NBA: Taking Severe Underdogs - Your Opinon?

tehmatt · #1 02-27-2006, 12:41 PM

So, I was looking at the moneylines at Pinnacle this morning, and I couldn't help but notice a couple 4 digit number moneylines. Pinnacle is listing the Knicks as +1800 against the Spurs and the Trail Blazers as +1200 against the Kings. My question is this: is there anyway that taking both of these bets can carry a negative expectation? I just can't see any team in professional sports being an 18:1 underdog when they play another team. 12:1, maybe. I'm still very, very, doubtful that it's possible for one team to have such an advantage over the other. It just seems to me like these lines are the result of WAY too much money going on one side.

As a secondary question, if you don't think 12:1 or 18:1 is good enough to take an underdog in professional basketball every time, at what point would you take the bet without even thinking about the teams and instead, just basing your decision on the odds you are getting? Personally, I think 18:1 sounds about right. I placed a fifth of a unit on both of these games, and I'm hoping one of them comes through. If not, oh well - I just hope the Suns don't screw me tonight.

Edit: This question assumes you possess an infinite bankroll.

Runner Runner · #2 02-27-2006, 12:48 PM

I would take the Knicks to beat the Spurs at 40 to 1 no problem.

I would also take UConn to beat the Spurs at 30 to 1.

PropPlayer · #3 02-27-2006, 01:04 PM

I'm interested in this answer also. I've made 2 plays in the past 2 weeks on underdogs more than 12 to 1 in the NBA. In both cases the team almost won, I would have won betting the line because both easily covered but the games were close, I only lost a very small amount because I was betting to win 1 unit.
I’ve been finding a lot of dogs with what appears to be substantial ML value recently.

PropPlayer · #4 02-27-2006, 01:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would take the Knicks to beat the Spurs at 40 to 1 no problem.

I would also take UConn to beat the Spurs at 30 to 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL took me the second time reading this to get what you were saying.

jmillerdls · #5 02-27-2006, 04:13 PM

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

Koss · #6 02-27-2006, 04:17 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

As for the picks, I like the Knicks. +1800 is quite a price. They sure do suck, but with their new roster they could have some suprise games.

smbruin22 · #7 02-27-2006, 05:49 PM

i think the theory on the knicks is good... huge talented underachievers that could come together for a great game or so every once in awhile... at 17 to 1, you get the benefit of potential injuries etc. too

playersare · #8 02-27-2006, 06:23 PM

if it was earlier in the season, the dog moneylines would have more value. however, at this point of the year, no western conference team still in contention can afford to give up on a single game, especially those against sub-.333 teams at home.

the spurs and kings may not cover the spread, but neither the knicks or the blazers have any tangible incentive to get in the way of them winning outright. SAC has win 9 straight at Arco, and San Antonio is 23-3 at home vs. NY 4-23 on the road. I'd personally lay those odds before taking them.

tehmatt · #9 02-27-2006, 08:04 PM

[ 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.

tehmatt · #10 02-27-2006, 08:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if it was earlier in the season, the dog moneylines would have more value. however, at this point of the year, no western conference team still in contention can afford to give up on a single game, especially those against sub-.333 teams at home.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I certainly understand this line of reasoning, do you believe that this precludes the Knicks from being able to win, period?

[ QUOTE ]

the spurs and kings may not cover the spread, but neither the knicks or the blazers have any tangible incentive to get in the way of them winning outright. SAC has win 9 straight at Arco, and San Antonio is 23-3 at home vs. NY 4-23 on the road. I'd personally lay those odds before taking them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe the Knicks are 18:1 dogs... maybe they aren't. What I want to know is at what odds would you unquestionably take them? Does any professional sports team really only win 5% of the time against another team? I'm not saying that the bet I made was perfect, but what I want to know is: at what point WOULD it be? What odds are absolutely too good to pass up?