Guys, you can't beat Vegas. Unless you're a fucking savant from MIT or some shit, and even then it's really really hard

Bill McNeal wrote:Right, but you could do it to minimize your down side risk, right? Buy on all the tms figuring that if the favorite wins, you'll get back something and if a higher risk bet wins then you reap the benefits. I dunno, I guess it depends on what all the odds are if it make any kind of sense at all.

it doesnt

so are the odds set up that it would be impossible to win in that scenario? i don't see how that's possible as long as a team is worse than 30-1.

FTN wrote:phillies should offer some #$!&@ pitching prospects to the nats for mike morse

You are correct, but the Nats unnatural hatred of the Phillies will preclude them from dealing. I posted over in the 'other deals' thread that Morse is the odd man out and it gets worse for him in 14 or 15 with Skole if he keeps playing the way he has. I think there would need to be some deal through a third party for him to end up in Philly no matter the logic.

1 wrote:so are the odds set up that it would be impossible to win in that scenario? i don't see how that's possible as long as a team is worse than 30-1.

if you did this, betting equal money on each team wouldn't be the way to go. Probably some kind of scaled bet based on expected value.

Might be cool to distribute like 30 bucks like this. That way you aren't out a ton.

1 wrote:i understand the math part of it. i'm asking if a "betting house" (is that a thing?) would allow it. jesus.

of course

you win they get money
you lose they get money

1 wrote:so are the odds set up that it would be impossible to win in that scenario? i don't see how that's possible as long as a team is worse than 30-1.

Not impossible just very unlikely. And that bet wouldn't make sense or be beneficial at all. It's set up to only make money if underdogs win, so you might as well put money on just the underdogs. And the way to "minimize your downside" is to just not bet as much money.

The slightly sensible thing would be to figure out what you think the odds of each team winning are on your own, then compare it to the odds they give and pick whatever teams you think have (significantly) better odds than they are giving. But since they are Vegas and you are not you are unlikely to pick more accurate odds than them.

There's going to be an internal logic to the odds, I would guess. Even if you varied your bet (e.g. bet $1 on a team that was 100-1 and $50 on a team that was 2-1 and so on) depending on odds, you'd still lose money.

If you go to the track, basically, if your horse wins, you and everyone else who picked that horse split the total money that was bet on that race, minus the track's cut. I would guess vegas sets odds in such a way that it approximates the parimuteul system.

1 wrote:so are the odds set up that it would be impossible to win in that scenario? i don't see how that's possible as long as a team is worse than 30-1.

right, unlikely. If the 31-1 team wins, you make out; if the 7-1 team wins, they take 2200 of your hard earned simoleans

Jerry Crasnick ‏@jcrasnick
#Astros prospect Jonathan Singleton suspended 50 games for marijuana use.

50 games for weed???

seems very, very excessive. multiple offenses?

Rube Knew

ek wrote:my man

SHOULDA KEPT

Youseff wrote:seems very, very excessive. multiple offenses?

Really.

40-game ban levied upon Victorino (FunDip)

jerseyhoya wrote:Jerry Crasnick ‏@jcrasnick
#Astros prospect Jonathan Singleton suspended 50 games for marijuana use.

Thats just unfair, maybe he has ADHD

That Pence trade is looking better and better.


















maybe not

Smoke em if you got em

That seems a bit drastic.