364
NE's first TD is pass -210 -212
First TD is Passing TD -170 -187

The first number is the price I bet at, the second is the value when I also thought Under 2.5 TD passes by Brady was worth +170. Those values should all increase now.

If Brady is going to throw for 4 or more TDs (remember, I don't have just Under 2.5, I also have Under 3 and Under 3.5...if he throws for exactly 3, I'm ok), then the other 5 related bets will have a better chance of winning than the prices I paid for them.

To sum it up, I thought I had edge in all of these bets. Even if I am wrong on one of them, many of the bets hedge each other. It is one thing to try to identify a positive-EV bet, and another to try to identify multiple positive-EV bets that hedge each other.

Yes, I could have waited and probably gotten a better price on the Brady Under 2.5 bet..maybe the Under 3 bet also (but probably I wouldn't have gotten a better price on the Under 3.5). But if I waited, I would probably also have missed value on the other bets, as some of those have moved to. I know the 1Q and 4Q bets are no longer available, and the Brady -1.5 vs Manning is mostly +160 in the books I see.

If I wanted to take on more risk, I would have taken the other props and left myself naked on the Brady Under 2.5 to bet now. There are two reasons I didn't do that:

1. I'm not in Vegas anymore, I left Friday. Not being a Vegas resident has some disadvantages, one is not having the ability to bet into possible softer lines as the game approaches.

2. My entire portfolio shows that I am rooting for NE to win the game. If they win by a blowout, I do well. So in essence, even with the Under 2.5 TD passes on Brady, I'm still rooting for him to do really well. Well, at least financially I'm rooting for him.

Super Bowl Player Props article

2008-02-02T10:48:00.000-05:00

Here is my latest article for the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine:

Super Bowl Player Props

Please note that when I wrote it, the market lines were -12 and 53. Since then, the total has crept up to 54, so the expected averages of the teams should be .5 point higher each.

Does the distribution of Touchdowns scored fit the Poisson Distribution?

2008-02-01T13:39:00.000-05:00

For Super Bowl props, I have been using the poisson distribution to help describe the distribution of touchdowns. For more on applying the poisson distribution to sports betting, get Sharp Sports Betting by Stanford Wong...note he is also my publisher, but believe me, I wouldn't recommend his book unless I thought it was good.

Here is an example of how I used the poisson distribution. In Las Vegas, one of the sportsbooks had a contest prop with multiple possibilities. It was on the exact number fo TD passes that Tom Brady would throw in the Super Bowl. They also had the same prop (with different prices) for Eli Manning.

For both players, I found there to be positive-EV in betting that they would throw exactly zero TDs. I bet Brady to throw zero TDs at 25 to 1 and Manning to throw zero TD passes at 4 to 1. I used two methods to value these props. The first was a simulation method which simulated the results of drives for the game for each team. I ran the simulation 10,000 times. The second method was using the Poisson Distribution. Both methods needed an accurate expected number of TD passes for the two QBs as the main input. Assuming I was accurate on that mean (if I wasn't, all results would be off), I found both 25 to 1 on Brady and 4 to 1 on Manning to be positive-EV bets.

Today I started thinking: does the poisson distribution really describe Touchdowns in the NFL well? Or probably better phrased: is the distribution of touchdowns in NFL games similar to a poisson distribution? (remember, I am not a statistician, just a gambler who tries to use techniques to get better values....so I apologize if this is not the correct technical way to say it)

That's a tough question to answer. First I would need to know the true mean of TD passes for the QBs. But with such small sample sizes (just 16 regular season games in a year), and other factors (quality of opponent's defenses for example), it is really difficult to peg it down too closely. So instead, I decided to throw a big net on the NFL and look at all games and see if the distribution of the number of TDs matched the poisson distribution. I think it does. Here are the results:

I took all games from 1989 to the end of the regular season of 2007 (including all playoff games except this year's playoff games as I had not inputed them yet). I have the number of rushing TDs, passing TDs and defensive/special teams TDs in all games during that span. I lumped defensive TDs with special teams TDs in one category.

Here are the averages both both teams combined. I did not separate out to individual teams.

Rushing TD: 1.61
Passing TD: 2.59
Def/ST TD: 0.44

Next, I added up the number of games with exactly 0 rushing TDs, exactly 1 rushing TDs, exactly 2 rushing TDs, etc. etc. and repeated it for the other two ways to score TDs.

Next, I plugged in the mean for each way to score a TD and had the poisson distribution spit out the expected number for each exact number of TD.

These two methods (the actual exact number of TDs in real games and the expected exact number of TDs using the poisson distribution) were very similar. Here are the results. The first number is the exact number of TDs, the second is the percentage of games that actually had that exact number of TDs, the third is the poisson distribution's prediction of the expected percentage of games that had that exact number of TDs.

Rushing TDs
0 19.6% 20.1%
1 32.6% 32.2%
2 25.8% 25.9%
3 14.6% 13.9%
4 4.8% 5.6%
5 1.8% 1.8%
6 0.5% 0.5%
7 0.1% 0.1%

Passing TDs
0 7.9% 7.5%
1 20.3% 19.4%
2 24.0% 25.1%
3 20.4% 21.7%
4 14.7% 14.1%
5 7.7% 7.3%
6 3.2% 3.2%
7 1.2% 1.2%
8 0.3% 0.4%
9 0.2% 0.1%

Defensive and Special Teams TDs
0 64.8% 64.3%
1 27.6% 28.4%
2 6.3% 6.3%
3 1.2% 0.9%
4 0.1% 0.1%

As you can see, the percentage numbers match up very closely. As a first pass, my opinion is that the possion distribution describes the distribution of TDs quite well, but one needs to be correct with the expected mean numbers. For example, it would be incorrect to assume that Brady's distribution of TD passes is the same as Manning's. Brady has a much higher average. So the crucial step is still estimating the average number of TD passes they will throw.

Some prop bets I made

2008-01-30T23:37:00.000-05:00

These prop bets were all made in Las Vegas. I don't know if any of them are still available at the same prices anymore. I've attached the price I got (first number) as well as my opinion of fair value (second number). Some of the bets were made at fair value, that's because I thought they hedged my exposure well, so I didn't mind making a zero-EV bet. The good thing about these combination of bets is that they all hedge another prop bet and usually with positive-EV.

Brady exactly 0 TD pass 25-1 +1800
Brady exactly 1 TD pass 10-1 +464
Brady Under 2.5 TD passes +170 -108
Brady Under 3 TD passes -135 -226
Brady Under 3.5 TD Passes -150 -335
Welker No TD -135 -150
Watson TD NO -165 -250
Stallworth score TD? No -260 -342
Gaffney no TD -200 -255

1Q Brady TD Pass Yes +140 +124
4Q Brady TD Pass Yes -120 -130
Brady TD Pass before INT -280 -364
Brady throws INT Yes +105 -110
NE's first TD is pass -210 -212
First TD is Passing TD -170 -187

Manning exactly 0 TD passes +400 +328
Manning Under 1.5 TD Passes +140 -154
Manning Under 1.5 TD Passes +140 -154

NYG's first TD is pass -150 -151
NYG Over 24.5 +215 +204
NYG Over 2.5 TD +150 +118
Brady -1.5 TD Passes vs Manning +200 +139
Manning +1 TD Pass +145 vs Brady +125
Manning +0.5 TD passes +225 Brady +200

Copycats in Super Bowl Props

2008-01-28T23:12:00.000-05:00

In my book, I wrote about a Las Vegas sportsbook that copied Super Bowl prop lines and made a mistake that cost them. I found another one a minute ago:

Kevin Faulk's longest rushing attempt will be over/under 3.5 yards.

I took the Over at -110.

The book mis-copied the line. The prop should have been: Kevin Faulk's FIRST rushing attempt. Faulk may not rush many times, so I may still lose, but this bet has great value. Now I just have to hope that they don't notice their mistake and cancel my wager...and if they allow it, they don't grade it incorrectly once the game ends. Books that mis-copy lines also tend to have a greater frequency of mis-grading winners/losers.

Some Super Bowl Props at the Hilton

2008-01-28T22:39:00.000-05:00

I was at the Hilton on Tuesday night to see their props open. Here's three that I bet that night:

Different number of Giants to score Under 3 +140
This doesn't seem like a great bet to most people, but I think there is nice value here. The bad thing about the under is that just one TD means two different Giants have scored. But the good thing about it is that it takes 3 TDs by the Giants for me to have a chance of losing...and even then, I may still push. It really is tough to put it into words because all the calculations is in the simulations. Sometimes things just can't be explained clearly in words, its all in the numbers.

Shortest TD is under 1.5 yards -140
I wrote about the shortest TD prop in my book, Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting. Although -140 is not cheap, it still has value. One reason I chose that prop to write about is that I was a bit comfortable that I might still find value in that prop in upcoming years. I can see a person who hasn't cranked out the math (or doesn't understand the math), thinking how likely is a 1-yard TD? Not very likely, I'm getting plus-money on the over, let's do it.

Patriots score before they punt -150
I think this has good value too, I think it is worth -180. That would be the case for most teams that are such a big favorite in a game with such a large total. But it is especially more so for the Patriots since they have the (correct) idea that punting is overrated. They often go for it on fourth down in unconventional spots. That means even if they get stopped, it is more likely that they were stopped on fourth down compared to other teams. Thus slightly more likely they score before they punt compared to other teams that are expected to score 33 points.

I'll write up a few more between now and the Super Bowl. On Wednesday, I'll be one of the many guests on Jon in Oakland's conference call. You can get more information on hist site:
http://www.sportsconferencecall.com/

Polls show how stupid the public can be

2008-01-18T11:17:00.000-05:00

Polls show how stupid the public can be. I don't mean political polls, I don't know much about politics. I mean the polls that are broadcast on the ESPN bottomline, I think they are called SportsNation or something like that. Apparently people log into ESPN.com and vote on who they think will win. In the upcoming championship games, the last time I saw it, 81% chose the Packers and 76% chose the Patriots. So the public thinks the Packers have a better chance to win than the Patriots? Or better put, more people think the Packers will win than think the Patriots will win. Given the line is Patriots -13.5 / -14 and Packers -7/-7.5, this shows the disparity between public opinion and where the money is. The money is usually right.

Losing on line movement

2008-01-15T15:34:00.000-05:00

Right after Sunday's games, I made two bets:

NYG +7.5 -125 vs GB
NE -15 -110 vs SD (I also took NE -14 -110 later that night when the line moved).

Whether these bets win or lose, I know I've already lost because the line has moved where I can easily get a better price right now.

GB is -7 everywhere. That means I can easily get NYG +7.5 -120 by buying a half-point. I was thinking the line would go down to GB -6.5, thus showing NYG +7.5 -125 as a close-to-fair-market wager. So I've definitely lost 5 cents on value, and probably 10 cents depending on how well I shopped for the Giants.

I was surprised the NE line went down. I thought there was a change it would go up to 17. Clearly I'm wrong. So I've alreadly lost a good chunk of EV since the line is now NE -13.5.

These two bets were bad due to line movement. I've had other good bets in the past. I took NYG +7.5 -110 against DAL early last week - the line moved to DAL -7 -110 so I won a little to line movement in that game. I also took NE -11 -110 against JAX, and then bought back JAX at +14.5 -120, so I won on the early bet on NE last week too. That one turned out to be a nice half-middle as NE won by exactly 11 points - not that 11 is a key number, but it is always nice to get a middle or half-middle.

I think keeping records and tracking wins/losses is very important. Without records, it is easy for poker player or a sports bettor to think they are winning when they are in fact losing...or think they are winning more than they actually are. But keeping records for line movement issues takes a lot more work. I wish I had kept more detailed records on that issue the past few years. A good new year's resolution for me is to start carefully detailing line movement issues on bets I make early.

NFL Divisional Round: the ATS record of favorites

2008-01-11T16:01:00.000-05:00

In the sports betting forums, posters sometimes post false facts or incomplete facts. Over the past few days, I've seen several posters mention that the second-round of the NFL playoffs is dominated by the home team, even against-the-spread. It all depends how far back you want to go with the records, but the word "dominating" is definitely an overexaggeration.

Here are the records for NFL home teams in the second round:

last ten years: 1997-2006:
Straight-up record: 30-10 or 75%
Against-the-spread record: 19-19-2 or 50%

The average line in these games was home -6.8.

Those numbers look like the market is doing a good job of pricing this round of the playoffs. It is a very small sample size.

If you see anyone tout the favorites this week (DAL -7.5, NE -13.5, GB -7.5 and IND -9) and they throw out the "home teams in this round dominate ATS", you may want to be skeptical of their handicapping skills.

Article on NFL Team Total push rates

2008-01-06T10:25:00.001-05:00

My latest article for the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine is on NFL Team Total push rates. This may come useful during the playoffs for comparing lines at different sportsbooks since so many are now offering Team Totals as a betting option.

Betting strategy on the Patriots in the playoffs

2007-12-31T11:38:00.001-05:00

Talking to some non-gambling sports friends, I keep hearing the same thing: "no one can beat the Patriots in Foxborough". They are making the mistake of assuming that just because no team is expected to beat the Patriots, that it means it can't happen. I'm looking forward to seeing the Patriots being big favorites, and waiting until game time to bet against them. Non-gambling sports fans sometimes turn into gamblers during the playoffs and make the market a bit more inefficient with the new money coming in on the favorite. I think there's a good chance for that to happen.

So my strategy is to bet the Patriots in any futures (AFC or Super Bowl) at fair value. Of course, that would be based on my projected odds. Unfortunately finding them at fair value is now difficult, but fortunately for me, I did load up on them earlier in the year :)

The next part of the strategy is to hedge with a positive-EV hedge on the underdog in the point spread when the games come up. I hope to implement this strategy in every game the Pats play, as I think they'll be overvalued and/or overbet in each game.

Recapping Season Long Bets

2007-12-31T00:32:00.000-05:00

The NFL regular season is over. I'll quickly recap the two set of prop bets I posted before the season began.

In the Regular Season Win Totals, I listed 13 teams. 6 of them won, 7 lost.

In the Interception props, I listed 17 unders. 11 won and 6 lost.

IND/TEN prop

2007-12-30T17:07:00.000-05:00

The IND/TEN Sunday Night game is an intersting line. TEN is a 4.5-point road favorite, but IND is the favorite in the First Half and First Quarter. it is all due to the expectation that the IND starters will play the 1Q and possibly the 1H, but not in the Second Half.

For the prop "which team will score first", we only care about the early part of the game. The game is unlikely to be unscored at the half. Given that IND is favored in the 1H, they should be favored to score first. Yet, I was able to find IND to score first at +120 and +100. This is a solid prop bet because the bookmakers are too lazy or too stupid to move their lines.

Baseball records versus Football records

2007-12-23T22:11:00.001-05:00

Over the past week or so (and before that too), much has been discussed about why fans hold baseball players to a higher standard when it comes to usage of performance enhansing drugs. Meanwhile, it seems football players get a pass once they have served their 4-game suspension. Maybe that is a phrasing it a bit too simply and maybe it isn't fair for football players to say it that way, but I'm going to go with that.

One of the things that was brought up why fans are harsher on baseball fans is that records matter in baseball. We know about Bonds' home run records, about Clemens' 7 Cy Youngs and 2nd to Nolan Ryan in strikeouts.

While watching today's Patriots game, something clicked for me. With the ball close to the Miami goal line, instead of running the ball into the end zone, the Patriots passed and Brady threw a touchdown. I have nothing against Brady or the Patriots wanting him to get the record. But what clicked for me is that in football, the players and coaches have a much more important role on targeting a specific number and breaking a record. Sure, Brady still has to play well and the Patriots still have to get to the endzone, but a lot of him possibly breaking the touchdown record has to do with their play calling. And I believe their play calling has something to do with the record.

This is sometimes the case in baseball, but managerial choice is much less important. If someone was going for the Home Run record, they don't get more at-bats or more chances. They can't let McGwire bat for Eckstein, but they can let Brady pass instead of running it with Maroney. Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Brady or the Patriots trying for the touchdown record. What I am saying is that it becomes a bit less important of a record if the play calling choice can change the chance of breaking the record. In other words, if the record was 47, Brady/Patriots may play a bit different than if the record was 49.

That's not to say that football is worse than baseball, just that they are different and another reason why individual records and numbers mean much less in football. And maybe that's part of the reason why fans get on baseball playes more about performance enhancement usage than they get on football players.

more thoughts on Week 17

2007-12-23T21:35:00.000-05:00

I should have added this information to my article on Two Plus Two, but didn't.

Don't be afraid to bet big home favorites in Week 17. Compared to the rest of the season, home favorites do very well.

All home teams in week 17 straight-up: 253 games, 62.5%
All home teams in other weeks: 4,268 games 58.0%

Home favorites of -7.5 or greater in week 17 ATS: 45 games, 56.8%
Home favorites of -7.5 or greater in other weeks ATS: 849 games, 46.7%

The sample size is small, particularly for home favorites greater than 7.5 points. I wouldn't allow this data to force me to bet all big home favorites. But I wouldn't be afraid to take a big home favorite in week 17 like I would be in other weeks of the regular season.

The Eagles are better than their record indicates

2007-12-23T09:10:00.000-05:00

The Philadelphia Eagles are 6-8 and in last place in the NFC East. They have been eliminated from playoff contention for a couple of weeks. But looking at their past games, they really are a pretty good team in my opinion. Here are some reasons why:

- Looking at points scored versus points allowed: they scored 281 and allowed 268. Teams that score more points than they allow are usually .500 or better teams. It only takes one more win for the Eagles to be a .500 team.

- Looking at close games: close games have some luck in them. One good or bad bounce in a 21-point game may not change the winner of the game, but it may in a 6-point game. The Eagle's record in games decided by less than 7 points is: 1-5. Could they have easily gone 3-3 in those games? In my opinion, yes. If they had gone 3-3, they would be 8-6 with a chance to get into the playoffs.

- First down stats: gaining lots of first downs is a sign of a good football team. The top three offenses in terms of first downs are: NE, DAL and IND. No surprise there. PHI is 8th. On the defensive side, the top three teams in terms of first downs are: BAL, TB and PIT. Again, no surprises there as those three teams are well known for having good defenses (FWIW, NE is 5th, IND is 7th). PHI is tied with NE for 5th. So the Eagles are 8th best in first downs on offense, and 5th best on defense. That looks like a playoff team.

- Overall yardage: On Offense, PHI has accumulated 4,903 yards (9th in the NFL) and allowed 4,365 yards on defense (8th in the league). Again, this stat indicates they are a playoff-type team.

So why are they only 6-8? All the signs show they are a playoff calibre team. One possible explanation is that they've had bad luck in crucial spots. Another explanation is that they've palyed a tough schedule. With the exception of the Jets and the Dolphins, every opponent they've played has been decent or very good or great.

Great teams: NE, DAL (twice)
Probable playoff teams: GB, NYJ (twice), SEA, MIN
Decent teams: DET in week 3 when DET was playing well, CHI in week 7 when CHI was still a decent team, and WAS (twice) who still has a shot at the playoffs.

Using my current power rankings, the Eagles have had the toughest strength of schedule in the NFL. And yet, they've held their own (mostly).

So how do we make money from this opinion?

One possibility is to bet them in week 16 against the Saints and/or week 17 against the Bills. The problem with these bets is to answer the question: how motivated are the Eagles? In the last two weeks, when they were already probably out of the playoff race, they still played hard. They lost to the Giants by 3 and beat the Cowboys by 4. But those were tough divisional games. They probably would have played hard even if they were 10-4 or 4-10. The last two games are against non-divisional foes, the desire to win may not be there anymore. This is where the "art" in handicapping comes in. The Saints need to win in Week 16 to stay in the playoff race. Unfortunately the line isn't that high, the Saints are only favored by -3 -120 or so. Its not a no-brainer given that line to take an unmotivated Eagles team versus a motivated Saints team. Although it still could be a good bet, I know I definitely wouldn't take the Saints and lay the points, I'd either take the Eagles or pass on the game.

Another possibility is to look forward to 2008 and look to bet on the Eagles to win the NFC, the NFC East and Over on Regular Season Win Totals. Those lines haven't come out yet of course, so you'd still have to see if the market agrees or disagrees with the analysis. It is possible the market agrees, and there may not be any value in going long the Eagles. Also, there is the twist that the Eagles may get rid of McNabb. That may be good or bad, I don't know, but I do know it will change the team dramatically. If the Eagles do not have McNabb in 2008, then it may not be useful to use 2007 numbers as an indication of the 2008 team.

Why are there no NFL games on Saturday December 8?

2007-12-08T10:29:00.000-05:00

I've always wondered why there are no NFL games on the Saturday after the College Football Conference Championship games. It seems like a perfect day to have a prime time game (or two). Without any football today, it doesn't seem like a Saturday at all. (I'm sorry, but the Division I-AA playoff semifinals doesn't do much for me). I'd imagine the NFL has looked into it since they clearly know how to make money. So I wonder what their reason is for not having a game or two today.

The NFL embraces a HGH user

2007-12-06T21:55:00.000-05:00

Rodney Harrison gets suspended for the first 4 games this season for being caught using HGH. We're in week 14. Now the NFL is celebrating Harrison by putting him on the NFL Network's Thursday Nigh Game Halftime show with a nice interview. Why is it that fans and the media like to bomb baseball for not doing anything against performance enhancing drugs? The NFL always gets a pass. Former players Deion Sanders, Marshall Faulk and a former coach, Steve Mariucci, all intereviewed him with laughs and love. Shame on them. They know the NFL doesn't care, they know they don't care, and they know NFL fans don't care. Let's dig this up the next time someone blasts baseball for being light on HGH users.

No big deal: Steeler player's guarantee and Dodger's new signing

2007-12-06T06:55:00.000-05:00

On the Steelers/Patriots:

A story on ESPN.com has a no-name defensive back for the Pittsburgh Steelers "guaranteeing a win". What's the big deal about an athlete guaranteeing a win or sounding confident about a game? The media likes to play it up, but what are we to expect? For the Steelers to say they don't think they have a chance at all and they might as well stay in Pittsburgh this weekend? Athletes should be confident they can win, otherwise, why bother playing?

Actually, reading the story, the guarantee is qualified:

"We're going to win," Smith said. "Yeah, I can guarantee a win. As long as we come out and do what we got to do. Both sides of the ball are rolling, and if our special teams come through for us, we've got a good chance to win."

He uses "as long as....." and "if our......we've got a good chance to win".

That doesn't sound like bravado to me.

As for motivating the Patriots, I say: "c,mon". Does a NFL team really need that type of motivation to play their game? I don't think so. If the Patriots needed that type of motivation, then they would not have won their first 12 games this year. To me, the impact of the guarantee especially by a no-name player is absolutely zero.

The line on this game is interesting. After the Eagles/Patriots game, where the Patriots only won by 3 when the point spread was 24, they still opened as a 21-point favorite on the road in Baltimore. That number was actually a tough higher than the Las Vegas Hilton had the BAL/NE game before the PHI/NE game was played (the Hilton has Game-of-the-Year lines, lines on future games in the NFL regular season that are bettable throughout the year). The Hilton line was listed at 21 and then was bet down to 20. Unfortunately, I missed the 21 and it was 20 by the time I noticed it. I didn't get a wager in. I did get a wager in at 21 when the line first opened, albeit at -115. Still, I was surprised the line didn't budge and actually went up from the 20 that the Hilton had. The line did move down to 18.5/19 by game time.

Previous to NE-BAL game, I think the line on the PIT-NE game at the Hilton was 14 or 14.5. The current line is 10/10.5, so clearly there has been an adustment as it crosses a few important numbers (half or all of 14, 13 and half of 10).

On Andruw Jones signing with the Dodgers
Wow, Andruw Jones signed for a lot of money. It was only a 2-year deal, but at $18 million per year, he is overpaid relative to his performance. Jayson Stark had it right when he listed Andruw Jones as one of the most overrated players in his book that came out over the summer. He got a lot of flak for that, but Andruw lived up to the billing with his poor performance this year. Here are his important OBP/SLG stats and where it ranks in the NL in the past three years (not the same tired, not-as-useful trio of AVG-HR-RBI ... sure those stats are important for Rotisserie leagues, but there are much more useful stats for analyzing baseball paleyrs):

2005
OBP: .347 42nd in the NL
SLG: .575 5th in the NL

2006
OBP: .363 27th
SLG: .531 15th

2007
OBP: .311 67th
SLG: .413 65th

Even if the Dodgers expected Andruw Jones to get back to 2006 levels, that's still only about the 20th best player in the NL. Given the AL has many more star hitters, that may place Andruw Jones about 50th best in all of MLB. (I am purposely taking out the fielding equation since by many accounts, he's no longer a true Gold Glover, but only winning it on reputation alone).

$18 million for the 50th best hitter in baseball? The Dodgers overpaid.

Article in the 2+2 Magazine: Week 17 of the NFL season

2007-12-03T21:11:00.001-05:00

My latest article in the Two Plus Two Magazine is on the last week of the NFL season.

NFL Week 17: Interesting Aspects of the Last Game of the NFL Regular Season

Feel free to comment on the Two Plus Two Magazine forum or email me.

NFL run defenses are unpredictable

2007-11-30T01:25:00.000-05:00

In the Nov 23 issue of the ESPN magazine, Doug Drinen of Pro-football-reference.com writes a fantasy football article that is just as pertinent to sports bettors titled Lost Cause (sorry, I could not find an internet link).

His main argument is that there is little correlation between the top defenses against RBs in terms of fantasy points from one segment of the season to another. Whether it sliced in the first 8 games versus the last 8 games, the first four versus the next four, etc., the news is the same - there is little predictability of fantasy points given up by defenses against RBs based on the defenses past fantasy performance.

Fantasy points are different than real yards/game, yards/carry, etc., but I imagine it can't be all that different. The Indianapolis Colts run defense of last year's regular season versus playoffs seem to be a good anecdote for this idea.

comprehensive review posted on SSB

2007-11-25T02:08:00.000-05:00

Here is a well-thought out, well-written comprehensive review of Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting by poster electric puha in the Sharp Sports Betting forum.

A very useful football blog

2007-11-21T03:38:00.001-05:00

I recommend the Stat Intelligence blog, written by bloggguy. Blogguy also posts weekly NFL power ratings on LVASports.com. His blog should be bookmarked by all sports bettors and read frequently.

http://statintelligence.blogspot.com/

Greedy sportsbooks

2007-11-11T10:50:00.000-05:00

Now that the World Series is long over, I feel a bit more comfortable writing about this. Offshore sportsbook Olympic usually has props on "which team will hit the first HR in the game?" and "which team will hit the first Triple in the game?" Triples don't happen very often, so both teams are usually listed as -115. HRs are much more common, and if the two teams are even, the away team will be a bit of favorite. Olympic deals these props on many games during the year, so they have learned to put up fairly accurate lines. Especially given their 30-cent line, it is tough (IMO) to find an edge in these props at Olympic. Plus their limits are fairly low on props, so even if you find an edge, you can only bet so much.

During the playoffs, and especially the World Series, other books decide to put up props too. Too often, they do it the lazy way and just copy Olympic's lines. In Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting, I wrote about a mis-labeled prop in the Seattle/Pittsburgh Super Bowl where the sportsbook that copied Olympic's lines got screwed because they incorrectly labeled the prop.

It happened again in the Red Sox / Rockies World Series in game 1 - this time at a different sportsbook. The greedy sportsbook not only "cheated" by copying Olympic's lines on "Who will hit the first Triple in the game?", they also decided to make it a 3-way line and add a "No Triples will be hit". Usually this is good for the book to make a 3-way line because they increase the total vig on the three-way action compared to the two-way action.

In this case, Olympic had the following line:

Who will hit the first Triple in Game 1:
Rockies -115
Red Sox -115

If there was no Triple in the game, then the bet would be canceled and all bets refunded.

The greedy sportsbook added the "No Triple" because they wanted to clean up on both the Red Sox and Rockies bettors if no triples happened. That may work in other props, but it didn't work in this one. They had the following line:

Who will hit the first Triple in Game 1:
Rockies -115
Red Sox -115
No Triple +400

Unfortunately for the greedy sportsbook, triples are rare in baseball, in particular Fenway park where there really is only one part of the field where a triple can occur (deep center field in the triangle area). The No Triple should be worth -400! The greedy sportsbook had mispriced the No by an incredible margin.

Greedy sportsbooks should get punished, especially if they are copiers too. They did learn their lesson a bit as they did not offer the "No Triple" in the other games of the World Series after having to pay out my winning wager.

NFL RSW mid-season update

2007-11-06T15:24:00.000-05:00

Here is an update on the progress of the NFL Regular Season Win totals that I posted before the season began. The current values that I estimate are in Red.

ARI Under 7.5 -110. FV -134 Current FV -155. Still up in the air.

BAL Under 9 +120, +130. FV +109 Current FV -2100. BAL is 4-4. They'd have to go 5-3 to tie or 6-2 to go Over 9 wins. I'm looking good on this one. I think they only have a 4% chance of going 6-2 or better. They've got a tough schedule coming up, with 6 tough teams (CLE, SD, NE, IND, SEA and PIT).

CAR Under 9 -120. FV -152 Current FV -1063. CAR is 4-4 also, but I think they have a better chance of winning 5 or 6 than BAL does, even though I think BAL is a better team. The difference is their schedule.

CHI Under 10 -115. FV -141 This one is almost a lock. CHI is 3-5 and even if they go 6-2, I'll still win the Under.

DAL Under 9 +125, +120. FV +100 This one is dead. DAL is 7-1 and considered the best team in the NFC. It would be a shocker if they went 2-6 or 1-7 the rest of the way.

GB Under 7.5 -150. FV -173 This one is dead too. GB already has 7 wins and only needs one more to go Over.

KC Over 7.5 EVEN. FV -125 Current FV -118. This one is a coin-flip. One problem for the Over is that Larry Johnson looks like he'll be out for a couple of weeks.

MIA Over 7 -130, Over 7.5 +130. FV -135, +118. Miami is 0-8. This one is dead.

NO Under 9.5 -120 Current FV -190. After starting off 0-4, the Saints have turned it around and won their last 4 to get to .500. It will still be tough for them to get to 10 wins, but a bet that looked like a lock for me a month ago can actually turn sour now.

OAK Over 5 EV Current FV +396. Not looking good. OAK has lost a few games where the were slight favorites.

IND Under 10.5 +110 Close to being dead. The Colts defense has really shocked me, they are terrific.

PHI Under 9 +125, +120. FV -101 Close to being a winner. PHI is only 3-5 and it would be surprising to see them go 6-2 or 7-1 the rest of the way. Their head coach has personal problems and McNabb doesn't seem like he's back to early 2006 form.

SF Under 7.5 +135, Under 8 -125, -130. FV +104, -156 Close to being a winner. The 49ers are 2-6 and would have to go 6-2 to get to 8 wins.

Overall, it looks like I'll likely win 5, lose 5...and the other 3 (ARI, KC and NO) are too close to call. I'll probably have to win 2 out of those 3 to be ahead on the year in RSW bets.

article in the 2+2 Magazine: Regression to the Mean in Sports Betting

2007-11-06T15:21:00.000-05:00

Here is my latest article for the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine.

Regression to the Mean in Sports Betting

The subject in the article deserves fuller treatment. Upon finishing the article, I thought I could probably expand on the topics into two full-length chapters in a book. Possibly that will happen in the future if I put together a Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting Volume II.

Free furniture for Red Sox fans

2007-10-29T11:41:00.000-04:00

In Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting, Chapter 22: Sports Bets in Unusual Places, I wrote about the promotion that Jordan's Furniture ran in March/April 2007. Customers that bought furniture from Jordan's Furniture during the promotion were guaranteed to get their money back if the Red Sox won the World Series in 2007.

The true cost of the furniture was the price the customer paid less the value of the futures ticket. The Red Sox won the World Series last night and the futures ticket cashed, meaning customers got their money back.

Here's a recent article: Promotional rebate has thousands of Red Sox fans sitting pretty

World Series series price

2007-10-23T10:51:00.000-04:00

My guesstimate for the game lines in the World Series are:

Game 1 66.0%

Game 2 63.0%

Game 3 54.0%

Game 4 50.0%

Game 5 58.0%

Game 6 63.0%

Game 7 62.0%

These game lines equates to BOS -234 (70%) in the World Series.

We'll find out if my guesstimate is accurate as the games come along. I certainly don't think my numbers are iron-clad. I would be a bit disappointed and surprised if the numbers are far different than mine, but I wouldn't be totally shocked.

For an easy way to plug in numbers and get a series price (as well as other props such as Red Sox to sweep), go to SharpSportsBetting.com and click on Prop Tools in the Links area on the left margin. Save the Excel spreadsheet and go to the tab: "King Yao's NBA Playoffs". Its set up for the NBA, but you can ignore the pointspread and just type in the probablity for the Red Sox. Using the numbers I posted, I get 70% or -234. This formula assumes the lines are consistent with zero zig-zag issues.

The zig-zag isn't as big of an issue in baseball as it is in the NBA, but it may play a part. For example, the Yankees are usually over-valued in the playoffs. IMO, there is value in betting against the Yankees in almost any playoff series. But at the same time, there is more value in betting them in the individual games because they get even more over-valued (incorrectly so IMO) when their backs are against the wall. So betting the individual games is better than the series against the Yankees. The Red Sox won't be as over-valued in the individual games as the Yankees were, but they will be slightly as they are getting a reputation for winning when facing elimination. ESPN threw out a stat that they are 14-3 when facing elimnation since 1986 (or something like that)...of course they'll only dig up that info when it serves the purpose of a story (who cares about 1986 or 1999, the players are different, they just have the same fans and wear the same shoes). The important thing to remember is that the public will here these stories, and that may sway the line 10 to 20 cents towards the Red Sox.

Great post about college football

2007-10-22T02:45:00.000-04:00

Here's another great post by blogguy on LVASports.com regarding college football. I hope he continues updating this angle in CFB for the rest of the year. There didn't seem to be that much reaction to the post (only 6 posts before mine), but I'll be sure to bump it up before the weekend.

There is no such thing as Destiny in sports

2007-10-22T02:39:00.000-04:00

Here's another post blasting the media. The Red Sox came back from a 3 games to 1 deficit and go on to the World Series. It felt like the first word out of the ESPN Sportscenter broadcasters was "destiny". No, it wasn't. If it was destiny, would the Red Sox be happy losing three out of the first four games? Of course not. If it was destiny, they would have simply swept all four games and made it easy. It wasn't destiny, it was randomness. Randomness doesn't mean the Red Sox didn't deservie their win, it doesn't mean the players shouldn't try. It just means there is a certain probability that one team should beat the other, and after that, its chance from there. It is our job as sports bettors to try to determine what that probability is. Then compare the line to our expected probability. If there is a big enough difference, then we make a wager with positive EV. After that, its up to randomness whether we win or lose, not destiny.

People who believe in destiny don't care what the line is, they just bet on the team they think will win regardless of the line. They don't care about value. Of course, they are also long-term losers.

Cleveland Indians and their two-out run-scoring base hits

2007-10-17T07:08:00.000-04:00

Are the two-out run-scoring base hits that the Indians have been getting in the playoffs a fluke? Have they been getting lucky?

Of course...yes.

They are on a good run, been getting lucky and winning games. There's nothing wrong with getting lucky and winning games, but if you hear someone give you a rational reason for these two-out hits, you'll know they are falling into the trap of forcing an explanation for randomness. Randomness is a part of sports. Sometimes the answer is: they got a good roll of the dice a few times. Nothing more, nothing less.

Accuracy of databases

2007-10-15T16:49:00.000-04:00

In the past, I've compared the numbers in my databases with other people. I'm actually in the process of doing so right now. It really is easy to screw up a negative or positive sign and have the home team as a 12 point favorite when they should be a 12 point underdog. So it is useful to compare and contrast numbers to get out those stupid errors.

But at the same time, there are other lines that may be different between different databases. What should the two people do about that? Should person 1 change or person 2? Actually, I don't think either has to necessarily change as both could be right.

You must be thinking "what the heck is he talking about? If two people have different lines, how could they both be right?"

The answer is that the line moves. One person may capture the line that was stagnant from Tuesday to Saturday at -7. Another person may capture the line at 12pm Eastern, an hour before the NFL 1PM kickoffs, and capture the line of -8 because the line moved on Sunday morning. In my opinion, both people are right, neither is wrong. Of course, it is helpful to have both lines, so you could look at line movements as well. Unfortunatley, I don't have that information, and frankly, I can't recall when I captured the data for my database, nor can I tell when the other person captured his data. So I'm left with having to choose a number. Either keep mine, change mine to his, or do something in between. Checking with other sources (such as Covers.com) can be helpful, but only to the extent that the line didn't move. For example, let's say I used a closing line and so did Covers, but the other person used a Saturday line. That doesn't mean I'm right and the other guy is wrong just because Covers' data agreed with me.

So the moral of this post is simply try to be diligent when inputting your database numbers, but you can only do so much. Besides, results from databases should always be looked at askew, especially in the NFL since the sample sizes are so small.

Yankees-Indians series line versus individual game lines

2007-10-10T13:46:00.000-04:00

The series is over and the Indians won in 4 games. But looking back, it continues to amaze me how overvalued the Yankees are on a game-by-game basis in the playoffs, especially when they are in a mist-win sitaution (note, I am a Yankee fan for 30+ years, but this isn't about being a fan but about making positive-EV bets).

I knew they would be overvalued in the individual games, so I decided to stay away from betting the Indians on the series. I thought I would get more value in the indvidual games. But last week, I was still able to find the Indians +180 in the series (when most books had -170 on the Yankees, in fact, the casino across the street had -170 and I had an instant arb if I wanted it - I passed on the arb, knowing that I couldnt' get +180 again). I didn't think even the inflated game lines would get be past +180. But as it turned out, it did.

I could have bet the following on the Indians in each game:

Game 1: +110
Game 2: +120
Game 3: +180
Game 4: +200
Game 5: +110 (at least +110 if that game was played)

These were not fair-market (mid-market) lines, rather they were lines I could and did bet on the Indians.

Using those numbers, the expected winning percentage on the Yankees was -185. So as it turns out, I could have done a little better taking the Indians in the individual games than the series. Even though I took that into consideration, I did not take it enough into consideration and the marketplace surprised me even still.

This won't be useful until next year, when (hopefully) the Yankees make it again to the playoffs.

Power Rating thread on LVASports by blogguy

2007-10-06T13:24:00.000-04:00

Perhaps the most informative and most important weekly sports betting thread on internet forums is the NFL Power Ratings threads that blogguy starts. I'd suggest anyone remotely interested in betting the NFL look at these threads on a regular basis. You may not agree with the numbers, but if not, you should try to come up with a valid reason why not...and post your comments in the thread to see what others think. Here is this week's thread:

Blogguy's Power Ratings thread: NFL Community Power Ratings for Games of Oct 7-8

review of Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting

2007-10-06T13:20:00.001-04:00

Here is a review of Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting by Jay Graziani on MajorWager.com. His review of my book starts in the middle of his article.

A Mid-Season Reading List for Aspiring Football Handicappers...By Jay Graziani

NFL Power Ratings article

2007-09-26T14:21:00.000-04:00

My article in the September 2007 Two Plus Two Internet Magazine is on NFL Power Ratings. Here is the link to the article: NFL Power Ratings article (the link will only be good through the end of September).

A poster by the handle of SumZero made a good post with a better formula compared to the simple addition/subtraction. Here is his post: SumZero's post If you read the article, I suggest you read his post as well.

Over-reaction regarding NFL teams

2007-09-24T19:15:00.000-04:00

After three games, some teams will look terrific and other teams will look horrible. The teams that look terrific are likely very good teams. But sometimes there is an overreaction. After last night's win against the Chicago Bears, people are now annointing the Dallas Cowboys as the team to beat in the NFC. I don't disagree with that...that seems about right. They have played well, won three games convincingly and I would agree they are the best team in the NFC.

What I don't agree with, is the instant over-reaction that they are far and away the best team in the NFC. People are comparing them to the best teams in the AFC - PIT, IND and NE. That's a bit too early, we really need to see more than three games. People forget that three games is still only three games.

Their next two games look pretty easy. They have a visiting 0-3 St. Louis Rams team without their star RB, and they are are a 11.5 point favorite. I have no problems with that line.

Next after the Rams, they visit an injured and down-in-the-dumps Buffalo team. Looks like they'll be a decent-sized favorite in that game as well.

But week 6 is the real test. That's when the New England Patriots, the best team in the NFL by far, visits the Cowboys in Dallas. If the Cowboys can hold their own in that game - they don't have to win, just hold their own - then people can rightfully put them up there.

If the Cowboys were playing different teams next week, I wouldn't be too surprised if they lost to any of these NFC teams: SEA, PHI, WAS, CAR, and yes, CHI again. One loss, even a bad loss, does not mean the Bears are worthless and can't play the game anymore. The game was tied 10-10 in the 3rd Quarter, it wasn't a real blowout from start to finish.

No need to overreact. Being the front-runner in the NFC doesn't mean they will definitely win. With that said, here are my current expected odds on the Cowboys:

to win the NFC East: -474 or 82.6%
to win the NFC: +190 or 34.8%
to win the Super Bowl: +810 or 11.0%

The big difference between the NFC and Super Bowl odds is due to the New England Patriots. Week 6 looms ahead.

It is just too early to talk about an undefeated season

2007-09-19T17:26:00.000-04:00

People are already talking about the possibility of an undefeated season for the New England Patriots. It is simply too early. I agree they are the best team in the NFL, but undefeated is still a stretch. My current power ratings have them expected to win 13.21 games this year, with a 3.6% chance of winning every game. 3.6% is really high to expect a team to go undefeated, but it is still almost a 30-1 shot. Maybe the 3.6% should go be a bit higher if NE shows they are even better than people expect. But they killed both their opponents in the last two weeks - two playoff teams - so it is that much less likely that they are underestimated at this point.

Here are my winning percentages that I've pegged for NE in their remaining 14 games:

95% vs BUF
67% at CIN
95% vs CLE
64% at DAL
81% at MIA
92% vs WAS
53% at IND
84% at BUF
84% vs PHI
62% at BAl
75% vs PIT
93% vs NYJ
95% vs MIA
81% at NYG

Talking about 16-0 is way too early. Let's wait until after the IND game in week 9.

Why does ESPN.com have a local Boston writer on their staff?

2007-09-17T16:48:00.000-04:00

ESPN.com is a website intended for all sports fans. ESPN the Magazine is a national publication. Yet, why do they both have a local Boston writer on their staff? Bill Simmons is a diehard Boston fan. There's nothing wrong with that. And he actually understands some stuff about sports betting that is often refreshing compared to other media guys. The question I have is: why does ESPN have a guy writing soleley about his local teams, and using his personal perspective as a fan? Maybe that is not what they intended, but clearly Simmons voices everything from the Red Sox and Patriot fan's point of view.

His latest (see here) is just another one of the same. Again, I have no problem with his columns, but if I wanted to read columns like that, I'd pick up a local Boston newspaper or log in to one of their websites. Why do I, or other fans around the country, have to see Simmons' local slant all the time? I know I can choose not to read it, and often I don't because I know the tone of the message in the articles before I even click on them. I'll bet there are a lot of other guys that choose not to read his articles on ESPN.com either. That just means the product put out by ESPN.com and ESPN is diminished.

Tell me of another city that is represented the same way on ESPN. I don't see anyone else.

Belicheck and Video-gate is good for the NFL and bettors

2007-09-16T21:02:00.000-04:00

The NFL has gotten a lot of attention due to the Belicheck "video-gate" issue. No current NFL fan is going to stop watching football due to it, but probably more people are going to watch that may not have cared before. In particular, they are going to be interested when the Patriots are playing on primetime or in the playoffs. More interest means more bettors...more bettors probably means more square bettors. This is a good thing!

NFL Interceptions prop bets

2007-09-06T00:46:00.000-04:00

I found some year-long prop bets in the NFL that I think have edge. The props were on the total interceptions made by each team's defense. I bet the Under on 17 different teams (listed below). The limits are low, but they add up over 17 different bets that represent the same idea.

Taking the shotgun approach, I bet the under on any total of 16.5 or higher. Here's my rationale:

Over the last 4 years (2002-2006), the average number of INTs made was 15.85, with the median at 15.

For the 32 teams over the last 4 seasons (128 total teams), if the total was 16.5, the Under won 77 times and lost 51. For a winning percentage of 60.2% or about -150.

The initial question is: "So what? You need to take into account the good defenses as they are likely to have higher INT totals."

And I did that. I took teams with 18 or more INTs and compared how they did in the next year versus a total of less than 3.5 INTs, but with a minimum of 16.5. For example, if BAL had 20 INTs in 2003, then I would look how BAL did versus a total of 16.5 in 2004.

The total record against a total of 3.5 fewer INTs the following year, but no lower than 16.5, was 7-20.

Next, I ran correlation numbers. Using 2003-2005 INT numbers and correlating it to 2004-2006 INT numbers for the same teams. The correlation was a paltry 0.02. This along may be enough reason to bet Under on high totals.

To top it off, the 17 teams that I bet, which all had totals of 16.5 or greater, had an average number of INTs fewer last year than the total. The average line I bet into was 18.5. The teams that I wagered Under on averaged 17.6 interceptions last year.

Here are the wagers:

ATL U17 -120
BAL U21.5 -115
CAR U18.5 -115
CHI U22.5 -115
CIN U20 -135
DAL U17 -115
DEN U18.5 -120
GB U18 -120
IND U18 -135
JAX U17.5 -115
MIN U20 -115
NE U20 -120
NYJ U18 -120
PHI U17.5 -115
PIT U18 -115
SD U16.5 -115
STL U16.5 -120

Sidebar from Marc Cooper's article

2007-09-02T10:17:00.000-04:00

When I first read Marc Cooper's article, I did not notice the additional sidebar.
Here is the sidebar with more quotes from me.

Marc wrote the article for the typical L.A. Times reader, not for professional (or degenerate) gamblers, so the advice is basic but useful for most people.

Article in the L.A. Times

2007-08-31T15:53:00.000-04:00

An article in the L.A. Times by Marc Cooper mentions Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting, with a few quotes from me. Marc Cooper is normally a political columnist, but he enjoys Las Vegas and has written a few articles about gambling in Las Vegas.

NFL Totals and skewness

2007-08-26T18:23:00.000-04:00

I was looking over NFL totals information today and found something interesting. In reviewing NFL regular season and playoff games from 1989 to 2006, this is what I found:

The average total was 40.23
The average game score was 41.1

Number of Overs: 2183
Number of Unders: 2254

So the average game score was higher than the average betting total, but there were more unders than overs. How is this explained?

The reason for this result is that games can go over the total by a lot more than they can go under. Let's say the total on a game is 40. The lowest possible scoring NFL game is 0-0 (a tie played through overtime). The highest possible scoring NFL game is boundless. So when a game goes over by a lot, it can have a bigger impact on the average than when it goes under a lot. A term for this is skewness. Wikipedia.org describes skewnewss as

In probability theory and statistics, skewness is a measure of the asymmetry of the probability distribution of a real-valued random variable.

See the link for a much deeper mathematical explanation of skewness in a probability distribution.

The lesson here is that looking at averages for betting purposes can sometimes be misleading. Remember, for straight wagers, we don't care how much we win or lose by, we just care if we win or lose. Winning by a half point is just as profitable as winning by 25 points.

Small changes to Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting

2007-08-21T11:15:00.000-04:00

Here is a list of small changes for the next printing of Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting. There aren't any major changes on the list.

Page 17, end of second paragraph.
add: "...and Jeff Brueggman.”

Page 18, end of third paragraph or insert new paragraph after third paragraph
add: “Thanks to Al Rogers of Pi Yee Press for making things run smoothly.”

Page 32, end of third paragraph.
Change: “My research shows:”
To: “Let’s assume the following distribution:”

Page 33, in “Talking Cents”, 4th sentence
There is duplication in the sentence. It should read:
“Sportsbooks understand that a cent is worth less as the line gets farther from +100, so they offer wider spreads as a result.”

Page 37, add to the second paragraph:
“Some people use ROE (return on equity) or ROR (return on risk) to mean the same as ROI. See Chapter 5 for differences between ROI and ROR when applying to scalps and middles.” (new section in Chapter 5 added for page 77)

Page 42, 7th paragraph
Change: “…get lost because the items you want to be are correlated…”
To: “…get lost because the items you want to bet are correlated…”

Page 50, 1st paragraph, 5th sentence
Insert “a field goal” in the middle of this sentence:
“On the other hand, his database may show that a touchdown is the first score more often than a field goal in a typical NFL regular season game.”

Page 57, last line on the page
Delete “like this”
The last sentence should read: “But there are other markets (delete “like this”) where individual entities…”

Page 62, 4th line
Delete “not” in 4th line
Change: “It is the few lines that are not inefficient…”
To: “It is the few lines that are inefficient…”

Page 77, after “Time Spread” and before “Conclusion” add:
Return on Risk
When analyzing the profitability of short-term scalps and middles, it is better to use ROR (return on risk) rather than ROI (return on investment). The risk of a well-executed scalp or middle is small even though a large investment is often necessary. ROI underestimates the profitability of scalps and middles in relation to other type of bets because it is not possible to lose the entire investment.

Page 96, 9th line
Insert “a” before “small window”
It should read: “There is a small window of time…”

Page 108, Table 4
Change “Fair Line” heading to “Rule of Thumb”
In the Key, change: “Fair line” reflects the fair vigorish given the numbers in the Actual column.

To: “Rule of Thumb” reflects the rule of thumb adjustment given the numbers in the Actual column.

Page 109, at the end of the first paragraph and before “My RSW Picks for 2006”, insert this paragraph:
“It is important to keep in mind that the rule of thumb is a shortcut. The rule of thumb becomes less accurate as the money line gets farther away from even money. “

Page 109, in “My RSW Picks for 2006”
Third bullet, it should read: “The expected wins for each team is less than (delete: its) what its expected wins would have been had it played a neutral schedule.”

Page 115, starting with the second paragraph, change the teams in the example from ATL to BAL and NYJ to CHI. ATL and NYJ are used in the previous example and it may confuse some people. So the section should read:

“Another issue to consider is when the accompanying money line on the point spread is not -110. Here is an example.

BAL -3 -120 CHI
CHI +3 +100 BAL

The line is shaded towards BAL -3, and the fair market line is BAL -3 -110. In that case, if you see BAL -2.5 on the parlay card……On the other hand, if the parlay card has CHI +3.5, then ……”

Page 124 in “3-point lead at the half”, second paragraph
Change: “Table 9 shows that the home team by 3 is worth 12 cents plus or minus 2 cents”
To: “Table 9 shows that the value of a half-point when the home team is -3 in the first half is worth 12 cents plus or minus 2 cents”

Page 124 in “Other valuable numbers”, add at the end:
“The push percentages for the 4 and 7 are both significantly higher in the first half than they are for the game (see Table 6 on page 117 to compare).”

Page 126, add to “Caution Using Table 7”
When a team has a playoff spot and position locked up going into the last week of the regular season, they may not play to win as they normally would. Sometimes the first-string players will play only a portion of the game while the back-up players play most of the game. These teams do not have winning as a primary goal, so the relationship between the first half and the game will not be like a typical NFL regular season. The tables in this chapter are not applicable for those games.

Page 135, first paragraph, delete the last two sentences (extraneous).
Delete: “Unforunately, most Super Bowl props are thinly bet. One wager can move the line.”

Page 154, in “Zigzag Theory”, third paragraph
Include: “in the previous game” into the first sentence.
It should read: “A refinement to the zigzag theory is to add in the qualification that the losing team in the previous game did not cover the point spread.”

Page 155, first paragraph, last sentence,
Add “in future games” to the end of the last sentence.
It should read: “Thus blindly betting the zigzag theory may be negative EV in future games.”

Page 157, first paragraph, third sentence.
Change to: “The money lines for the individual games are connected to both as well.” (delete: “the series money line and the exact series line”)

Page 171, first paragraph, last sentence.
13% should be 13.5%.

Page 174, second paragraph, second sentence
Add: “implied”
It should read: “Kentucky Derby winners always become fan favorites and always see their odds decrease (meaning an implied greater chance of winning) in the other two legs of the Triple Crown.”

Page 178, “Lower Odds in the Belmont”, 5th line
“legend” should be changed to “legendary”

Page 180 “Putting the Odds Together”, 4th paragraph
Changed “estimated expected winning percentage”
To: “adjusted expected winning percentage”

Page 181 “An Example From 2002”
Add sentence in ()
It should read: “I thought the “No” at -1050 looked like a good bet and made a wager on it (this was before I did the analysis shown in this chapter).”

Page 212, first line
Insert “not” in the second sentence. It should read:
“But that does not mean you should expect ….”

Page 227, “Embedded futures bet”
Delete: “The legality of the Jordan’s Furniture promotion is being debated as this book is being printed.”
(I don’t know of any debates)

Page 229, “Season Tickets”, last line of page
Change “those” to “regular-season”
“…There is strong demand for tickets to regular-season games, and so…”

Page 230, “Fantasy Sports”, second sentence.
Change: “same as are” to “similar to that”
“…Their evaluation techniques are similar to that used by sports bettors who bet on player proposition bets.”

Page 232.
Change “FezziksPlace.com” to “LasVegasAdvisor.com”

Page 232, after “Donbest.com”
Add: “GJUpdate.com: updates current lines and line movements.”

Page 235, near the bottom of the page, insert “he”
“Worthy has admitted he made a bad defensive play by jumping out and leaving his man uncovered.”

Glossary, add:
Efficient line: a line that accurately portrays the true odds in the sporting event

Chapter 10 not applicable to preseason NFL

2007-08-18T23:44:00.000-04:00

I've received a couple of emails asking about using the information in Chapter 10: NFL First Halves for preseason games. In my opinion, the data from the regular season is not applicable to the preseason.

The reason the data is useful for the regular season is that teams really do want to win regular season games. Both teams are motivated, whether they are favorites or underdogs. But in the preseason, the motivation factor can be very different from team to team, and it can depend on the quarter and half. A team could be very motivated to perform well in the 1st half as they are tuning up the starters for the regular season. Or they could be trotting the starters for just one quality series and planning on sitting them down afterwards.

In short: do not use the data in chapter 10 for the preseason. It is only useful for the regular season. In fact, a general rule that should be applied is: preseason NFL is not the same sport as regular season NFL. Attack the preseason as a completely different sport.

KC Season Win Total

2007-08-16T00:35:00.000-04:00

In a post I made on August 9, I posted that I took KC Over 7.5 wins at even money. I don't like the bet much anymore. That's because Fezzik, a handicapper I respect, announced through Jon's conference call that he liked the Under. He didn't state why he liked the under, but obviously one has to take his opinion into account. If I had known he liked Under 7.5 before I made the bet, I would have re-evaluated and possibly not bet the Over (although I would probably not take the Under as it would take too big of an adjustment for me to like the Under even given Fez's opinion). That's how strongly I value his opinion.

Interestingly, last year Fezzik and I also had different opinions on KC. He took KC Under 9 and I took Over 9. I got lucky as KC won their last two games for a total of 9 and we both pushed on the bet. There won't be any pushes this year.

SportsConferenceCall.com

2007-08-15T14:07:00.000-04:00

I'll be on Jon Spevack's conference call tonight. The call starts at 11:00pm Eastern (8pm Pacific), I'm booked to show up at 11:30pm. You can get more information from Jon's site at SportsConferenceCall.com

Sorry for the late update. I knew about the scheduling for a while, but forgot to post it on the blog. In order to listen live, you'll have to email Jon to get a password. Shows are archived and there is a link on the site.

Good explanation of baseball's waiver process

2007-08-14T11:13:00.000-04:00

The baseball trading deadline may be over, but teams can still get trades done. What? That doesn't make much sense. It is all due to the waivers process, which is often confusing to fans. Here is a good explanation of baseball's waiver process, written by Dayn Perry.

Preseason Football

2007-08-12T17:21:00.000-04:00

Here is my article in the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine on Preseason Football. The article covers basic stuff and it is only the tip of the iceberg.

Here is a post by blogguy on the LVA Sports Forum that I think is interesting regarding preseason week 1 performances: blogguy's post. Blogguy often has interesting and insightful posts. I also acknowledged him in my book for commenting on a couple of my chapters when they were in review. He's a guy that posts on internet forums and I always make sure to read his posts carefully.

edited: unfortunately it looks like blogguy's thread has been deleted from the LVA Sports forum. It could have been deleted due to a mistake or poor behavior by other posters in that thread. That's too bad. Keep an eye out for blogguy's other posts if you like to read message boards.

Other Regular Season Win bets

2007-08-09T10:09:00.000-04:00

Here are other Regular Season Win bets I made in Las Vegas. Rather than go into them in detail, I'll just list them all with my expected fair value numbers.

ARI Under 7.5 -110. FV -134
BAL Under 9 +120, +130. FV +109
CAR Under 9 -120. FV -152
CHI Under 10 -115. FV -141
DAL Under 9 +125, +120. FV +100
GB Under 7.5 -150. FV -173
KC Over 7.5 EVEN. FV -125
MIA Over 7 -130, Over 7.5 +130. FV -135, +118
PHI Under 9 +125, +120. FV -101
SF Under 7.5 +135, Under 8 -125, -130. FV +104, -156

Add those to the previously listed: OAK Over 5 EV, IND Under 10.5 +110 & NO Under 9.5 -120.

That's a total of 3 Overs with totals below 8. Of the 10 Unders, three of them are under 8 wins.

A couple of notes.
In the NFC, I think the best teams are: CHI, PHI, DAL and NO (with the last three very close). But I took the under in each of those teams. That's due to the large difference between AFC teams versus NFC teams. The expected line in the Super Bowl is AFC -6/-7. I run my season total estimations along with my playoff and Super Bowl simulations, so they are using the same data. I made sure the Super Bowl simulations calibrated so that the AFC is expected to win the Super Bowl about 67% of the time. Naturally, that means taking down the NFC teams a bit.

Several of my bets I made in Las Vegas have better lines in the offshore books. But frankly, I'm leary of leaving my money out there until the end of December. There are too many risks for my taste. Even if I trusted the offshore books, there can be exogenous events that they have no control over. Many of those exogenous events can't and won't happen to Las Vegas sportsbooks.

I'll revisit these 13 bets at the end of the year, and maybe in the middle. Remember, going 9-4 or 4-9 doesn't mean much either way. Just like going 6-0 in the bets I posted last year (see my book or archives in the blog), did not mean anything. The sample size is just too small.

Indianapolis Colts Season Win Total

2007-08-09T07:02:00.000-04:00

Last week, I made a few regular season win total bets in Las Vegas. One of them was taking the Under on the Indianapolis Colts. I made three bets that I thought had value.

Indianapolis expected wins: 10.28
Fair value: Under 10.5 -117
Wagers I made in Las Vegas: Under 10.5 EVEN, +105, +110, +115

Note 1: this seems to be a trendy pick. Pinny currently (August 9 morning) has Under 10.5 at -106.
Note 2: the line in the first game against the Saints at Pinny is Colts -6. Since I like bet both the Saints Under and the Colts Under, it means I have little rooting interest in this game (assuming I bet the same amount). It is only 1 out of 15 games, but I like the fact that the two bets hedge each other slightly. Individual game expectations (opponent, IND win probability, IND point spread)

NO 69% -6
at TEN 64% -4
at HOU 65.5% -4.5
DEN 64.5% -4.5
TB 81% -10.5
BYE
at JAX 50.5% Pick
at CAR 55.5% -2.5
NE 51.5% -1
at SD 40% +3
KC 74% -7.5
at ATL 62.5% -3.5
JAX 66.5% -5
at BAL 49% +1
at OAK 72.5% -7
HOU 81.5% -10.5
TEN 80% -10

Game 1 against the Saints is easy to estimate since there are already lines on that game. The games against SD and NE are interesting since it is a clash of the three best teams in the NFL. I have the Colts just slightly below the Chargers (I would have the Chargers higher if not for the question marks about a completely new coaching staff), thus a 3 point dog in SD. I have NE better than both the Chargers and the Colts, thus NE is only a 1 point dog in IND. Playing those two games in back-to-back weeks will be interesting.

The last three games are also interesting. I have the Colts as significant favorites at Oakland, and against Houston and Tennessee. Being that far away, the line could be very different by the time Week 15 comes around. Aside from that uncertainty, there is also the uncertainty of how much the Colts will need those games. If they are well ahead in the division, say they are 10-4 before the Houston game, it is possible the last two games mean nothing to them. For example, say JAX is only 7-7 and the Colts have the division wrapped up, and say both NE and SD are 12-2 and have tiebreaker advantage over IND, so the Colts cannot get a bye in the playoffs. While their talent may indicate they should be 10 point favorites against HOU and TEN, their situation may dictate a lower line if they do not need to win either game. Therefore, possibly this gives the Under 10.5 bet a slight advantage. Also, it may mean that the normal approximate of 50 cents for a half-win in regular season totals is not as applicable to the Colts case. A Under 11 bet seems more valuable than a typical half-win. I have read other people picking Under 11, unfortunately I did not see any sportsbooks using that line in Las Vegas.

Other notes not in the Colts' favor:
The Colts won the Super Bowl last year. Although they played well on defense in the playoffs, there are still a lot of question marks due to their defensive performance in the regular season. In addition, they lost some quality players on defense in the offseason, both to free agency (especially LB June) and injuries (DT McFarland). On offense, they are expected to be solid especially with Peyton Manning at QB. However, they did lose their left tackle (Tarik Glenn) due to retirement. Offensive linemen are often underappreciated. We never see them on a stat sheet and rarely see their good plays on replays. Most often, we only see them if they missed a block or committed a penalty. It is easier to pick out the bad ones if we constantly see the same player play poorly, but when an offensive lineman is playing well, fans rarely notice. The replacement may do a good job, but likely, he will not do as good a job as Glenn has done over the years.

The Colts have been at the top of the NFL for a few years. This means they have had high number draft picks (drafting late in each round) and thus they probably have less depth than other teams to replace the missing holes due to free agency, retirement and injury.

Being a Super Bowl champion and a Division winner, the Colts do not have an easy schedule. The two other division winners they face are New England and San Diego. Two teams many would rate higher than the Colts at this point.

The Colts are still a large favorite to win their division (I estimate about 66%, which is the third highest). Taking them to win Under 10.5 games does not mean I think they are a bad team, simply it means I think the number is slightly too high. Taking Under in teams with high win totals is usually the better way to go, and IND is a prime example.

New Orleans Saints Regular Season Win Total

2007-08-07T01:55:00.001-04:00

I went to Las Vegas this weekend and made some NFL futures bets. Most of my bets were on regular season win totals (RSW for short). Because the sportsbooks make tighter markets in those wagers (30 cent lines) than other futures, it makes sense that positive EV in RSW totals are easier to find. Over the next few days, I’ll post a few bets I made with explanations. I’ll also post these at SharpSportsBetting.com. Please visit the thread at this link to comment or read comments.

I made six different Under bets on the New Orleans Saints. I took them Under 9 and Under 9.5 (see prices below). Included are the individual game expectations that I used to arrive at the fair value prices and expected wins.

New Orleans expected wins: 8.77
Fair value: Under 9 –124, Under 9.5 –181

Wagers I made in Las Vegas:
Under 9 +115, +115, +110, +125
Under 9.5 –120, -135

Note 1: sadly, Pinny has Under 9 +131, but I can’t bet there. Arg. Well, I guess it doesn’t matter that much. In the current atmosphere, I wouldn’t play any long-term futures at any offshore book. FWIW, I've always felt Pinny was the best at individual game markets since they had an active tight market. But I often found value on relative-value plays and futures there. So I am not concerned that their line seems off, like I would be if it was an individual game where they get lots of two-way volume.
Note 2: the line in the first game against the Colts at Pinny is Colts -6

Individual game expectations (opponent, NO win probability, NO pointspread)
at IND 30.5% +6
at TB 53.5% -2.5
TEN 68.5% -6.5
BYE
CAR 60% -3
at SEA 43% +3
ATL 67% -5.5
at SF 50.5% Pick’em
JAX 55% -2.5
STL 67% -5.5
at HOU 54% -2.5
at CAR 44% +2.5
TB 69.5% -6.5
at ATL 51% -1.5
ARI 69% -6.5
PHI 56.5% -3
at CHI 38% +3.5

I think the market overestimates New Orleans. In particular, I think bettors will be thrilled to bet the Over, and the sportsbooks are aware of that so they are happy to take my Under bets. The main reason I think the market (made up of mostly squares) overestimates New Orleans is that they have a flashy offense. They have two big names at the skill position: Brees and Bush. Bush is a really exciting player. They throw the ball a lot, and fans love that. The Saints offense is flashy, thrilling, exciting and fun football to watch. But their rushing offense and defense concerns me: the Saints rushed for 3.7 yards per carry, only 25th in the NFL. The Saints defense had a tough time stopping the run, allowing 4.9 yards per carry, tied for 2nd worst in the NFL.

Another issue against the Saints is that they had a relatively easy schedule in 2006. They only won 3 games in 2005 and were able to play the designated 4th place teams from other divisions, including: GB (won 34-27) and SF (won 34-10). GB and SF were both improved in 2006 as well, but they were still only middle-of-the-pack teams and not division leaders. So the Saints did receive a little help in the schedule. They won the division in 2006, and now they get the brunt of the schedule in 2007. They have to play division winners from 2006 in PHI and CHI. The Saints may get some luck in that they play at CHI in the last game of the year. The Bears are a big favorite to win their division, so it is slightly more likely that the last game of the year won’t mean anything to them, and thus they may be playing the second-string players, allowing NO to have an easier game. But a lot of things can happen. It could turn out CHI needs that game for a Bye in the first round of the playoffs. Or maybe the Saints are 9-6 going into the game and have the division clinched, and maybe they are the ones playing the second-string.

In summary: Betting the Under in RSW bets when the total is over 8 is better than betting the Over. Flashy offenses are usually more overrated teams, and defenses are less appreciated (good or bad). The Saints have a flashy offense and a mediocre defense. The projections of the lines during the season lead to Under 9 and Under 9.5 looking like they have value.

August article on Two Plus Two

2007-08-06T23:58:00.000-04:00

I've been traveling for the past week (still traveling right now), and my laptop's hard drive crashed on me in the middle of my trip. So that's why my post for the link to my August article for the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine is so late. Well, here it is...it is on betting the NFL preseason

Review by Jeff Haney

2007-08-06T23:57:00.000-04:00

Jeff Haney wrote a nice review in the Las Vegas Sun on Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting. Here is the link: Haney's review

Culpepper funny quote

2007-08-01T07:09:00.001-04:00

Daunte Culpepper just signed with the Oakland Raiders. I think he's a good signing for the Raiders, but I still found his quote funny. On ESPN.com, they quote him as saying:

"When I became a free agent I created and ranked eight criteria that I used to evaluate potential teams that were interested in my services,'' Culpepper said. "Based on my criteria, the Oakland Raiders are the best fit.''

I can't imagine the Raiders being the best fit for any QB. Maybe he only had one critera: must be a NFL team.

Seriously though, I think Culpepper will probably play below average, but that's still an improvement for the Raiders.

ordering Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting

2007-07-28T12:33:00.000-04:00

Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting on Amazon is listed as:

Availability: Usually ships within 4 to 6 weeks.

The same thing happened when my previous book, Weighing the Odds in Hold'em Poker, was released. Amazon underestimated the demand for the books and ordered too few. Too bad they didn't learn their lesson and order more of my books to match the probable demand. The number of books they did order quickly sold out. So they are currently out-of-stock and had to put in a new order.

My publisher has told me that the 4-6 week estimate is how long it usually takes other publishers to ship books out to Amazon. For some reason, many publishers are slow in shipping out their books. But with a smaller publisher and more dedicated publisher such as Pi Yee Press, they ship out the books to the distributers as soon as they are ordered. This means the 4-6 week estimate is an overestimate and I'm guessing they should have it in about two weeks. That is exactly what happened with Weighing the Odds in Hold'em Poker. Hopefully the Amazon customers with existing orders will get their books quicker than Amazon's estimate.

Unfortunately, the display on Amazon's site of a 4-6 week delay, will probably hurt sales, at least on Amazon. Some potential buyers may see that and decide not to purchase the book due to the delay. Hopefully they will go to another site to order the book, such as BJ21.com (my publisher's site) who can ship immediately. Barnes & Noble (bn.com) and Gambler's Book Shop (gamblersbook.com) also have it. The Gambler's Book Shop is less likely to have a delay than B&N because if they run out-of-stock, they can easily get more copies from Pi Yee Press since they are both located in Las Vegas.

I'm really looking forward to see what people think of the book. The first review is already on Amazon, by daringly (a frequent poster on sports betting sites) who gave it 5 stars and a nice write-up.

Betting on the Falcons in 2007?

2007-07-25T17:51:00.000-04:00

It is beginning to look like Vick won't be playing in the NFL this year. How will this affect the Falcons? StevieY of SSB has a low opinion of Vick as a QB. Maybe it won't affect the Falcons as much as others think it will. Maybe this will make the Falcons a good underdog bet in the early part of the season. I'm hoping its a case where no one wants to bet on the Falcons, and his absence will be overrated. If that happens, the public money will be against the Falcons, and that may make them a good value play. Its definitely something I'll keep my eye on.

Selig doing the right thing

2007-07-25T07:38:00.000-04:00

I know a lot of people will disagree, but I think Bud Selig is doing the right thing by attending the Giants games when there is a chance Bonds will tie or break the all-time Home Run record. I know Bonds is a big jerk (but that's not relevant); I think there is a high chance he used steroids or HGH (but he's never been caught through testing) and I know the federal government really wants his ass (but haven't got him yet after a couple years). But the problem for Selig is that by NOT attending, he would be convicting a baseball player that is still playing and has not missed any time due to any of those problems. Selig would be making a mistake if he snubbed his nose at Bonds and at the same time allowed him to keep playing.

I've always been under the opinion that whatever credit that Selig deserves for the rise in popularity of baseball (big attendance growth, wild card good for baseball, interleague good for baseball, incredible revenues worldwide), he also deserves blame for the steroid mess. Was the attendance growth and increased popularity of baseball partially due to all the homer runs, and thus the steroid use of players? Of course. If Selig had a stronger stance against steroids back in the 90s, maybe he would have stopped players from using it to some degree, but then again, maybe the tremendous growth we've seen over the past decade would not have happened. It had seemed to me that he was trying to separate the two, and taking credit for all the good and trying to make sure he got no blame for steroids. By showing up in the possible record-tying or record-breaking games, Selig takes credit and blame for all of it. I applaud him for that.

Jayson Stark's take on ESPN.com: Selig doing exactly what the commissioner should do

Stern not anti-Las Vegas

2007-07-24T11:55:00.000-04:00

Good news for sports bettors and Las Vegas from the news conference held by David Stern. He did not throw Las Vegas under the bus. He pointed out that he now understands how Las Vegas can be used as a check against corruption.

I'm glad Stern isn't blaming Las Vegas for this scandal as others have been doing (see John L. Smith's article, linked below in the previous post). In fact, it seems the opposite. It seems Stern understands betting is a part of sports for many viewers. He mentioned that they have a connection with the Nevada Gaming Commission and another gambling consultant in Las Vegas. He mentioned how March Madness is more popular than ever, even though it is driven by the brackets - which is gambling. From my point of view, this is a good sign. Stern could have easily taken the path of lumping Las Vegas with the scandal, but he didn't. Thank you.

Some articles in the media about the NBA-Donaghy scandal

2007-07-24T11:35:00.000-04:00

Reading all the articles on the NBA-Donaghy scandal, the most important line I've read so far is:

ESPN.com: Marc Stein: Donaghy questions ... and answers

"It would be a major victory for Stern at this point, frankly, if the league can prove conclusively that no other referees are involved. Ditto for any coaches, players and team officials, naturally."

Stein hit the nail on the head. If this does not extend beyond Donaghy, then its a headache, but it will be minimized and gone soon. If it extends beyond Donaghy, then ... well, who knows how bad it could be.

Here are other articles from the mainstream media:

Las Vegas Review Journal: JOHN L. SMITH: NBA scandal prompts the usual media hand-wringing about Las Vegas
MSNBC: BOB COOK: NBA should support legalized sports betting

And an article from the "gambling media""

EOG.com: Kenneth Weitzner: Anatomy of a Betting Scandal

NBA Referee story is bad news for bettors

2007-07-21T10:28:00.000-04:00

The story about the NBA Referee shaving points is horrible news for the sports world, including for sports bettors. People watch sports because they don't know what's going to happen. It isn't scripted like a movie or a TV show, strange things can happen. But no one wants strange things to be pre-ordained by participants in the event.

Here's a more recent case outside the U.S.: baseball in Taiwan was very popular a few years ago. But then there was a gambling scandal where players purposely made errors on the field. The sport went from the biggest thing in Taiwan to absolutely nothing. The league basically disappeared almost overnight because no one could trust what they saw anymore, so they stopped watching.

Scandals like this are bigger than anything else in sports. Steroids in baseball, criminal behavior in football ... those issues do not compare to fixing scandals that change the outcome of the game. The NBA needs to do everything they can to make sure this doesn't happen anymore and make sure the public feels comfortable what they see is the real thing. It will be tough because so many officiating calls in the NBA could go either way. Now, any time there is a controversial call, the public will be suspicious. People are already suspicious, but generally those suspicions go away quickly as few people want to blame someone (player or ref) for doing the unthinkable. Now it is no longer the unthinakble. What can the NBA do? I'm not sure, but this has to be their #1 priority this year.

The NFL and major league baseball need to learn this lesson too. How often do you see on replay a holding call that really wasn't...or a hold that wasn't called? What about pass interference calls? Those calls already make people suspicious when it goes against them. Baseball seems to be doing a good job since they implemented questec a few years ago to force home plate umpires to be more consistent with each other when calling balls and strikes. I applaud them for that.

As for sports bettors, this is horrible news because it could lead to decreased betting. If the public isn't comfortable that the game is clean, then they may stop betting for fear that they'll get screwed. If the public stops betting, it means less opportunity for the sharp bettors. Additionally, the media will simply label the bad guys in the NBA referee case as "gamblers". That label will lump all gamblers and sports bettors as the bad guys in the stories. That isn't correct and won't be good for any serious sports bettor.

It's a sad day for sports and sports betting. But I guess it would be naive to think something like this would never happen. Let's hope the leagues learn from it. And let's hope they don't indict the gambling public and Las Vegas for this problem.

NFL Regular Season Wins: OAK over 5

2007-07-14T01:30:00.000-04:00

I made this post on SharpSportsBetting.com. If you have comments, please post it in the thread over there.

http://www.sharpsportsbetting.com/forums/free/nfl/index.cgi/read/12717

I made a few regular season plays last week in Vegas. One that I found fairly easily was OAK over 5 wins at even money and -110.

I thought fair value was about -159 using these line projections. The first number is the expected winning percentage for OAK, the second number is the corresponding pointspread.

DET 54% -2.5

at DEN 19% +10

CLE 56% -2.5-110

at MIA 32% +6

BYE

at SD 11% +14

KC 44% +3

at TEN 35% +4.5

HOU 52% -1

CHI 35% +4.5

at MIN 36% +3.5

at KC 28% +7

DEN 35% +5

at GB 36% +3.5

IND 30% +7

at JAX 20% +10

SD 27% +11

July article on Two Plus Two

2007-07-01T13:27:00.001-04:00

My July article is online now at the Two Plus Two website. It is titled Evaluating My Own Results. I write about evaluating my baseball prop bets that I made in the past year.

By the way, I highly recommend the other articles in the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine. Almost all the articles are on poker, I think my monthly articles are the only regular non-poker article.

Accounting for the Miami "home" game in London

2007-06-29T11:52:00.000-04:00

The NFL is trying something different this year. They are playing a regular season game on October 28th in London: the Giants versus the Dolphins. Technically it is a Dolphins home game. In reality, there should be no home field advantage for either team. The Dolphins basically have 7 home games, 8 road games and 1 neutral game. If home field is worth about 8%, then the Dolphins have lost about 0.08 expected wins. On the other hand, the Giants benefit and gain that 0.08 expected wins.

Both teams have byes after the game in London, so I would not anticipate this long trip will hurt either team for the remainder of the season.

Here is an article from the Miami Herald about the London home game forthe Dolphins:
http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/football/story/147058.html

Make sure to make this adjustment in your futures and regular-season win calculations. Those wagers will show up soon in Las Vegas especially with pre-season games starting in about a month.

WTO: Antiqua vs U.S. - now it is the world versus U.S.

2007-06-24T11:20:00.000-04:00

Here is a good article describing what is going on with the WTO Antiqua-U.S. issue about online gambling. The U.S. seem to be letting this get completely out of control. Whoever made the decision to use this tactic should be questioned by Congress.

Can the minnow beat the shark? The Antigua-US stand-off over online gaming

Review: The Book, Playing the Percentages in Baseball

2007-06-24T07:31:00.000-04:00

Review: The Book, Playing the Percentages in Baseball

By Tango, Lichtman and Dolphin

Other sabermetric books have been written in the last few years, The Book is the best one by far. It is chock full of information, results from research and answers a lot of interesting baseball questions. The three authors, Tom Tango (his blog: http://www.tangotiger.net/), Mitchel Lichtman and Andrew Dolphin have academic backgrounds and work for major league teams as employees or consultants. They use statistical methods to extract and comprehend information from a massive database of baseball games.

For the layman, there may be too much math throughout the book. However, they do a fantastic job of summarizing each idea in plain English at the end of each section. For example, in chapter 2 on hot and cold streaks, after presenting data, explaining their process and interpreting results, they summarize the section with “Knowing that a hitter has been in or is in the midset of a hot or cold streak has little predictive value. Always assume that a player will hit at his projected norm (adjusted for the park, weather, and pitcher he is facing), regardless of how he has performed in the very recent past. A player’s recent history may be used as a tiebreaker.”

Managers, players, fans and the media often put too much emphasis on results from small samples sizes. The authors warn against making this mistake. “One of the pervasive themes of this book is the danger of inferring too much from too little by underestimating the influence of randomness”. For example, they summarize a section on pitcher-batter matchups with: “Knowing a player will face a particular opponent, and given the choice between that player’s 1,500 PA (plate appearances) over the past three years against the rest of the league or twenty-five PA against that particular opponent, look at the 1,500 PA. ”

They aren’t afraid to point out when general baseball wisdom is correct. On starting pitchers, they write, “pitchers perform best with five days of rest, and worst with three days of rest. To manage our entire starting rotation effectively, four days of rest seems to be the optimal point. The current MLB pattern of scheduling the starting rotation works.”

Topics discussed include: clutch hitting, pinch hitting, players’ ability to play to the score, the meaning of individual batter-pitcher matchups, optimal batting orders, starting pitcher’s early inning performance as an indication of latter inning performance, the importance of a save attempt depending on the lead in the late innings, the value of the sacrifice bunt, the value of intentionally walking a hitter, the value of stealing bases, and others.

This book is at the top of my recommendation list for thinking baseball fans. It has a few tidbits that baseball bettors will appreciate.

Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting pre-orders

2007-06-22T22:21:00.000-04:00

Pi Yee Press is now taking pre-orders on Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting at BJ21.com.
The price is $19.95 plus shipping (plus sales tax if sent to a Nevada address).

The book will also be available at many major bookstores, the Gambler's Book Shop in Las Vegas and online bookstores as well.

Sports betting can be attacked intelligently. Smart sports bettors do not gamble the same way as tourists play roulette or retirees play the slot machines. Instead, smart sports bettors are making bets that they have thought through carefully with supporting logic and/or research. The purpose of this book is to give you tools to succeed at sports betting, to show you how to evaluate, compare and view sports betting from an analytical perspective, not from a gambling perspective.

This book by King Yao, author of the widely-acclaimed Weighing the Odds in Hold 'em Poker, should be used as a guideline to sports betting rather than a blueprint. The sports betting market changes and adapts quickly. The underlying principles shown in this book should help you adapt and continue to make good bets even when the market changes.

This book is for you if you want to think analytically about sports betting. It is for you if you do not want to be spoon-fed supposed winners, but want to get some ideas to improve your game. You battle bookmakers and line makers constantly; betting sports is a game of maneuvers and adjustments. You can use as many weapons as possible in this continuous fight. This book should help in that regard.

Good pitching means no losing streaks? What about good hitting?

2007-06-19T10:00:00.000-04:00

Over the past couple of weeks, I've heard/read baseball people mention that they don't think the Red Sox will lose the division to the Yankees because their starting pitchers will keep them out of losing streaks.

In this article on ESPN.com, Sean McAdams quotes a baseball executive:
-----------------
"I don't see it," said one baseball executive from outside the AL East. "The Yankees have a shot because of their lineup. But the Red Sox's starting pitching should keep them out of losing streaks.
------------------

This implies that a team that has quality starting pitching has a lower chance to go on a losing streak than a team that has quality hitters. It seems that many people are taking this as fact, but I think it may be one of those statements that get repeated so often that people begin to believe it as fact without really knowing it or doing any work on it. Has anyone done a study on this? Please email me (or comment in this blog) if you know of any study on this topic.

A good study would need to control for the other side. Compare teams with good hitting and poor pitching versus teams with good pitching and poor hitting. The good hitting versus the good pitching would have to be about equally good. And the poor pitching versus the poor hitting would have to be aboue equally bad.

Don't get me wrong. I do not think the Red Sox will lose the division, although there is a small probability that they could lose it. They are a heavy favorite to keep their lead. My opinion is not based on the (possible) myth that their quality pitching will prevent them from having a losing streak. My opinion is based on the fact they have an overall quality team. Very good starting pitching, great closer, and a quality lineup.