Is there value in Kobe under 40 points (-130) ? thoughts - Page 3

igetbadbeat · #21 03-24-2007, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the no at -155 for this bet seems like huge +++++++++EV, too good to be true. Statistically, it should be in the -900 range.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you stating that he changed his post from -900 to -500? Even though Kobe scored so much last game I thinkhe's probaby right that -900 is right. Kahnemann and Tversky have proven that streak shooting doesn't really exist and I'm pretty sure kobe scores less than 50 9/10 times.

whipsaw · #22 03-24-2007, 02:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the no at -155 for this bet seems like huge +++++++++EV, too good to be true. Statistically, it should be in the -900 range.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you stating that he changed his post from -900 to -500? Even though Kobe scored so much last game I thinkhe's probaby right that -900 is right. Kahnemann and Tversky have proven that streak shooting doesn't really exist and I'm pretty sure kobe scores less than 50 9/10 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was fixing his post to what I thought was the correct line

volkin · #23 03-24-2007, 02:31 PM

thanks, -250 now

iggymcfly · #24 03-24-2007, 02:52 PM

Streak shooting might not exist, but making a conscious decision to take over the offense and start taking 30 shots a game does. I think it's pretty obvious that Kobe's done just that. I'm sure there was plenty of value at -150, but I think -900's way too high. Something like -300 seems reasonable.

whipsaw · #25 03-24-2007, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Streak shooting might not exist, but making a conscious decision to take over the offense and start taking 30 shots a game does. I think it's pretty obvious that Kobe's done just that. I'm sure there was plenty of value at -150, but I think -900's way too high. Something like -300 seems reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah mine was just an off the cuff response. After looking at it for a bit, I think that a -500 or -600 line is about accurate. I also think that Golden State is a poor choice of team to score 50 against, FWIW, despite the fact that they give up a ton of points in general.

Card08 · #26 03-24-2007, 03:03 PM

Yeah, I wonder how much Kobe goes out looking to hang 50 on somebody. He hit 42 on Golden State earlier this year with 10 or so fewer FG attempts than he has been averaging. One thing working in favor of the under may be that GS is so bad on defense that plenty of the other Lakers, especially Lamar, can get involved.

-Card

whipsaw · #27 03-24-2007, 03:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I wonder how much Kobe goes out looking to hang 50 on somebody. He hit 42 on Golden State earlier this year with 10 or so fewer FG attempts than he has been averaging. One thing working in favor of the under may be that GS is so bad on defense that plenty of the other Lakers, especially Lamar, can get involved.

-Card

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the GS defense is in general underrated because of the raw # of points they give up per game. But I think that "defense quality" is not really that helpful in analyzing whether Kobe will score 50 against them, it's more the type of defense GS runs and player Kobe is.

steelbase · #28 03-24-2007, 03:15 PM

I did like 10-15 mins of research before placing the bet, and went through his point totals for all games this season. He had something like 11.58 standard deviation so 50-30.8 = 19.2/11.58 = 1.66 deviations -> 4.85%. Against the Warriors he averaged 34 pts, though 2 games is hardly a decent sample, w/ st. dev of 11.31. So.... 50-34 = 16/11.31 = 1.41 deviations -> 7.93%. Add a few percentage pts due to external factors and a very conservative estimate means he should get <50 pts roughly 85-90% of the time. 85% equals a -567 line, which I feel should be the absolute minimum line for this bet. (And yes, I'm really bored)

igetbadbeat · #29 03-24-2007, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I did like 10-15 mins of research before placing the bet, and went through his point totals for all games this season. He had something like 11.58 standard deviation so 50-30.8 = 19.2/11.58 = 1.66 deviations -> 4.85%. Against the Warriors he averaged 34 pts, though 2 games is hardly a decent sample, w/ st. dev of 11.31. So.... 50-34 = 16/11.31 = 1.41 deviations -> 7.93%. Add a few percentage pts due to external factors and a very conservative estimate means he should get <50 pts roughly 85-90% of the time. 85% equals a -567 line, which I feel should be the absolute minimum line for this bet. (And yes, I'm really bored)

[/ QUOTE ]

Stats suck IMO, unless you have a crapload of data.

whipsaw · #30 03-24-2007, 03:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I did like 10-15 mins of research before placing the bet, and went through his point totals for all games this season. He had something like 11.58 standard deviation so 50-30.8 = 19.2/11.58 = 1.66 deviations -> 4.85%. Against the Warriors he averaged 34 pts, though 2 games is hardly a decent sample, w/ st. dev of 11.31. So.... 50-34 = 16/11.31 = 1.41 deviations -> 7.93%. Add a few percentage pts due to external factors and a very conservative estimate means he should get <50 pts roughly 85-90% of the time. 85% equals a -567 line, which I feel should be the absolute minimum line for this bet. (And yes, I'm really bored)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a huge fan of this analysis either, although it produces a similar line to what I estimated.