NBA: Taking Severe Underdogs - Your Opinon?

[knicknut]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its clear the bookmakers have no clue what they are doing and are just giving money away.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you actually read my post, you'd realize that this isn't a very good summary of what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. You're saying that the bookmakers are systematically undervaluing large NBA underdogs so much that it is +EV to bet on them.

He is saying that if this were the case, bookmakers wouldn't be in business.

[playersare]

interpolating season-to-date records, the knicks have a 14% chance of winning on the road and the spurs have an 11% chance of losing at home. the upsets were to both good and bad teams on each side, so no additional weight should be added to either team's probability. however, it should be noted that the "worst" team that beat SA at home this year is Chicago, which still has a reasonable chance of making the playoffs. if the Bulls are the only "bad" team (the other two were Denver and Detroit) that will beat the spurs at home out of all 41 games they host, then the "implied" odds of the knicks winning this particular road game may be as low as 2 out of 41, or 4.87% (about +2050).

also note that in those four games that the knicks won on the road, the leading scorers were:
Jan 10 @ Cleveland - Jamal Crawford 26 pts.
Dec 23 @ Utah - Jamal Crawford 28 pts.
Dec 6 @ Seattle - Jamal Crawford 31 pts.
Nov 13 @ Sacramento - Channing Frye 19 pts.

you think JC's gonna benefit from any extra looks now that Francis is starting? nope. and Frye's raw talent will yield very little against Duncan and Mohammed guarding IMO.

now, I'd at least agree that you will find lots more value in betting underdogs in the long run. however, you hardly took anything truly mathematical into account in your analysis, which, incidentally, is one of the surest ways to NOT make money in sports betting.

one last nugget - would you see the same value betting a hypothetical parlay on the knicks winning on the road (+700) AND the spurs losing at home (+900) on the SAME DAY, if they were playing different teams?

[tehmatt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its clear the bookmakers have no clue what they are doing and are just giving money away.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you actually read my post, you'd realize that this isn't a very good summary of what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. You're saying that the bookmakers are systematically undervaluing large NBA underdogs so much that it is +EV to bet on them.

He is saying that if this were the case, bookmakers wouldn't be in business.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, I never said anything near that. I asked if there was any way that taking an 18:1 dog in the NBA could carry a negative expectation over the long run. I then went on to ask at what odds is any bet on the moneyline for an underdog a good bet in the NBA. I'm curious what the lower bound for winning% against another team by the very worst teams is. I contend that even the worst team can beat the best team in the league more than 5% of the time. I understand the whole "if that's the case, bookmakers wouldn't be in business" point as it is related to them offering systematically +EV bets. The point of my original post was to discuss how much of a disadvantage a severe underdog in the NBA (or other sports if you like - I'd say it's much smaller in baseball) was actually at.

Like I said - I'm not sure how much I like those two 1/5 unit bets I made on severe dogs today. I felt like having a discussion about it, because I admit I don't know very much about how to quantify a team's edge in a game.

[tehmatt]

[ QUOTE ]
now, I'd at least agree that you will find lots more value in betting underdogs in the long run. however, you hardly took anything truly mathematical into account in your analysis, which, incidentally, is one of the surest ways to NOT make money in sports betting.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the math I did was pretty obvious. New York would have to win less than 5% of the time for this bet to have a negative expectation. I was just asking if it's really possible for one team to have a mean winning percentage of 5% versus another team.

[ QUOTE ]
one last nugget - would you see the same value betting a hypothetical parlay on the knicks winning on the road (+700) AND the spurs losing at home (+900) on the SAME DAY, if they were playing different teams?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not absolutely positive what you're poking at here. If they are playing two different teams, the results of the wagers are uncorrelated (and probably even independent). If 7:1 and 9:1 were the true odds of the events happening, (1/8 and 1/10 chance respectively), then the odds against this bet coming in are probably about 79:1. Given the size of my bankroll, no, I don't think I'd take this wager. I'd appreciate you explaining your thoughts behind posing this question, though. I'm dense. Forgive me.

[tehmatt]

I just connected the 11% and 14% figures you presented for the Spurs and Knicks. I'll have to think about this one. I suspect there is a flaw in the comparison you draw, because in your model, the Knicks don't win 1 in 50 games.

[playersare]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the size of my bankroll, no, I don't think I'd take this wager. I'd appreciate you explaining your thoughts behind posing this question, though.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: This question assumes you possess an infinite bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

[playersare]

your case:
[ QUOTE ]
I contend that even the worst team can beat the best team in the league more than 5% of the time...I admit I don't know very much about how to quantify a team's edge in a game

[/ QUOTE ]
my response:
[ QUOTE ]
if the Bulls are the only "bad" team (the other two were Denver and Detroit) that will beat the spurs at home out of all 41 games they host, then the "implied" odds of the knicks winning this particular road game may be as low as 2 out of 41, or 4.87% (about +2050). also note that in those four games that the knicks won on the road, the leading scorers were {J. Crawford, C. Frye}

[/ QUOTE ]
approaching end of 3rd quarter, here are the lines:
J. Crawford - 8 mins, 0 pts.
C. Frye - 9 mins, 7 pts.
S. Francis - 15 mins, 8 pts.
S. Marbury - 24 mins, 2 pts. (1-9 FG)

spurs by 28.

[tehmatt]

Ya, I see the game's score [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I never said I thought the Knicks would win. :P I only think that they win more than 1 in 18 times. They really blew it in the third quarter. Allowing 40 and scoring only 18 is not a very good way to win a ballgame.

Edit: only down by 22 now, this could be the greatest comeback in the history of the NBA :P

[PropPlayer]

I bet 1/22 of a unit on the knicks at 22 to 1 tonight. I'll make that same bet any day of the season, be it Charlotte, Portland, the Knicks or any other NBA team.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet 1/22 of a unit on the knicks at 22 to 1 tonight. I'll make that same bet any day of the season, be it Charlotte, Portland, the Knicks or any other NBA team.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a critical flaw in your argument: the Knicks are not an NBA team.