Diner morning news: A look at odds

Michael, I LOVE your column and I love your site, but I hate your math.



New England's shift from 6-1 to 4-1 is a 33% decrease in potential money won. $100 wagered to win $400 vs. $100 wagered to win $600.



Now look at San Fran: $100 used to win you $4000, but now it wins you $3500. This is only a 17% decrease in potential winnings. New England's odds were lowered by 1/3rd, SF's were lowered by 1/8th.



See what I mean? Clearly SF makes more sense in the stayed the same category, and New England belongs in the impressed!
What's weird is that you even say, "The Patriots’ two-point shift is dramatic considering how low they were to start." Well, then why are they in the wrong category if even you know this??


Fix your math! There are probably high school kids reading this!

I'm a bit suprised that the Packers odds didn't improve but considering who their first 2 opponents were (Browns & Bills) I'm not going to get upset over it. If they continue to impress against their last 2 preseason games (Cards & Titans) then I'll be as happy as a pig in mud.

Those top three NFC North teams are going to wage some fierce battles this season. I knew Cutler was good, but seeing some of the lasers he was firing vs. NYG, as a Packer fan I am genuinely concerned. He made those receivers look good, which is not easy to do. Chicago has far less talent than GB or Minny, but they also have the best QB. Just a hunch: by week 12 Jackenfels will be starting for the Vikings as they limp into a home showdown with Chicago with a 5-6 record.

Fixed

Teams that have impressed:
Kansas City                         100/1     40/1 (60%)
Chicago                                28/1     16/1 (43%)
Buffalo                                  50/1      30/1 (40%)
Seattle                                  60/1     40/1 (33%)
Detroit                                  150/1    100/1 (33%)
New England                            6/1       4/1 (33%)
Minnesota                             22/1     15/1 (32%)
Oakland                               100/1     75/1 (25%)
Houston                                40/1     30/1 (25%)
St. Louis                              100/1     80/1 (20%)
Cleveland                              60/1      50/1 (17%)
Teams that didn't:
Indianapolis                            8/1      11/1 (38%)
Baltimore                               11/1     15/1 (36%)
Arizona                                  15/1     20/1 (33%)
Jacksonville                            30/1     38/1 (27%)
Carolina                                 12/1     16/1 (25%)
Tennessee                             12/1     16/1 (25%)
N.Y. Jets                               28/1     35/1 (25%)
Dallas                                      9/1      11/1 (22%)

Teams that stayed the same (15% swing or below)
Denver                                    35/1    40/1 +(14%)
Tampa Bay                             35/1     40/1 +(14%)

Atlanta                                   16/1       18/1 +(12.5%)
N.Y. Giants                              8/1       9/1 +(12.5%)
Miami                                    25/1     28/1 +(12%)
New Orleans                           18/1      20/1 +(11%)
Pittsburgh                                7/1      15/2 +(7%)
Washington                            25/1      25/1 0
Cincinnati                               75/1      75/1 0
Philadelphia                            12/1      11/1 -(8%)
Green Bay                              20/1      18/1 -(10%)
San Francisco                       40/1     35/1 -(12.5%)
San Diego                               14/1      12/1 -(14%)

Vegas doesnt "like" anyone, EVER. they like to balance the action. This is also why New York, New England, and L.A. teams always have worse odds in Vegas, as many tourists come from these cities and place their "homer" bets. . . Then there are the 150-1 shot that start out as fun/sexy bets and b4 season they drop to 100-1 or 90-1 cuz they same suckers will bet these odds and the house gets to hedge their payout odds. (Shoot they probably give the bettors a couple of the miracle 69 mets book). Vegas didnt "like' a team so much to drop the odds by 33%..
the shylocks are so good at what they do its amazing! ... Las Vegas is the ONLY city in America where there is no racism, no matter who you are or where you are from, if you have Green your treated the same.....
I found it hard to believe your not condoning betting or trying to make a half hearted attempt implying your not drinking the Kool-Aid, the nfl and gambling are like Sonny Corleone and the brides maid. Michael you have all this experience and can only find something to write that has to do with pre season odds, but dont condone it.....Look at the new lottery tickets for nfl teams. 12 hours after it passed, my beloved Patriots had a deal done. what a coincidence, and amazing to have anything done in Massachusetts politics that quick. We are the New England Patriots, so actually the team has rights in 6 states. 6 diff lottery ticket rights! gotta love Krafty Bob- more power to him. Now pay Wilfork-he's earned it the old fashioned way!

Those top three NFC North teams are going to wage some fierce battles this season. I knew Cutler was good, but seeing some of the lasers he was firing vs. NYG, as a Packer fan I am genuinely concerned. He made those receivers look good, which is not easy to do. Chicago has far less talent than GB or Minny, but they also have the best QB. Just a hunch: by week 12 Jackenfels will be starting for the Vikings as they limp into a home showdown with Chicago with a 5-6 record.

Mike,
I find it hilarious that you added that side note when you currently have a wager going with Matt Bowen, on a football team no less, and you refer to it in most of your posts.

Suprsed the Falcons dropped a bit.

I like the Cardinals to go back for the NFC, this team will show they are for real.

Not sold on NE yet, I think it's the Chargers year to shine.

Good grief Joe . You would take the Saints at 20/1 over Arizona at 20/1 & the Falcons at 18/1 ? If I were to make a bet for funsies , I'm taking Seattle at 40/1 . They get their qb back & their D has better talent than they showed last year . The only thing that surprises me as far as spread changes is that the Redskins didn't drop . I have a feeling they will struggle .

Swansoncide, wrong. %'s are greatly misleading here.

The niners will earn you $500 less if htey win and you placed the bet now as opposed to before. The Pats will only win you $200 less.

Extrapolate it out to giant numbers to see how wrong your thinking is.

IF a team was 1,000,000 to 1, and is now 9,000,000 to 1, its a 10% decrease, but $100 is worth $100,000,000 difference. It's not about %, its about total $ difference in potential winnings.

Levi for BURN of the day, well done.

Michael.....dont worry about the jets..theyll be fine . Im impressed that u r sticking with your mcdaniels love...cant wait til our midseason conversations when that guy fails miserably. Altho I love his hooded sweatshirt.....has to be one of the worst offseasons of all time...guy is mangini lite..

I also look forward to discussing your boy cassel...and how differnt those dump offs are gonn abe without moss and welker and the easiest schedule in the league

Lombardi,

Again, I appreciate your positive outlook on the Broncos while I think the Jets are rebuilding this year, notwithstanding Rex Ryan's intoxicating and effusive behavior. New York will rise in subsequent years. Indianapolis may not have done anything to impress the gamblers in Las Vegas but we all know the Colts are old reliable. Peyton Manning ensures the Colts at least six or seven wins a season so I don't understand why they're so lightly regarded. As always, good stuff!

Determining odds has less to do with how Vegas evaluates teams, and more to do with how Vegas sees bettors evaluating teams. Its a data management puzzle, not a football analysis puzzle. If they move a line its not because they are football experts, its because they are experts in human behavior. The goal is not just to balance the books, its to entice betting in the first place. Vegas wants as many bets as it can get, while managing their math so that no matter who wins the super bowl, the losing bets will far exceed the winning bets.

I've got a ticket for the Texans at 40-1. Bowen and I may be laughing all the way to the bank.

Mike your odds are all wrong. I work in a book and just got the updated odds.

oakland is 65/1
kc is 90/1
st louis is 125/1
buffalo is 60/1
Among others that you have way off. Get right mike,everyone knows on Mondays the updated odds come out. so much for the guy with chart showing improvement, those odds are all wrong. chiefs 60% improvement? check again buddy.

u had to know mike was gonna pad the KC odds...he still cant get over the fact that cassel was only worth a second rounder....

What isn't mentioned, and is actually controlling the change in odds, is the money coming in. At this stage of the season the oddsmakers aren't moving the numbers, the bettors are.

To all the posts explaining that the line actual moves depending on how people bet, Lombardi covers that pretty clearly in the second paragraph. But they also do change the numbers based on free agent and draft moves. That's why NYJ odds went up(they traded up and drafted a QB), NE dropped (Tom Brady's recovery went well) and teams like KC, Chicago and Denver moved simply because of QB changes.

As for looking for sleepers I'm taking Green Bay and Jacksonville. Green Bay has a weak division to beat up on and should have home field in playoffs. Making it a little easier to beat on a Philly or NYG team come January.

Jacksonville at 38-1 is equal to saying they have a 2.6% chance to win it all. Even though they're playing in a tough competive division they made a lot of nice changes this year.

They still have Garrard and MJD on offense. In Holt they finally have a decent WR, similar to Derrick Mason in Baltimore last year. They added some rookie OL in the draft (similar to quick turnaround teams like Miami last year and Cleveland before that). The rookies they added on defense last year should greatly improve between years 1 and 2.

They play the NFC West, Cleveland and Kansas City. This team could easily make playoffs or even win the division. Other than NE(who has a huge weakness in pass defense that no one is acknowledging, Tom Brady won't fix that), they could easily pull an Arizona come up with a few surprise wins and end up in the Super Bowl.

I don't think they are a favorite by any means but at 38-1, I would love to take those odds.

To all the posts explaining that the line actual moves depending on how people bet, Lombardi covers that pretty clearly in the second paragraph. But they also do change the numbers based on free agent and draft moves. That's why NYJ odds went up(they traded up and drafted a QB), NE dropped (Tom Brady's recovery went well) and teams like KC, Chicago and Denver moved simply because of QB changes.

As for looking for sleepers I'm taking Green Bay and Jacksonville. Green Bay has a weak division to beat up on and should have home field in playoffs. Making it a little easier to beat on a Philly or NYG team come January.

Jacksonville at 38-1 is equal to saying they have a 2.6% chance to win it all. Even though they're playing in a tough competive division they made a lot of nice changes this year.

They still have Garrard and MJD on offense. In Holt they finally have a decent WR, similar to Derrick Mason in Baltimore last year. They added some rookie OL in the draft (similar to quick turnaround teams like Miami last year and Cleveland before that). The rookies they added on defense last year should greatly improve between years 1 and 2.

They play the NFC West, Cleveland and Kansas City. This team could easily make playoffs or even win the division. Other than NE(who has a huge weakness in pass defense that no one is acknowledging, Tom Brady won't fix that), they could easily pull an Arizona come up with a few surprise wins and end up in the Super Bowl.

I don't think they are a favorite by any means but at 38-1, I would love to take those odds.

Dan,

Most of us know Lombardi mentioned the line moving based on bets, what you're missing is that the lines have zero reflection on what veags "thinks" will happen. The only motivator is reducing the payout where the most bets are placed (i.e. pats) and rewarding people with bigger payouts for less common bets (i.e. raiders). In a sense, Vegas just relies on the analysis of gamblers themselves.

Mike, I really like your willingness to try new ideas out in yr columns, which are very readable. So far as the odds go, it is very important to note that the goal of the oddsmakers is to balance action. That is the sole reason that they shift odds. It is a risk minimizatiion technique, since people pay vigorish on losses. The high odds teams, like St. Louis and Oakland, are listed only for idiots to bet on. They will NOT win and have to know it. It's like buying a powerball ticket, except if you just threw it away before you found out if you hit any numbers. With teams with wild fanbases, like the Pats, Eagles, Giants etc., they just plow the odds up because the fans will not be able to tolerate not betting their own teams. Trust me on this. I do this every year. And when I do win the bet, I'll have probably lost the slip anyway.
To add a little point of reference, the shift of a halfpoint in the spread of a regular season game is representative of about a $2million disparity in wagering on the opposite direction of the move. I admit that I am not sure the monetary implications of odds shifting, although I assume that it's along the same lines.

i have to be honest, why the bears have jumped up so much and the packers have jumped so low, is beyond me, while i dont think there a superbowl bound team, there a hell of a lot better than the bears, and i think can give the vikes a run for their money.

GPB, %s aren't misleading. Think of the odds on picking the correct card from a standard deck; they are 52-1 against you. Now, if I told you I could improve your odds to 39-1 by throwing out the spades, how much have your odds improved by? I think they've improved by 25%. There used to be four suits, now there are only three. 1/4 improvement.

The odds of you picking a card of the right suit at random are 4-1. Now, if I told you I could improve your odds to 2-1 by throwing out the black cards, how much have your odds improved by? I think they've improved by 50%. There used to be four suits, but now there are two. 1/2 improvement.

By your logic, (and by Lombardi's assessment) my odds have improved FAR more in the first example, even though in the second example I removed twice as many cards from the deck!

Make sense?

Swansonside, in your first example you go from a 1.92% chance to a 2.56% chance, so your odds have improved by around .6%, or they could be said to have improved by 1/3 over your original chance.

In your second example. you go from a 25% chance to a 50% chance, so your chances of success improved by 25%, doubling your chances from before the change.

That said, vegas odds are not about chances of success. Vegas odds are about the money paid for success, and there-in lies the mathematicians guide to gambling.

Lets say a sports book takes in an even $100 on each team to win the superbowl. Their income would be $3200. If the Patriots win, they only have to pay out $400, which is great. If the Detroit lions win, though they have to pay out $15,000 which is far more than they just took in. The goal then is not to take in even money on all teams. The goal then is to take in money enough money so that even if the worst case scenario happens the sports book will have made a very large profit.

What you get then is numbers trying to entice bettors to spread money across the system, while managing the payout odds in such a way that all possible payouts will be approximately the same. If you have 40 people laying $100 on the patriots as a 4/1 bet, your liability is $16,000. You want to match that up with 1 person laying $100 on a 150/1 bet like the detroit lions, with a similar liability of $16,000. If you can match those liabilitynumbers across 32 teams, averaging $2050 income per team times 32 teams you've taken in a total of $65,600. And no matter which team wins the Superbowl, your liability as a sports book is right around $16,000.

If you see you are getting a run on any one team out of the 32, you just lower the payout odds to decrease the liability if that team wins.

Now imagine you've been doing this for a while, and you've seen years worth of betting trends. You know what New York bettors are like. You know what Kansas City bettors are like. you know how fans react to free agent signings, you know how they react to a QB being hurt.

you watch the news, and when you see something that is going to drive people to bet or not bet, you move the lines.

Never once as a sports book do you have to wonder who will win. You are just balancing numbers. THAT IS ALL IT IS.

I get how football betting works, I was just trying to explain math to you guys by using an abstract example about odds. But if you want to go on believing that odds moving from 100-1 to 95-1 or 12-1 to 9-1 denote bigger improvements than 6-1 to 4-1, have at it. As Penn Jillette says, "Las Vegas was built for people who are really bad at math."

Sorry, i sort of transitioned from correcting/clarifying your math to the greater issue of how gambling works, the latter of which wasn't specifically to responding to your post. That was more about misconceptions in the general flow of conversation, and the original article itself.