Pre-season odds on the 2008 Super Bowl winner
Paradise Poker gives the following as odds on the 2008 Super Bowl winner. Let me remind you that I do not endorse gambling of any kind and that I don't know anything about what I'm doing, so don't use these picks to go and blow your life savings.
If you add all these odds, you get a total greater than 1 (it's 1.4359). This means that to have action on every team, so that no matter who wins you'll win $200, you would have to lay out $287.17. In other words, you'd be guaranteed to lose $87. Now, if you only have action on the top 11 teams (the sum of whose odds is .9964), so that if one of them wins you'll make $200 (i.e., you lay out $50 on New England, $33.33 on San Diego, and so on), you will have laid out $199.29. Thus, as long as one of the bottom 21 teams does not win, you are guaranteed to make 71 cents. This indicates a general principal in betting. First, fix an arbitrary number for your winnings (in my case it was $200). Then, eliminate from the pool of teams on which you will be having action enough teams (those you think will lose) so that the sum of their odds is less than 1. Then multiply your arbitrary winnings total by each team's odds an lay out that amount on each team (so, for example, on New England, I multiplied 1/4 and $200 to get $50). You will lay out less than your given winnings and you will be guaranteed to make money, as long as none of the teams you eliminated wins. The smaller the total sum of the odds of the teams on which you're betting, the more money you will make if one of those teams wins.
| Team | Odds |
|---|---|
| New England | 4/1 |
| San Diego | 6/1 |
| Indianapolis | 8/1 |
| Chicago | 12/1 |
| New Orleans | 14/1 |
| Baltimore | 20/1 |
| Carolina | 20/1 |
| Cincinnati | 20/1 |
| Dallas | 20/1 |
| Denver | 20/1 |
| Philadelphia | 20/1 |
| Pittsburgh | 25/1 |
| Seattle | 25/1 |
| Jacksonville | 28/1 |
| New York Giants | 33/1 |
| San Francisco | 33/1 |
| Kansas City | 40/1 |
| New York Jets | 40/1 |
| Tennessee | 40/1 |
| Washington | 40/1 |
| Arizona | 50/1 |
| St Louis | 50/1 |
| Buffalo | 66/1 |
| Green Bay | 66/1 |
| Miami | 66/1 |
| Tampa Bay | 66/1 |
| Atlanta | 80/1 |
| Cleveland | 80/1 |
| Minnesota | 80/1 |
| Detroit | 100/1 |
| Houston | 100/1 |
| Oakland | 200/1 |
If you add all these odds, you get a total greater than 1 (it's 1.4359). This means that to have action on every team, so that no matter who wins you'll win $200, you would have to lay out $287.17. In other words, you'd be guaranteed to lose $87. Now, if you only have action on the top 11 teams (the sum of whose odds is .9964), so that if one of them wins you'll make $200 (i.e., you lay out $50 on New England, $33.33 on San Diego, and so on), you will have laid out $199.29. Thus, as long as one of the bottom 21 teams does not win, you are guaranteed to make 71 cents. This indicates a general principal in betting. First, fix an arbitrary number for your winnings (in my case it was $200). Then, eliminate from the pool of teams on which you will be having action enough teams (those you think will lose) so that the sum of their odds is less than 1. Then multiply your arbitrary winnings total by each team's odds an lay out that amount on each team (so, for example, on New England, I multiplied 1/4 and $200 to get $50). You will lay out less than your given winnings and you will be guaranteed to make money, as long as none of the teams you eliminated wins. The smaller the total sum of the odds of the teams on which you're betting, the more money you will make if one of those teams wins.
posted by Whiskey at 6:47 AM
4 Comments:
Wow. That's crazier than the constant flow reservoir. If your marriage doesn't work out, will you marry me?
But you're two. I'd have to wait like 16 years at least, and then your dad would beat me up for being an old fart interested in his daughter.
If I lose money on this, I'm suing.
Seriously, though, if this worked consistently it would just showed that they offered the wrong odds. I guess the moral of the story is that you should be the one offering the bets, not the one taking them.
SA -- 2 points. First, it won't work, because you would only make money if no long shots come in more often than once in 21 years, which is much less likely than actually occurs. Second, unlike craps or roulette, which is strictly chance, betting on sports or horse racing is a matter of intelligence. The casinos will always make money because they structure the odds so that even money will be bet on both sides. To make money in such a system, you don't need to be smarter than the house, but rather smarter than the betting public.
Post a Comment
<< Home