Updated odds to win the 2015 World Series

never heard of a "betting trend" on a season bet? long range futures bets open and then the amount of money wagered moves the odds.

Yeah, semantics, but we're saying the same thing

ok, but a betting trend is this. Green Bay has covered 5 straight at home against Chicago Bears or New England has gone over the total 6 out of its last 7 games at home.

Vegas's odds also get influenced by betting trends, and don't necessarily equate to real chances of teams winning.

ok, but a betting trend is this. Green Bay has covered 5 straight at home against Chicago Bears or New England has gone over the total 6 out of its last 7 games at home.

Yeah, Scorehouse has got it right about betting trends. Also, Las Vegas isn't going to set odds un-related to each team's actual odds to win. So Vegas' odds do substantially "equate" to real chances of teams winning. If they're too much worse than the team's actual odds to win, no knowledgeable better is going to take them. If they're better than the actual odds, Vegas and other bookies aren't going to give them.

i can't believe it! strether finally agrees with me on something! dag nab it!

Yeah, who would have thought. We should signal the Underworld and tell them to start the defrosting...

Touche!

Keyzick is right about how Vegas sets their odds. Has much more to do with the public's perception of team strength than actual team strength, although those can align closely in a given year. Vegas is interested in making money not getting the predictions right so (1) their odds don't add up to 100% whereas mine do and (2) they move/change the odds to even out the betting on both sides of a team's wager as a way of hedging against the "wrong" team winning it all.

If you compare Vegas' odds historically to the prediction systems on sabrmetric sites, one thing you'll see even after correcting for Vegas' built in edge (lowering the payouts to less than 100% as a whole) is that large market teams tend to be viewed as stronger by the betting public than sabrmetricians. Mets, Cubs, Yanks, Chisox, usually Bosox all tend to be lousy bets compared to their actual strength. Not sure that's true about Boston this year though, as that team seems loaded to me while the public bemoans the lack of a true Ace starter. Acquirable at the deadline to pair with that monster offense. Good enough.

Keyzick is right about how Vegas sets their odds. Has much more to do with the public's perception of team strength than actual team strength, although those can align closely in a given year. Vegas is interested in making money not getting the predictions right so (1) their odds don't add up to 100% whereas mine do and (2) they move/change the odds to even out the betting on both sides of a team's wager as a way of hedging against the "wrong" team winning it all.

That would only be the case if public perception of team's strength had nothing to do with actual team strength, but it does. Many gamblers betting on baseball have a solid if not keen awareness of the teams they are betting on. Therefore, even though there is variation, and movement, Vegas' odds do relate to team strength. And as I said in my previous post, If the odds are too much worse than the team's actual odds to win, no knowledgeable better is going to take them. If they're better than the actual odds, Vegas and other bookies aren't going to give them. That gives Vegas further reason to make their odds reflect the teams' actual odds to win.

If you compare Vegas' odds historically to the prediction systems on sabrmetric sites, one thing you'll see even after correcting for Vegas' built in edge (lowering the payouts to less than 100% as a whole) is that large market teams tend to be viewed as stronger by the betting public than sabrmetricians. Mets, Cubs, Yanks, Chisox, usually Bosox all tend to be lousy bets compared to their actual strength.

As I mentioned in my previous post, many gamblers betting on baseball are smart enough to know better, and Vegas's odds realistically account for that. So, Vegas' odds still reflect actual team strength, despite the random rubes who make poor bets on large market teams. Also, many large market teams--including the Cubs, Chisox, Dodgers, Red Sox, and Angels--are going to be strong this year, so Vegas' odds will be even more accurate. My analysis of the White Sox on this thread showed exactly why they'll be competitive this year.

And nobody is betting on the Mets this year, not even the Wilpons.