Jaguars money line
Quote: KeyserSozeClearly the biggest upset was Rocky Balboa's TKO victory against Ivan Drago, in Moscow.
On Cinemax right now! And it was a KO, hollywood never have a TKO ending. :p
Quote: WizardI just go off the fact that the point spread is 19. My philosophy is that I assume the market is efficient when it comes to betting against the spread and total, since those get the vast majority of action. My NFL page says the fair line for a 19-point underdog is +1222. That is found by using a statistic technique to draw a curve through this graph, never going below zero.
Am I the only one concerned that all the win percentage of all the data above a 15-point spread is 0%?
Quote: FinsRuleWas that a real answer or just a joke? 271.218?
It is the real answer. I show a 60-point underdog has a 1 in 1 in 2,713 chance of winning.
Quote:Am I the only one concerned that all the win percentage of all the data above a 15-point spread is 0%?
Thanks for bringing that up to my attention. I redid that chart a week ago, expanding the data from 2000 to 2010 to 1994 to 2012. However, I forgot to properly adjust the chart for spreads over 14.5. The corrected chart is below. It reflects that there have been 5 games with a 17.5-point spread, and the dog won one of them. This was in 1995, week 14, Washington Redskins vs. Dallas Cowboys (-17.5). The Redskins won 24 to 17.
My apologies for the error. However, this adjustment makes almost do difference in the curve. For a 19-point underdog for I changed the fair line from +1222 to +1229.
Quote: WizardThere's no such thing as luck.
Now I have to disagree. Henry Gordon, fist and smartest bookie I ever worked for, had a notable exception " The Gene Pool ".
After birth, you are on your own.
Quote: Mission146LarryS,
At plus 2250, you have to look at the break even point!
(2250 * x) - (100 * (1-x)) = 0
x = .0425531914893617
In other words, if you think JAX has a better than 4.25532% shot of winning, you have the best of it.
4.25532% chance?
Yeah, they suck, but they're still a professional football team!
I respectfully disagree with that line of thinking.
Its kind of like a person going to costo or sams club and buying a 20 pound wheel of swiss cheese for 49 dollars because its a great value per pound.When in reality they will never finish it all before it goes bad. A mathmatical "great value" is also modified by reality and common sense
Quote: LarrySI respectfully disagree with that line of thinking.
Its kind of like a person going to costo or sams club and buying a 20 pound wheel of swiss cheese for 49 dollars because its a great value per pound.When in reality they will never finish it all before it goes bad. A mathmatical "great value" is also modified by reality and common sense
I respectfully disagree with that comparison. Per the Kelly Criterion any positive bet and positive bankroll warrant some bet greater than zero: advantage*bankroll/variance.
Quote: PokeraddictI just checked the Will Hill app and they have Jags +2500 ML.
According to Kelly, you should be betting 2.03% of bankroll at those odds.
Quote: WizardI respectfully disagree with that comparison. Per the Kelly Criterion any positive bet and positive bankroll warrant some bet greater than zero: advantage*bankroll/variance.
According to Kelly, you should be betting 2.03% of bankroll at those odds.
Well then let me ask this because I dont know the answer.
Is there a difference between making a bet and getting a return on random acts like roulette or the lottery, and making a bet and getting a return on sports picks which involves some random acts, weather,and analysis of talent and individual matchups of the talent.
Quote: LarrySIs there a difference between making a bet and getting a return on random acts like roulette or the lottery, and making a bet and getting a return on sports picks which involves some random acts, weather,and analysis of talent and individual matchups of the talent.
At the end of the day, human beings play the game and not statistics. However, sometimes we have to trust our analysis and make a bet partially on faith. In my opinion, it is the advantage players that break new ground, not necessarily knowing the exact advantage they have, that reap the biggest rewards.
The underdogs beat the spread 4 of the other 6 games.
Any New England fans want to hazard a guess as to how New England fared ?
HINT : New England was at home for 4 of those games.
the numbers you speak of are opinion. There is no definate hard and fast definative number put on a game that can be proven to be factually correct.
so someone doing an analysis finding the correct return o jacksonville is +1850 may be viewed as fair, but maybe +2600 is more realistic based on my analysis.
in sports, the return is based on opinion ..the opinion of the "man" and public opinion. lines take into account ther publics proclivity to bet on or against certain teams as well as taking into account the stats, weather and matchups. This this type of setting a return does not occur in roulette, lottery, craps.
in baseball, if you bet a fave and get -140.....whois really to say if thats exactly on the mark. Can I look at it and say that its a real bargain because it should be - minus150? Or can I look at it and say I am getting screwed because it should be -130? We make opinions based on our analysis.
So if someone says jacksonville is fair at +1850, and another person thinks it should only be fair at +2750......who really is to say if either one is right or wrong. Its a guess based on your own analysis.
so using the betting entry point based on a personal guess is a little different than making a decision based on solid concrete knowledge. I dont know if the "kelly formula" takes into account difference in opinion.
Quote: BuzzardMy major with the Kelly formula is that people ignore the fact that they must - absolutely MUST - establish that they have a genuine advantage first!
I stand by this statement
there is no cold hard facts
everyone has a "feeling" that they are right
is the kelly formula based on "feelings"
Quote: WizardThanks for bringing that up to my attention. I redid that chart a week ago, expanding the data from 2000 to 2010 to 1994 to 2012. However, I forgot to properly adjust the chart for spreads over 14.5. The corrected chart is below. It reflects that there have been 5 games with a 17.5-point spread, and the dog won one of them. This was in 1995, week 14, Washington Redskins vs. Dallas Cowboys (-17.5). The Redskins won 24 to 17.
My apologies for the error. However, this adjustment makes almost do difference in the curve. For a 19-point underdog for I changed the fair line from +1222 to +1229.
No problem. Given the price you got, i still feel its obviously is a good bet, but with the regression data you have collected, it looks like the 16-20 point spread games are some of the poorest fit data on that graph. But I am guessing there wasn't a huge sample of those games either. :(
Quote: Buzzard12 Games since 1993 where the spread has been 19 points or more.
Yeah, not much at all. The data with spreads of a touchdown or less is much more robust. Regardless, I would still be quite happy with Jags at +2250.
Quote: BuzzardMy major with the Kelly formula is that people ignore the fact that they must - absolutely MUST - establish that they have a genuine advantage first!
You make a good point, Buzzard. In the case of this analysis, the EV of the bet is itself a random variable. It would be interesting and informing to see 95% confidence intervals as well on the chart. I think it would show a huge range at the higher spreads; due to the lack of data, the model is essentially being extrapolated to these points which makes it inherently noisy and unpredictable. This type of bet is very different from rolling dice or dealing cards, since you can not be sure what the probabilities are.
That being said, NO model is perfect (if it is perfect, you've overfitted your data and your model is useless)! You have to do the best with what you've got. I'm not sure what model the Wiz used, but I believe a classic approach for this type of analysis would be to use logistic regression in case anybody is interested (would have to dust off some old math books to be sure).
Sorry Mike, couldn't resist being a jerk.
Quote: WizardI just go off the fact that the point spread is 19. My philosophy is that I assume the market is efficient when it comes to betting against the spread and total, since those get the vast majority of action. My NFL page says the fair line for a 19-point underdog is +1222. That is found by using a statistic technique to draw a curve through this graph, never going below zero.
My concern is that huge underdogs often win by making a few big plays, namely big special teams plays. Shouldn't there be an adjustment for the change in kickoffs? There are many less kickoff returns in the NFL since the change. In my opinion, the huge underdogs are usually dogs because of their lack of offense, so I don't think that this rule changes affects both teams equally. The changes may not be evident since your data goes from 1994 to 2012, so the two years of kicking from the 35 yard line aren't a big part of the sample.
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/35597/kickoff-rule-change-has-big-effect-on-nfl
Any thoughts?
Quote: LarrySI respectfully disagree with that line of thinking.
Its kind of like a person going to costo or sams club and buying a 20 pound wheel of swiss cheese for 49 dollars because its a great value per pound.When in reality they will never finish it all before it goes bad. A mathmatical "great value" is also modified by reality and common sense
You're comparing a probable loss to an assumed loss.
Jaguars: +2000
Seahawks: -9900
Normally I have a lot of respect for the LVH sports book, but that is a HUGE spread.
Quote: deedubbsMy concern is that huge underdogs often win by making a few big plays, namely big special teams plays. Shouldn't there be an adjustment for the change in kickoffs? There are many less kickoff returns in the NFL since the change. In my opinion, the huge underdogs are usually dogs because of their lack of offense, so I don't think that this rule changes affects both teams equally. The changes may not be evident since your data goes from 1994 to 2012, so the two years of kicking from the 35 yard line aren't a big part of the sample. Any thoughts?
I think you're over-thinking it. As I wrote before, I assume that 19 points is a fair point spread and am basing the probability of winning off of that. I'm assuming that the public already took all those things into account when the market settled on 19 points.
Quote: LarrySis the kelly formula based on "feelings"
Not at all. It's a paper worth reading, as you can then see it's uses and abuses in sports gambling much more clearly.
There's some very important assumptions made in the Kelly Criteria (one of which Mr Buzz has alluded to).
Some decent handicappers suggest flat betting for a season is far better than using the Kelly, as it avoids having to be exact about the edge.
This has not been the case in 19 point dogs. Not at all.
I do wager a good deal of college basketball, with pretty good success and my methodology is to use power ratings, adjusted for home court and then find betting lines that are significantly different, with no apparent reason, like key injury. Unforetunately, I am too lazy and stupid to come up with my own power ratings, so I use a service.
Now, here's the tie in to this post. This post had me really considering putting some funds on the Jags. Not the money line as Wiz us doing, just the points, as this is a huge line and clearly a trap game for Seattle coming after a huge rival win on national TV, and before another big game against one of the top teams, Houston. In addition, unlike other really big lines of recent years (New England), Seattle is a defensive powerhouse first. They are often content to dominate a low scoring defensive (boring) game and win an ugly low scoring game as they did week one, winning 12-7. They also often play down to lesser opponents and save their best efforts for better teams.
So, considering this game, I referred to the power ratings of the service I use and there was an astonishing 29.8 differential. To put this in perspective the jags power rating was 12 points below the next worse team in the league! Wow!
I think I will pass. I still think the points are a decent wager, but I could also see a ho-hum Seattle win of 31-7, 38- 10, without really trying to run up the score.
Absolutely right. This is a bad game for bookies, in that laying off unbalanced action via the nickel line is difficult to do when a team is seen as so inferior. Despite their best effort to get equal action, more money is bet on favorites than dogs. And your average bettor does not want to have it known he bet on a team that might lose 42-3. That is why some of the money lines are going out of their way to discourage action with a big spread.
Think of the number of games played since 1993. And only 12 have had a spread of 19 points or higher.
Quote: kewljI don't wager much on football, either pro or college. A little bit of NFL preseason of all things, where underdogs offer 'some' value, but this year, I quit that after the second week, just not really wanting to be bothered.
I do wager a good deal of college basketball, with pretty good success and my methodology is to use power ratings, adjusted for home court and then find betting lines that are significantly different, with no apparent reason, like key injury. Unforetunately, I am too lazy and stupid to come up with my own power ratings, so I use a service.
Now, here's the tie in to this post. This post had me really considering putting some funds on the Jags. Not the money line as Wiz us doing, just the points, as this is a huge line and clearly a trap game for Seattle coming after a huge rival win on national TV, and before another big game against one of the top teams, Houston. In addition, unlike other really big lines of recent years (New England), Seattle is a defensive powerhouse first. They are often content to dominate a low scoring defensive (boring) game and win an ugly low scoring game as they did week one, winning 12-7. They also often play down to lesser opponents and save their best efforts for better teams.
So, considering this game, I referred to the power ratings of the service I use and there was an astonishing 29.8 differential. To put this in perspective the jags power rating was 12 points below the next worse team in the league! Wow!
I think I will pass. I still think the points are a decent wager, but I could also see a ho-hum Seattle win of 31-7, 38- 10, without really trying to run up the score.
I think you've nailed it with great analysis; the game really could go anywhere. I was completely torn on whether to take the under or the Jags or neither in my WoV picks. OTOH, I'd love to see the bets come in for the guys on it here.
I took the Jags, not because it's a lock, just seemed the way to go.
With all the press about this game, I expect the Jag players to show they at least belong in the NFL.
But I could be wrong again. I once thought the Toronto Maple Leafs Hockey Club was an NHL team.
Quote: BuzzardBut I could be wrong again. I once thought the Toronto Maple Leafs Hockey Club was an NHL team.
I can never trust your sports picks again now you've told me that.
On a lighter note, kick back , turn up the speakers and watch this video about the noble red man.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/13/994164/--White-man-speak-with-forked-tongue#
Just music and song with images of the greatest warrior race.
Quote: Buzzard" My concern is that huge underdogs often win by making a few big plays, namely big special teams plays."
This has not been the case in 19 point dogs. Not at all.
Do you have the box scores? I'd like to take a look, not that I don't believe you, just curious about field position.
Quote: Wizard
I think you're over-thinking it. As I wrote before, I assume that 19 points is a fair point spread and am basing the probability of winning off of that. I'm assuming that the public already took all those things into account when the market settled on 19 points.
Fair enough, I am just not convinced that the probability of a win, given the spread, has remained constant given such a big rule change.
Quote: deedubbsFair enough, I am just not convinced that the probability of a win, given the spread, has remained constant given such a big rule change.
My assumption is that it doesn't have a big effect on the game.
Quote: DRichA friend of mine just got the Jags at +2000 in Vegas and parlayed it with Oakland. I don't know what the Oakland moneyline was but his $15 two team parlay pays over $3000.
Oakland may be a good play at +15.5 against Denver on monday. Oakland does well against Denver.
Quote: BozIf the Wizard wins today, many suicide polls will be done. Seems like everyone still alive has Seattle, Denver or Minnesota today.
I had Vikings and I'm gone from mine.
I took a small 2 team parlay ML Jags and Raiders. It pays 238-1.
Quote: ahiromu12 plays, -13 yards for JAX. Something really weird is going to have to happen at halftime to turn this game around.
Such as what? Every offensive starter for the Seahawks simultaneously succumbing to a massive coronary? I want this for Wizard, obviously, but the pussycats have failed to show any sign of meaningful opposition, thus far!
Quote: Mission146Such as what? Every offensive starter for the Seahawks simultaneously succumbing to a massive coronary? I want this for Wizard, obviously, but the pussycats have failed to show any sign of meaningful opposition, thus far!
Are you still convinced that if they played this game 23 times the Jaguars would win once?
that is why proclaiming that a team would win 1 out of 22or 23 games as if its a well known fact, and using that proclamation as the entry point to make a bet is flawed.
whether the number is one out of 22, one out of 33, one out of 19 is all in the eye of the analyzer....and they all cant be right. Maybe the number is one out of 143. Who is to say.
there were people who thought +2200 was generous, some thought it was on target, and other thought it wasnt of value as maybe +2800 was more appropriate for this matchup.
the thing about football, is that each game means alot. So although miami in basketball probably lost to a far inferior team during the regular season.....in football in my opinion its a very bad bet to try to convince yourself that betting for a far inferior team to win is a good bet because the payout matches your opinion of howmany times out of a certain number of games a team could probably win.
the team that wins the superbowl will proably have lost 3-4 hames during the year, and then by definition would have lost to 4 inferior teams. That is true, but they would not have lost to the worst team in the league...AT HOME while having no significant injuries or adverse weather to blame
the jags will always be the dog throughout the year, and someone may get a nice payout when they beat one or 2 below average teams that they matchup well against. It wont be huge payouts as if they were beating the elite teams....but it will be a nice payout.
can someone win betting 100 dollars on one spin of a slot machine,...sure..but that doesnt mean its a good bet. Can someone live "playing in traffic"....sure but that doesnt mean its a prudent activity.
thats why I originally asked if this was just a throw away money "wtf" bet a few days ago. Or if people were betting seriously.
