Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Poll results for APBR_analysis

Expand Messages
  • aaronkoo
    Not really having done much research before making my selection, I can definitely see why a few people picked the Spurs. We ll do this again right before the
    Message 1 of 23 , Mar 7, 2003
      Not really having done much research before making my selection, I
      can definitely see why a few people picked the Spurs.

      We'll do this again right before the playoffs to see what happens to
      general opinion.

      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
      wrote:
      > Very interesting that somebody picked Detroit, or any Least team
      for that
      > matter as there are at least 6 West teams that look better than any
      of them
      > to me. Not trying to embarrass anybody, just wondering if the
      voter still
      > feels that way after Detroit recently went 0-6 in a stretch of road
      games
      > against the West?
      >
      > APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      > >
      > > The following APBR_analysis poll is now closed. Here are the
      > > final results:
      > >
      > > POLL QUESTION: Who will win the NBA Title in 2003
      > > (your guess as of 3/1/03)?
      > >
      > > CHOICES AND RESULTS
      > > - Dallas Mavericks (44-12), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - Sacramento Kings (39-18), 7 votes, 53.85%
      > > - San Antonio Spurs (38-17), 3 votes, 23.08%
      > > - Detroit Pistons (37-18), 1 votes, 7.69%
      > > - New Jersey Nets (37-20), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - Indiana Pacers (37-19), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - Portland Trail Blazers (35-20), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - Minnesota Timberwolves (36-21), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - Utah Jazz (33-22), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - Boston Celtics (31-24), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - Philadelphia 76ers (31-24), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - Los Angeles Lakers (30-25), 2 votes, 15.38%
      > > - Phoenix Suns (30-26), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - New Orleans Hornets (31-27), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - Milwaukee Bucks (28-27), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - Orlando Magic (28-29), 0 votes, 0.00%
      > > - Other, 0 votes, 0.00%
      > >
      > > INDIVIDUAL VOTES
      > > - Dallas Mavericks (44-12)
      > > - Sacramento Kings (39-18)
      > > - kpelton08@h...
      > > - nikoz6@y...
      > > - cwfrizzell@y...
      > > - deano@r...
      > > - harlanzo@y...
      > > - Andrew.Golding@t...
      > > - medeas_child@y...
      > > - San Antonio Spurs (38-17)
      > > - mone@s...
      > > - chaboard@n...
      > > - igorkupfer@r...
      > > - Detroit Pistons (37-18)
      > > - msg_53@h...
      > > - New Jersey Nets (37-20)
      > > - Indiana Pacers (37-19)
      > > - Portland Trail Blazers (35-20)
      > > - Minnesota Timberwolves (36-21)
      > > - Utah Jazz (33-22)
      > > - Boston Celtics (31-24)
      > > - Philadelphia 76ers (31-24)
      > > - Los Angeles Lakers (30-25)
      > > - collardg@e...
      > > - andyf@b...
      > > - Phoenix Suns (30-26)
      > > - New Orleans Hornets (31-27)
      > > - Milwaukee Bucks (28-27)
      > > - Orlando Magic (28-29)
      > > - Other
      >
      > --
      > Gary Collard
      > SABR-L Moderator
      > collardg@e...
      >
      > "Every time I see the U.S. flag, I don't see the flag only
      > representative of a country, but I see it as a symbol of
      > democracy and of freedom."
      > -- Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
    • Mike G
      ... for that ... of them Yeah, I was playing the odds. The odds of any one team in the West are diminished by competition within the conference. So even
      Message 2 of 23 , Mar 7, 2003
        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
        wrote:
        > Very interesting that somebody picked Detroit, or any Least team
        for that
        > matter as there are at least 6 West teams that look better than any
        of them

        Yeah, I was playing the odds.

        The odds of any one team in the West are diminished by competition
        within the conference. So even reaching the Finals seems a 25%
        chance at best, from the west.

        In the East, my Pacers were looking soft. The big guys haven't
        proven themselves in postseason, Reggie can't carry them all forever,
        and Artest is, well...

        Pistons looked like they may have the best chance of Reaching the
        Finals; and maybe the West representative will be exhausted, injured,
        etc.

        When I was a kid, there was a contest to predict the score of some
        big basketball game. Our high school was a big favorite, but my
        older brother picked the other team. We lost, and he won, not
        because the score was terribly close, but because he was the Only kid
        who picked us to lose. (Didn't make him especially popular).

        What amazes me here and now is how this group has stampeded into the
        Kings camp. Not one vote for the Mavs.
      • bchaikin@aol.com
        if no one else is going to take dallas......i will......with shawn bradley being finals mvp with a record 7 blocks per game.... (while i m dreaming a corvette
        Message 3 of 23 , Apr 20, 2003

          if no one else is going to take dallas......i will......with shawn bradley being finals mvp with a record 7 blocks per game....

          (while i'm dreaming a corvette would be nice too).....

          bob chaikin
          bchaikin@...
        • Gary Collard
          ... The one I checked late last week had SA and Sac at 2/1, the Lakers at 2.25/1, and Dallas at 4.5/1. ... Dallas 2-8 record against those three teams?
          Message 4 of 23 , Apr 21, 2003
            aaronkoo wrote:
            >
            > Well, these are the results that I was curious to get. People favor
            > a team with a lower record -- the Kings. The team with the co-best
            > record, Dallas, doesn't get respect. Does anyone know what the Vegas
            > line was at the start of the playoffs?

            The one I checked late last week had SA and Sac at 2/1, the Lakers at
            2.25/1, and Dallas at 4.5/1.

            > What are people seeing?

            Dallas' 2-8 record against those three teams? (games without Shaq and
            Duncan ignored).

            To be honest, I wonder why Dallas was so low at 4.5/1, I think that the 3
            elite teams make up *at least* 95% of the probability.

            Has a poor defense, horrible rebounding, jump shooting team ever won the
            title? I can't think of one, but I could be forgetting somebody.

            One more thought on the Mavs - earlier in the year we discussed the wisdom
            of the Mavs expending so much energy in the regular season, particularly
            early. Not sure how much play it got nationwide, but the Mavs complained
            after every game of being a very tired team from the end of March forward.
            So I think we got our answer to that question.

            --
            Gary Collard
            SABR-L Moderator
            collardg@...
          • Michael Tamada
            ... From: Gary Collard [mailto:collardg@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 8:39 PM ... [...] ... Yeah they ARE getting 95% of the probability and
            Message 5 of 23 , Apr 21, 2003
              -----Original Message-----
              From: Gary Collard [mailto:collardg@...]
              Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 8:39 PM

              >aaronkoo wrote:
              >>
              >> Well, these are the results that I was curious to get. People favor
              >> a team with a lower record -- the Kings. The team with the co-best
              >> record, Dallas, doesn't get respect. Does anyone know what the Vegas
              >> line was at the start of the playoffs?
              >
              >The one I checked late last week had SA and Sac at 2/1, the Lakers at
              >2.25/1, and Dallas at 4.5/1.

              [...]

              >To be honest, I wonder why Dallas was so low at 4.5/1, I think that the 3
              >elite teams make up *at least* 95% of the probability.

              Yeah they ARE getting 95% of the probability and more, too much more.
              Let's convert those odds into probabilities:

              SA: .333
              Sac .333
              LAL .308
              Dal .182
              ----
              Sum 1.156


              Those oddsmakers have set mathematically impossible odds. Of course with
              betting there has to be some sort of "vig" or margin for the oddsmakers to
              make money off of, but even if the next 4 playoff contenders are 19-1
              longshots, the sum of the resulting probabilities is creating a pretty fat
              margin in excess of 1.0.


              >Has a poor defense, horrible rebounding, jump shooting team ever won the
              >title? I can't think of one, but I could be forgetting somebody.

              People have listed a number of reasons why Dallas is so unfavored, but I
              think this is by far the most important reason. Forget the won-loss or
              head-to-head records; what does a championship team look like? Pretty
              much like a team which has the opposite characteristics of the Mavericks,
              while still having about the same won-loss record.

              That's why the Spurs get my vote too. The Lakers are not hitting on all
              cylinders yet (and beating up on the TWolves doesn't count), though I
              grant that they're probably about tied for 2nd best chance at the
              championship. The Kings are not as extreme as the Mavs but share their
              high-scoring ways (remember that great playoff series last year between
              the Kings and Mavs? Most entertaining playoff series in a long while,
              too bad we knew that the high-flying winner would likely be brought down
              to earth by a playoff opponent playing the currently dominant slowdown
              NBA style.) The Spurs in contrast to the Kings and Mavs have the shape
              of a late 20th/early 21st century NBA champion: dominant MVP caliber
              player inside (or alternatively have Michael Jordan on your team), defensive
              capabilities, and enough offensive firepower in the supporting cast.


              --MKT
            • aaronkoo
              ... favor ... best ... Vegas ... at ... Not following odds very much, shouldn t they when converted to percentages, add up to something less than or equal to
              Message 6 of 23 , Apr 21, 2003
                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
                wrote:
                > aaronkoo wrote:
                > >
                > > Well, these are the results that I was curious to get. People
                favor
                > > a team with a lower record -- the Kings. The team with the co-
                best
                > > record, Dallas, doesn't get respect. Does anyone know what the
                Vegas
                > > line was at the start of the playoffs?
                >
                > The one I checked late last week had SA and Sac at 2/1, the Lakers
                at
                > 2.25/1, and Dallas at 4.5/1.
                >

                Not following odds very much, shouldn't they when converted to
                percentages, add up to something less than or equal to 1? These sum
                up to 1.16. Is that because these are a guess (from memory)?

                DeanO
              • Michael Tamada
                ... From: Michael Tamada Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 10:40 PM [...] ... [...] ... I should add that I would be happy to have these predictions proven wrong:
                Message 7 of 23 , Apr 21, 2003
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Michael Tamada
                  Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 10:40 PM

                  [...]

                  >head-to-head records; what does a championship team look like? Pretty
                  >much like a team which has the opposite characteristics of the Mavericks,
                  >while still having about the same won-loss record.

                  [...]

                  >high-scoring ways (remember that great playoff series last year between
                  >the Kings and Mavs? Most entertaining playoff series in a long while,
                  >too bad we knew that the high-flying winner would likely be brought down
                  >to earth by a playoff opponent playing the currently dominant slowdown


                  I should add that I would be happy to have these predictions proven wrong:
                  to have a speed-it-up, run-and-gun team to win the NBA championship would
                  be a refreshing change of pace and would encourage the use of faster more
                  entertaining playing styles in the NBA. It would also be good to see a
                  team which uses depth instead of 1 or 2 MVP caliber players to win a
                  championship, which hasn't happened since the late 1980s Pistons and
                  late 1970s Sonics. Not that I really like the Mavs all that much, but
                  still they represent a change of pace.

                  But as we discussed several months ago when we discussed the "1-2 MVP"
                  strategy vs "deep roster" strategy: there's been a clear pattern in terms
                  of what types of teams win the NBA championship, and the Spurs and Lakers
                  have that pattern, the Kings only do to a small extent, and the Mavs do not.


                  --MKT
                • Richard Scott
                  ... Nope, because they you have bankrupt bookmakers.
                  Message 8 of 23 , Apr 21, 2003
                    > Not following odds very much, shouldn't they when converted to
                    > percentages, add up to something less than or equal to 1? These sum
                    > up to 1.16. Is that because these are a guess (from memory)?
                    >
                    > DeanO
                    >


                    Nope, because they you have bankrupt bookmakers.
                  • Gary Collard
                    ... The Dallas could be wrong, the others are right (can t find them archived in a quick look), but what you are seeing here is that there is a lot of
                    Message 9 of 23 , Apr 22, 2003
                      aaronkoo wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <collardg@e...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > aaronkoo wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Well, these are the results that I was curious to get. People
                      > favor
                      > > > a team with a lower record -- the Kings. The team with the co-
                      > best
                      > > > record, Dallas, doesn't get respect. Does anyone know what the
                      > Vegas
                      > > > line was at the start of the playoffs?
                      > >
                      > > The one I checked late last week had SA and Sac at 2/1, the Lakers
                      > at
                      > > 2.25/1, and Dallas at 4.5/1.
                      > >
                      >
                      > Not following odds very much, shouldn't they when converted to
                      > percentages, add up to something less than or equal to 1? These sum
                      > up to 1.16. Is that because these are a guess (from memory)?

                      The Dallas could be wrong, the others are right (can't find them archived
                      in a quick look), but what you are seeing here is that there is a lot of
                      vig/juice on these kinds of bets.

                      --
                      Gary Collard
                      SABR-L Moderator
                      collardg@...
                    • Richard Scott
                      pretty standard for futures/horse racing type bets, to have 1.5% or so per runner, again, otherwise, no money to bet made...
                      Message 10 of 23 , Apr 22, 2003
                        pretty standard for futures/horse racing type bets, to have 1.5% or so per
                        runner, again, otherwise, no money to bet made...
                        >
                        > The Dallas could be wrong, the others are right (can't find them archived
                        > in a quick look), but what you are seeing here is that there is a lot of
                        > vig/juice on these kinds of bets.
                        >
                        > --
                      • aaronkoo
                        ... so per ... I never really thought about this stuff. How do they make their money on point spread bets? (Is there any bias in point spreads that we as
                        Message 11 of 23 , Apr 23, 2003
                          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Scott" <rnmscott@b...>
                          wrote:
                          > pretty standard for futures/horse racing type bets, to have 1.5% or
                          so per
                          > runner, again, otherwise, no money to bet made...
                          > >

                          I never really thought about this stuff. How do they make their
                          money on point spread bets? (Is there any bias in point spreads that
                          we as researchers need to account for?)

                          The line on the first LA-Min game was LA favored by 1. I didn't see
                          it on the 2nd game. I'd think that if these point spreads aren't
                          biased, we could get at what Vegas really thinks the odds are.

                          DeanO
                        • schtevie2003
                          ... ... 1.5% or ... spreads that ... see ... As I understand it, point spread bets - like all lines - are all biased in the sense that they do
                          Message 12 of 23 , Apr 23, 2003
                            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "aaronkoo"
                            <deano@r...> wrote:
                            > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Scott"
                            <rnmscott@b...>
                            > wrote:
                            > > pretty standard for futures/horse racing type bets, to have
                            1.5% or
                            > so per
                            > > runner, again, otherwise, no money to bet made...
                            > > >
                            >
                            > I never really thought about this stuff. How do they make their
                            > money on point spread bets? (Is there any bias in point
                            spreads that
                            > we as researchers need to account for?)
                            >
                            > The line on the first LA-Min game was LA favored by 1. I didn't
                            see
                            > it on the 2nd game. I'd think that if these point spreads aren't
                            > biased, we could get at what Vegas really thinks the odds are.
                            >
                            > DeanO

                            As I understand it, point spread bets - like all lines - are all
                            biased in the sense that they do not purport to represent
                            expected outcomes. They are instead designed to ensure that
                            there is equal action on both sides, thereby minimizing the
                            bookmakers risk. Thus, they are unbiased only to the degree
                            that the able and willing bettors' perceptions are unbiased.
                          • Medea's Child
                            ... I m hardly an expert gambler, but I believe this is correct: the ideal situation for a bookmaker (at least, from a risk perspective) is a heavy volume of
                            Message 13 of 23 , Apr 23, 2003
                              --- schtevie2003 <schtevie@...> wrote:
                              > As I understand it, point spread bets - like all
                              > lines - are all
                              > biased in the sense that they do not purport to
                              > represent
                              > expected outcomes. They are instead designed to
                              > ensure that
                              > there is equal action on both sides, thereby
                              > minimizing the
                              > bookmakers risk. Thus, they are unbiased only to
                              > the degree
                              > that the able and willing bettors' perceptions are
                              > unbiased.
                              >
                              >
                              I'm hardly an expert gambler, but I believe this is
                              correct: the ideal situation for a bookmaker (at
                              least, from a risk perspective) is a heavy volume of
                              betting equal on both sides, with the bookmaker
                              assured of a profit from the "vig". If a specific
                              team is popular, it could conceivably give an extra
                              point or two in order to encourage betting on the
                              other side.

                              Medea's Child
                              >


                              __________________________________________________
                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
                              http://search.yahoo.com
                            • aaronkoo
                              ... So then, the line reflects the betting public at large s opinion of who will win, assuming that they are only trying to maximize profit (and that bets
                              Message 14 of 23 , Apr 23, 2003
                                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Medea's Child
                                <medeas_child@y...> wrote:
                                > --- schtevie2003 <schtevie@h...> wrote:
                                > > As I understand it, point spread bets - like all
                                > > lines - are all
                                > > biased in the sense that they do not purport to
                                > > represent
                                > > expected outcomes. They are instead designed to
                                > > ensure that
                                > > there is equal action on both sides, thereby
                                > > minimizing the
                                > > bookmakers risk. Thus, they are unbiased only to
                                > > the degree
                                > > that the able and willing bettors' perceptions are
                                > > unbiased.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > I'm hardly an expert gambler, but I believe this is
                                > correct: the ideal situation for a bookmaker (at
                                > least, from a risk perspective) is a heavy volume of
                                > betting equal on both sides, with the bookmaker
                                > assured of a profit from the "vig". If a specific
                                > team is popular, it could conceivably give an extra
                                > point or two in order to encourage betting on the
                                > other side.

                                So then, the line reflects the betting public at large's opinion of
                                who will win, assuming that they are only trying to maximize profit
                                (and that bets based on pure emotion are rare enough to be ignored).
                                Right? The opening line may reflect a more expert opinion?

                                What's a "vig"?
                              • Medea's Child
                                I *believe* that the below is more or less correct (but, unfortunately, I can t provide a cite). However much the opening line looks like a prediction (Lakers
                                Message 15 of 23 , Apr 23, 2003
                                  I *believe* that the below is more or less correct
                                  (but, unfortunately, I can't provide a cite).

                                  However much the opening line looks like a prediction
                                  (Lakers by "x", Kings by "y", etc), as I understand
                                  it, it's really designed to keep betting roughly equal
                                  on both sides. That keeps profits up and risks down.
                                  (I suppose that a bookmaker stands to make more if
                                  more money is bet on the losing side, however, he's
                                  then at risk if more money is bet on one side, and
                                  that side WINS. If the money is equally balanced on
                                  both sides, it's a guaranteed profit for the
                                  bookmaker.

                                  "Vig" is short for Vigorish, the fee/commission paid
                                  to the bookmaker. This, I *can* provide a cite for:

                                  http://www.professionalgambler.com/vigorish.html

                                  To repeat, I'm not a sports bettor, just someone who
                                  did a little bit of reading, once, how sports betting
                                  works.

                                  Medea's Child


                                  --- aaronkoo <deano@...> wrote:
                                  > So then, the line reflects the betting public at
                                  > large's opinion of
                                  > who will win, assuming that they are only trying to
                                  > maximize profit
                                  > (and that bets based on pure emotion are rare enough
                                  > to be ignored).
                                  > Right? The opening line may reflect a more expert
                                  > opinion?
                                  >
                                  > What's a "vig"?
                                  >
                                  >


                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
                                  http://search.yahoo.com
                                • schtevie2003
                                  ... More precisely, the opening line reflects the bookmaker s perception of what the betting public s expenditure-weighted average opinion is, and this opinion
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Apr 23, 2003
                                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "aaronkoo" <deano@r...> wrote:
                                    > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Medea's Child
                                    > <medeas_child@y...> wrote:
                                    > > --- schtevie2003 <schtevie@h...> wrote:
                                    > > > As I understand it, point spread bets - like all
                                    > > > lines - are all
                                    > > > biased in the sense that they do not purport to
                                    > > > represent
                                    > > > expected outcomes. They are instead designed to
                                    > > > ensure that
                                    > > > there is equal action on both sides, thereby
                                    > > > minimizing the
                                    > > > bookmakers risk. Thus, they are unbiased only to
                                    > > > the degree
                                    > > > that the able and willing bettors' perceptions are
                                    > > > unbiased.
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > I'm hardly an expert gambler, but I believe this is
                                    > > correct: the ideal situation for a bookmaker (at
                                    > > least, from a risk perspective) is a heavy volume of
                                    > > betting equal on both sides, with the bookmaker
                                    > > assured of a profit from the "vig". If a specific
                                    > > team is popular, it could conceivably give an extra
                                    > > point or two in order to encourage betting on the
                                    > > other side.
                                    >
                                    > So then, the line reflects the betting public at large's opinion of
                                    > who will win, assuming that they are only trying to maximize profit
                                    > (and that bets based on pure emotion are rare enough to be ignored).
                                    > Right? The opening line may reflect a more expert opinion?
                                    >
                                    > What's a "vig"?

                                    More precisely, the opening line reflects the bookmaker's perception of
                                    what the betting public's expenditure-weighted average opinion is, and
                                    this opinion could be dumb or smart. As to the sporting events where
                                    there is more dumb money, I think these are well known to bookmakers,
                                    and aren't rare enough to be ignored. If I correctly recall overheard
                                    discussions on the matter, the Super Bowl draws in fools where regular-
                                    season NBA basketball games, say, don't. Accordingly, games where
                                    there is apt to be little action - again, say your average regular
                                    season game - the opening line can be thought to better reflect an
                                    unbiased expectation of the game outcome.

                                    As to what a vig is, that is the 10% that the loser (?) pays to the
                                    bookmaker.
                                  • Michael Tamada
                                    ... From: schtevie2003 [mailto:schtevie@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:09 PM [...] ... Here s some of the results of research which have been
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Apr 23, 2003
                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: schtevie2003 [mailto:schtevie@...]
                                      Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:09 PM

                                      [...]

                                      >More precisely, the opening line reflects the bookmaker's perception of
                                      >what the betting public's expenditure-weighted average opinion is, and
                                      >this opinion could be dumb or smart. As to the sporting events where
                                      >there is more dumb money, I think these are well known to bookmakers,
                                      >and aren't rare enough to be ignored. If I correctly recall overheard
                                      >discussions on the matter, the Super Bowl draws in fools where regular-
                                      >season NBA basketball games, say, don't. Accordingly, games where
                                      >there is apt to be little action - again, say your average regular
                                      >season game - the opening line can be thought to better reflect an
                                      >unbiased expectation of the game outcome.

                                      Here's some of the results of research which have been done on this,
                                      which are somewhat (but not completely) contradictory:

                                      1. For several years someone in Iowa I think has run an internet political
                                      betting room ... err futures market. People bet/buy futures in the outcome
                                      of say the presidential election. Half for fun, but half serious: this is
                                      real money, and the researchers who organize the market have compared the
                                      accuracy of this "market" prediction of the presidential outcomes to the
                                      predictions of the political pundits. Allegedly the market is usually of
                                      above average accuracy. Needless to say, it doesn't predict every election
                                      outcome correctly, but it is usually more accurate than the average pundit.

                                      2. I haven't seen heavy duty research into say Super Bowl betting vs regular
                                      season NBA bets but certainly the anecdotes that I've read about agree with
                                      what Schtevie says. There's also localized irrationality: one of the
                                      advantages of bookies with national connections is that they can balance
                                      the heavy preponderance of bets on say the Univ of Nebraska football team that
                                      get made in Lincoln NB vs the preponderance of bets on the Univ of Miami team
                                      that get made in Florida. The one piece of research showing irrational betting
                                      that I've seen was done on horse racing: the author claimed that bettors too
                                      often make "win" bets instead of "show" bets. I believe that they also bet
                                      on longshots too often.


                                      Bottom line, how good are the Vegas lines in revealing "expert" opinion on
                                      likely winners? Hmm, it'd probably be easy enough to compare the accuracy
                                      of their forecasts to some published sports pundit's forecasts. I'm guessing
                                      the Vegas lines would be at least as accurate as they typical sportswriter.


                                      I still wonder about those odds: we only were given the odds for the Top 4
                                      teams but the resulting probabilities already summed to 1.16. Even if the
                                      other 12 teams are longshots, adding in their probabilities of winning is going
                                      to result in numbers well in excess of 1.0, and as I originally observed:

                                      Those oddsmakers have set mathematically impossible odds. Of course with
                                      betting there has to be some sort of "vig" or margin for the oddsmakers to
                                      make money off of, but even if the next 4 playoff contenders are 19-1
                                      longshots, the sum of the resulting probabilities is creating a pretty fat
                                      margin in excess of 1.0.


                                      --MKT
                                    • Gary Collard
                                      ... The vig on point spreads is (traditionally, now it is 5-8% at many books) 10%, so the bettor will win 100 or lose 110, for example. If the bookmaker takes
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Apr 23, 2003
                                        aaronkoo wrote:
                                        >
                                        > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Scott" <rnmscott@b...>
                                        > wrote:
                                        > > pretty standard for futures/horse racing type bets, to have 1.5% or
                                        > so per
                                        > > runner, again, otherwise, no money to bet made...
                                        > > >
                                        >
                                        > I never really thought about this stuff. How do they make their
                                        > money on point spread bets? (Is there any bias in point spreads that
                                        > we as researchers need to account for?)

                                        The vig on point spreads is (traditionally, now it is 5-8% at many books)
                                        10%, so the bettor will win 100 or lose 110, for example. If the bookmaker
                                        takes 10 of these bets on each side, he will pay one group 1000 and collect
                                        from the other 1100, a profit of 100. Of course the action is usually
                                        unbalanced, but you see the concept.

                                        There are definitely biases in spreads, things that will move them toward a
                                        team and away from another include popularity, current form, historical
                                        factors, etc. An example of a historical factor is that playoff teams down
                                        0-1 tend to cover game 2, thus for example New Jersey was 7 the first game
                                        but after a win dropped to 6 the second game.

                                        > The line on the first LA-Min game was LA favored by 1. I didn't see
                                        > it on the 2nd game. I'd think that if these point spreads aren't
                                        > biased, we could get at what Vegas really thinks the odds are.

                                        LAL opened at 1 and closed at 2 or 2.5 on Sunday. After looking so good,
                                        they opened 2 and colsed at mostly 3.5 the second game, despite the ternd
                                        noted above not many wanted any part of Min. Rest assured that the books
                                        enjoyed that game more than the most ardent Laker hater :)

                                        --
                                        Gary Collard
                                        SABR-L Moderator
                                        collardg@...
                                      • Gary Collard
                                        ... This is absolutely true, they are set to do some combination of balancing action, limiting risk, and beating professional/big money bettors or wise guys.
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Apr 23, 2003
                                          schtevie2003 wrote:
                                          >
                                          > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "aaronkoo"
                                          > <deano@r...> wrote:
                                          > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Scott"
                                          > <rnmscott@b...>
                                          > > wrote:
                                          > > > pretty standard for futures/horse racing type bets, to have
                                          > 1.5% or
                                          > > so per
                                          > > > runner, again, otherwise, no money to bet made...
                                          > > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > I never really thought about this stuff. How do they make their
                                          > > money on point spread bets? (Is there any bias in point
                                          > spreads that
                                          > > we as researchers need to account for?)
                                          > >
                                          > > The line on the first LA-Min game was LA favored by 1. I didn't
                                          > see
                                          > > it on the 2nd game. I'd think that if these point spreads aren't
                                          > > biased, we could get at what Vegas really thinks the odds are.
                                          > >
                                          > > DeanO
                                          >
                                          > As I understand it, point spread bets - like all lines - are all
                                          > biased in the sense that they do not purport to represent
                                          > expected outcomes. They are instead designed to ensure that
                                          > there is equal action on both sides, thereby minimizing the
                                          > bookmakers risk. Thus, they are unbiased only to the degree
                                          > that the able and willing bettors' perceptions are unbiased.

                                          This is absolutely true, they are set to do some combination of balancing
                                          action, limiting risk, and beating professional/big money bettors or "wise
                                          guys." A common misperception is that if Dallas is favored by 6 tonight
                                          that means that "Vegas" (really the Carribean and Australia these days,
                                          Vegas has lost most if its influence) thinks that Dallas is 6 points
                                          better. That is not necessarily true, although it is oftimes close.

                                          --
                                          Gary Collard
                                          SABR-L Moderator
                                          collardg@...
                                        • Gary Collard
                                          ... The first move after the opener is probably the most expert opinion. The less informed, public action on a game tedns to come in reltively close to
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Apr 23, 2003
                                            aaronkoo wrote:
                                            >
                                            > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Medea's Child
                                            > <medeas_child@y...> wrote:
                                            > > --- schtevie2003 <schtevie@h...> wrote:
                                            > > > As I understand it, point spread bets - like all
                                            > > > lines - are all
                                            > > > biased in the sense that they do not purport to
                                            > > > represent
                                            > > > expected outcomes. They are instead designed to
                                            > > > ensure that
                                            > > > there is equal action on both sides, thereby
                                            > > > minimizing the
                                            > > > bookmakers risk. Thus, they are unbiased only to
                                            > > > the degree
                                            > > > that the able and willing bettors' perceptions are
                                            > > > unbiased.
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > I'm hardly an expert gambler, but I believe this is
                                            > > correct: the ideal situation for a bookmaker (at
                                            > > least, from a risk perspective) is a heavy volume of
                                            > > betting equal on both sides, with the bookmaker
                                            > > assured of a profit from the "vig". If a specific
                                            > > team is popular, it could conceivably give an extra
                                            > > point or two in order to encourage betting on the
                                            > > other side.
                                            >
                                            > So then, the line reflects the betting public at large's opinion of
                                            > who will win, assuming that they are only trying to maximize profit
                                            > (and that bets based on pure emotion are rare enough to be ignored).
                                            > Right? The opening line may reflect a more expert opinion?

                                            The first move after the opener is probably the most "expert" opinion. The
                                            less informed, "public" action on a game tedns to come in reltively close
                                            to game time, while pros hit the early lines (overnights in the case of
                                            basketball).

                                            --
                                            Gary Collard
                                            SABR-L Moderator
                                            collardg@...
                                          • Gary Collard
                                            ... This is true. Football, and particularly pro football, is where the common fan has the most influence over the line. Regular season basketball is bet
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Apr 23, 2003
                                              schtevie2003 wrote:
                                              >
                                              > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "aaronkoo" <deano@r...> wrote:
                                              > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Medea's Child
                                              > > <medeas_child@y...> wrote:
                                              > > > --- schtevie2003 <schtevie@h...> wrote:
                                              > > > > As I understand it, point spread bets - like all
                                              > > > > lines - are all
                                              > > > > biased in the sense that they do not purport to
                                              > > > > represent
                                              > > > > expected outcomes. They are instead designed to
                                              > > > > ensure that
                                              > > > > there is equal action on both sides, thereby
                                              > > > > minimizing the
                                              > > > > bookmakers risk. Thus, they are unbiased only to
                                              > > > > the degree
                                              > > > > that the able and willing bettors' perceptions are
                                              > > > > unbiased.
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > I'm hardly an expert gambler, but I believe this is
                                              > > > correct: the ideal situation for a bookmaker (at
                                              > > > least, from a risk perspective) is a heavy volume of
                                              > > > betting equal on both sides, with the bookmaker
                                              > > > assured of a profit from the "vig". If a specific
                                              > > > team is popular, it could conceivably give an extra
                                              > > > point or two in order to encourage betting on the
                                              > > > other side.
                                              > >
                                              > > So then, the line reflects the betting public at large's opinion of
                                              > > who will win, assuming that they are only trying to maximize profit
                                              > > (and that bets based on pure emotion are rare enough to be ignored).
                                              > > Right? The opening line may reflect a more expert opinion?
                                              > >
                                              > > What's a "vig"?
                                              >
                                              > More precisely, the opening line reflects the bookmaker's perception of
                                              > what the betting public's expenditure-weighted average opinion is, and
                                              > this opinion could be dumb or smart. As to the sporting events where
                                              > there is more dumb money, I think these are well known to bookmakers,
                                              > and aren't rare enough to be ignored. If I correctly recall overheard
                                              > discussions on the matter, the Super Bowl draws in fools where regular-
                                              > season NBA basketball games, say, don't. Accordingly, games where
                                              > there is apt to be little action - again, say your average regular
                                              > season game - the opening line can be thought to better reflect an
                                              > unbiased expectation of the game outcome.

                                              This is true. Football, and particularly pro football, is where the common
                                              fan has the most influence over the line. Regular season basketball is bet
                                              mostly by more sophisticated players, with the playoffs and particularly
                                              the NCAA tourney becoming a bit more "public."

                                              A good discussion of opening lines written by a friend of mine is at
                                              http://www.whocovers.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.cgi?name=ar5

                                              --
                                              Gary Collard
                                              SABR-L Moderator
                                              collardg@...
                                            • Michael Tamada
                                              I don t think that your vote is an outlier in any standard statistical sense; we know that the mean and median vote is in the 60-70% range, and your 55% vote
                                              Message 22 of 23 , May 11, 2004
                                                I don't think that your vote is an outlier in any standard statistical sense; we know that the mean and median vote is in the 60-70% range, and your 55% vote puts you in the category just below that. Two voters, in the 80-90% range, are located two categories distant from the mean and median range.



                                                --MKT


                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: Mike G [mailto:msg_53@...]
                                                Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:32 AM
                                                To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
                                                Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Poll results for APBR_analysis


                                                The collective subjective guesstimate averages out to 70% as the
                                                answer to this question:

                                                > POLL QUESTION: How often (on defense) is a player
                                                > guarding the equivalent position
                                                > player from the other team?..>
                                                > CHOICES AND RESULTS

                                                > - 80-90%, 2 votes, 16.67%
                                                > - 70-80%, 3 votes, 25.00%
                                                > - 60-70%, 6 votes, 50.00%
                                                > - 50-60%, 1 votes, 8.33%

                                                If we discount the outlier at the 55% spot (mine), the average jumps
                                                to 71%.









                                                Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.