Updated odds to win the 2015 World Series

Your Mets comment did make me lol.

The typical Vegas bettor isn't particularly sophisticated, they tend to be homer fans on a trip to the casinos who lay money on their favorite team. Which is why big market teams tend to post unusually poor payouts. There is a much smaller group of more sophisticated bettors that wager more per bet, but that's what causes the casinos to adjust the odds "away" from that team. So as to deter more betting and make other wagers more attractive. That's how they diversify their risk and make money hand over foot each season.

Some team odds correlate with team talent, some don't. If the Vegas odds correlated tightly with actual team strength the casinos wouldn't make money, they'd break even over the long haul.

FWIW, I appreciate the effort you've put into your rankings TN.

...and for the Mets...not a fan, but some food for thought: at the beginning of the NFL season, all the "experts" said Dallas would be beyond bad, possibly the worst team in their franchise history...and they ended up mighty close to playing In the NFC championship game.

Well yes, teams defy the odds at times, no doubt, it makes it fun. I actually think the Mets are Cinderella-lite in a way. It'll be very hard for them to win the division that contains the best team in baseball. But are they good enough to compete for one of the two wild card spots, yes. And their pitching is young and talented enough to make a great leap forward. The Mets have higher upside than teams built around veteran offenses, let's put it that way. A lower floor, but a higher upside.

Your Mets comment did make me lol.

The typical Vegas bettor isn't particularly sophisticated, they tend to be homer fans on a trip to the casinos who lay money on their favorite team. Which is why big market teams tend to post unusually poor payouts. There is a much smaller group of more sophisticated bettors that wager more per bet, but that's what causes the casinos to adjust the odds "away" from that team. So as to deter more betting and make other wagers more attractive. That's how they diversify their risk and make money hand over foot each season.

Some team odds correlate with team talent, some don't. If the Vegas odds correlated tightly with actual team strength the casinos wouldn't make money, they'd break even over the long haul.

Firstly, I'm glad you enjoyed my Mets comment. Secondly, I never said Vegas odds absolutely correlate with team odds; I said they functionally equate to and reflect team odds, even after adjustments.

As to the rest, we both agree there are sophisticated bettors and clueless rubes betting on baseball. We clearly disagree on how many of the bettors are the former and how many are the latter, and we can just agree to disagree on that. Either way, you can't say Vegas' odds don't reflect a teams chances, you can only claim how much Vegas adjusts it's reflection. I argue Vegas isn't going to adjust the odds away to a point they no longer entice smart gamblers as accurate; you claim they do. Again, we can just agree to disagree on that, as well.

As to the Mets, they are improving, although I don't see them in the mix for a wild card. They do have a very strong front three if Harvey, DeGrom, and Wheeler all stay healthy, and DeGrom avoids that sophomore jinx. Syndergaard took a step backwards last year with his command, and may have been passed by Matz as their best pitching prospect and most likely to help the rotation this year. They have some solid middle relievers, but their bullpen is going to be in trouble if Mejia has to close again.

Cuddyer was a nice addition, and he, Duda (who is weak against lefties), and Wright should form a solid middle of the order. However, there isn't much left after that, including Granderson's mammoth strikeouts. They're most likely going to have to wait for Nimmo and Conforto before they're ready to compete, as well as for either Syndergaard, Matz, or Montero seizing that fourth spot and making their entire rotation a beast.

keyzick i'll bet, no pun intended, that the odds on Dallas were not that great. but the fact they didn't get there proves out that whatever the odds were they were correct. also, Seattle, Green Bay and New England were the lowest odds to win it all last year.

Bump. At the Break the NL is playing out precisely as predicted, but the AL has been chaotic and full of surprises. Notably, two massive long shots are still in play by way of Minnesota and Houston. Houston in particular will be fun to watch as the trade deadline approaches. Expect regression in the Twin City. One of the AL East teams oughta supplant them in the race for 2nd Wildcard

Chipping in late, i confess, but there's a gap btw having the money for the rotation and having the players. Not sure how you rated the Red Sox so high...

Baltimore's bullpen is pretty deep, and the coaching staff doesn't hesitate to remove the starters before the hitters see them a third time. Offensively, I thiink some players will perform better, so I see the Orioles winning the East. And yes, perhaps the Yankees can squeeze in the wild card spot.

Well to be fair the Sox were favored by most pundits at season's start. They aren't totally out of it yet either. But yeah, that's why they play the games.

My personal view is that their offense has failed them more than their rotation in terms of pre-season expectations. Pedroia and their catcher got hurt, and Papi, Napoli, Sandoval, and Castillo have significantly underperformed their career norms

[quote="l.strether"]

As to the rest, we both agree there are sophisticated bettors and clueless rubes betting on baseball. We clearly disagree on how many of the bettors are the former and how many are the latter, and we can just agree to disagree on that. Either way, you can't say Vegas' odds don't reflect a teams chances, you can only claim how much Vegas adjusts it's reflection. I argue Vegas isn't going to adjust the odds away to a point they no longer entice smart gamblers as accurate; you claim they do. Again, we can just agree to disagree on that, as well.

quote]
I agree, the sportsbook dollar is more and more leaning towards the sophisticated bettor. every trip I see less and less clueless rubes betting 7 team parlays, and more serious players putting down thousand dollar bets left and right. but the smart money is nowhere near the future book. too long to wait for a payoff, and the house take too big of a piece of the pie. they get 5% of every evenly backed dollar of straight bets, and probably 15-20% of the future pools (unless something crazy happens like st Louis a few years ago). of course i'm one of the rubes with money on my dodgers to finally break thru, even though the odds are bad. the beauty of those bets are if you make the playoffs (or get in a tight race to qualify) you have action on every single game. good entertainment, but not a good investment.

poolman wrote :

I agree, the sportsbook dollar is more and more leaning towards the sophisticated bettor. every trip I see less and less clueless rubes betting 7 team parlays, and more serious players putting down thousand dollar bets left and right. but the smart money is nowhere near the future book. too long to wait for a payoff, and the house take too big of a piece of the pie. they get 5% of every evenly backed dollar of straight bets, and probably 15-20% of the future pools (unless something crazy happens like st Louis a few years ago). of course i'm one of the rubes with money on my dodgers to finally break thru, even though the odds are bad. the beauty of those bets are if you make the playoffs (or get in a tight race to qualify) you have action on every single game. good entertainment, but not a good investment

Good points.