Latest Vegas odds for regular season wins

[caulfield12]

http://i.imgur.com/lLBXsuK.png

 

 

I thought this was the closest thing to accurate out there right now...compared to all the stats-oriented sites.

 

Sox at 82 wins, Cubs at 81....Tigers at 86 1/2, Royals 83 and Indians 81. Twins at 68 1/2. Btw, the Astros have a lot of work to do to face the Cubs in the 2017 World Series, still at only 73 1/2.

 

Can't say that I would be supremely disappointed (because it would be another big improvement record-wise) but it depends if most of those wins come in the 2nd half when the team's too far out, or the record is even better and someone runs away with it and guys like Samardzija are dealt (or maybe there's an injury in the pitching staff, Ramirez or OF, etc.)

 

Probably it's setting up to feel more like 2012, except with a lot more optimism for the future as opposed to feeling the results that year were kind of fluky with all the rookie pitchers overperforming until the end.

[lvjeremylv]

http://i.imgur.com/lLBXsuK.png

 

 

I thought this was the closest thing to accurate out there right now...compared to all the stats-oriented sites.

 

Sox at 82 wins, Cubs at 81....Tigers at 86 1/2, Royals 83 and Indians 81. Twins at 68 1/2. Btw, the Astros have a lot of work to do to face the Cubs in the 2017 World Series, still at only 73 1/2.

 

Can't say that I would be supremely disappointed (because it would be another big improvement record-wise) but it depends if most of those wins come in the 2nd half when the team's too far out, or the record is even better and someone runs away with it and guys like Samardzija are dealt (or maybe there's an injury in the pitching staff, Ramirez or OF, etc.)

 

Probably it's setting up to feel more like 2012, except with a lot more optimism for the future as opposed to feeling the results that year were kind of fluky with all the rookie pitchers overperforming until the end.

That's why they play the games, though. It's a loooong season, and as we've seen before in sports, ANYTHING can happen. The Sox have question marks just like every other team in baseball, so let's get out there and see what happens. If they can manage to stay healthy, I like their chances at being competitive day in and day out. That's all you can ask for as a fan.

[caulfield12]

That's why they play the games, though. It's a loooong season, and as we've seen before in sports, ANYTHING can happen. The Sox have question marks just like every other team in baseball, so let's get out there and see what happens. If they can manage to stay healthy, I like their chances at being competitive day in and day out. That's all you can ask for as a fan.

 

 

Yep, can't wait for March 4th...first spring training game (and first baby's due date March 3rd).

 

Seems like it is taking forever this year. Maybe that's because there's so much more excitement this year....definitely the most since 2011, and maybe going all the way back to 2006.

 

 

(Normally, fwiw, the first weekend in April is the coolest because of the Final Four, start of the regular season and the Masters all hitting at the same time, along with the nicer weather).

[AlSoxfan]

Yep, can't wait for March 4th...first spring training game (and first baby's due date March 3rd).

 

Seems like it is taking forever this year. Maybe that's because there's so much more excitement this year....definitely the most since 2011, and maybe going all the way back to 2006.

 

 

(Normally, fwiw, the first weekend in April is the coolest because of the Final Four, start of the regular season and the Masters all hitting at the same time, along with the nicer weather).

First baby? who're going to name him after?..lol

Agreed that is a good time of the year an it looks like Vegas is picking an Angels/Nats WS

[caulfield12]

First baby? who're going to name him after?..lol

Agreed that is a good time of the year an it looks like Vegas is picking an Angels/Nats WS

 

 

I was fighting for Robert because that's my dad's name, Roberto Clemente and Robert F. Kennedy.....but it sounds like "robot" in Chinese English so I have compromised to Ethan Robert if it's a boy.

 

For a girl, Chloe or Zoe(y). Probably Zoe(y), because Chloe is a perfume and also for the Salinger short story. Chloe sounds too much like a celebrity kid's name, although Zoe kind of does, too.

 

"One Dog" or "Lance On Point" are tempting. Or The Deacon.

 

 

As for the Angels' pick, a lot depends on Richards' health. He was their ace last year before the injury. And I wouldn't be betting on anything more from Hamilton and Pujols than what they provided last year.

[Quin]

I was fighting for Robert because that's my dad's name, Roberto Clemente and Robert F. Kennedy.....but it sounds like "robot" in Chinese English so I have compromised to Ethan Robert if it's a boy.

 

For a girl, Chloe or Zoe(y). Probably Zoe(y), because Chloe is a perfume and also for the Salinger short story. Chloe sounds too much like a celebrity kid's name, although Zoe kind of does, too.

 

"One Dog" or "Lance On Point" are tempting. Or The Deacon.

 

 

As for the Angels' pick, a lot depends on Richards' health. He was their ace last year before the injury. And I wouldn't be betting on anything more from Hamilton and Pujols than what they provided last year.

 

Congrats Caulfield!

 

Totally go with One Dog.

[Soxfest]

Yep, can't wait for March 4th...first spring training game (and first baby's due date March 3rd).

 

Seems like it is taking forever this year. Maybe that's because there's so much more excitement this year....definitely the most since 2011, and maybe going all the way back to 2006.

 

 

(Normally, fwiw, the first weekend in April is the coolest because of the Final Four, start of the regular season and the Masters all hitting at the same time, along with the nicer weather).

Congrats on the baby...............March looking good for you. 82 wins sounds pretty fair.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Soxfest

[AlSoxfan]

I was fighting for Robert because that's my dad's name, Roberto Clemente and Robert F. Kennedy.....but it sounds like "robot" in Chinese English so I have compromised to Ethan Robert if it's a boy.

 

For a girl, Chloe or Zoe(y). Probably Zoe(y), because Chloe is a perfume and also for the Salinger short story. Chloe sounds too much like a celebrity kid's name, although Zoe kind of does, too.

 

"One Dog" or "Lance On Point" are tempting. Or The Deacon.

 

 

As for the Angels' pick, a lot depends on Richards' health. He was their ace last year before the injury. And I wouldn't be betting on anything more from Hamilton and Pujols than what they provided last year.

Well you could go with Robin either way...grins but those are all good names an by the way I forgot to say congrats

I'd take the over on 82 wins but don't think I'd bet our Sox for the WS win but can't really be counted out. I'm really not sure who in the AL though, could be a few different teams there. The Nats do look pretty solid in the NL. Seems like it's always a wild card team that wins it though. Gonna be a good yr. I think, a lot of teams are able to win it this yr....not many push-overs

[caulfield12]

Congrats on the baby...............March looking good for you. 82 wins sounds pretty fair.

 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-01...nt_19287298.htm

Everyone's in a rush not to have a "sheep" baby (Chinese Zodiac) or to waiting until next year because they believe they're too docile and pliant...on the other hand, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were born in the Year of the Sheep.

 

82 sounds right, 77 is too low (Baseball Prospectus)...and whatever fangraphs or baseball-reference are projecting.

[caulfield12]

Well you could go with Robin either way...grins but those are all good names an by the way I forgot to say congrats

I'd take the over on 82 wins but don't think I'd bet our Sox for the WS win but can't really be counted out. I'm really not sure who in the AL though, could be a few different teams there. The Nats do look pretty solid in the NL. Seems like it's always a wild card team that wins it though. Gonna be a good yr. I think, a lot of teams are able to win it this yr....not many push-overs

 

 

The Mariners are a popular pick, obviously...there's clearly (at least now) no dominant AL team.

 

The Yankees and Red Sox are both going through transition periods.

 

LA is relying on a repeat from Calhoun, plus Matt Joyce, David Freese, Rutledge, Iannetta, there's too many question marks, IMO. Richards, Weaver, CJ Wilson, Shoemaker, Heaney and Santiago is the rotation. Weaver has been more hittable with diminished velocity, Wilson has been borderline Danks-ish...Shoemaker/Heaney/Santiago are all wildcards, although Shoemaker was a pleasant surprise.

 

Baltimore, KC and the Tigers haven't improved from last season. Theoretically, the Blue Jays could surprise as well...maybe the Rangers.

[hi8is]

(and first baby's due date March 3rd).

Congrats! My first born was welcomed last March 8th

You're gonna be learning more about life and the human experience than words could ever convey.

 

Cheers!

[NorthSideSox72]

So here's what people constantly seem to forget. When these entities set odds, and set O/U wins, that is NOT them saying what is actually most likely to occur. You need to think of setting betting lines of all types as similar to pricing in any other business. That means the level of demand plays a role.

 

Now when you talk to people in Vegas, they will tell you there are certain teams who will always get a LOT of bets on the "buys side", most specifically the Cubs, Red Sox and Yankees. What that means is, they don't have to give odds or lines that are as good for those teams. In other words, if they think the Cubs O/U is really like 75 wins, they may for example set it at 80 anyway. It gives them more room for error, and likely does very little to decrease the number of people putting down money. Same thing happens with odds, where maybe they are 40-1 but they'll set them at 30-1 instead.

 

You just have to remember these are businesses looking to make money off the bets. Their ultimate goal is not to accurately predict an outcome - that is a contributing factor, not a final result.

 

 

[ewokpelts]

I put $5 on the sox to win the pennant as well as the WS. My wife's aunt and uncle goes enough that I'll have him make a few bets for me. He usually hits the lv hilton as that book has better odds, as well as the lines for the pennant( some just do WS win)

[Butter Parque]

So here's what people constantly seem to forget. When these entities set odds, and set O/U wins, that is NOT them saying what is actually most likely to occur. You need to think of setting betting lines of all types as similar to pricing in any other business. That means the level of demand plays a role.

 

Now when you talk to people in Vegas, they will tell you there are certain teams who will always get a LOT of bets on the "buys side", most specifically the Cubs, Red Sox and Yankees. What that means is, they don't have to give odds or lines that are as good for those teams. In other words, if they think the Cubs O/U is really like 75 wins, they may for example set it at 80 anyway. It gives them more room for error, and likely does very little to decrease the number of people putting down money. Same thing happens with odds, where maybe they are 40-1 but they'll set them at 30-1 instead.

 

You just have to remember these are businesses looking to make money off the bets. Their ultimate goal is not to accurately predict an outcome - that is a contributing factor, not a final result.

 

I bet college basketball religiously. Everything you are say is true. At the same time, its hard to argue with Vegas' numbers because they come in quite close, quite often. On a daily basis, I watch it in amazement as they come dangerously close on Toledo-Miami (OH). Vegas is not putting the Sox at 80 if they do not believe they will be right around that number. if you are trying to get even money on both sides, the best way to do it is to be accurate. And Vegas is quite good at that. having said that, I think anything below 86 wins would be a huge disappointment.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Butter Parque

[NorthSideSox72]

I bet college basketball religiously. Everything you are say is true. At the same time, its hard to argue with Vegas' numbers because they come in quite close, quite often. On a daily basis, I watch it in amazement as they come dangerously close on Toledo-Miami (OH). Vegas is not putting the Sox at 80 if they do not believe they will be right around that number. if you are trying to get even money on both sides, the best way to do it is to be accurate. And Vegas is quite good at that. having said that, I think anything below 86 wins would be a huge disappointment.

IT certainly won't be way off, not like 10 wins or anything in this scenario. But these are not game matchups, so it exposes one-sided money, therefore it has a larger effect than in a specific game.

 

[Balta1701]

IT certainly won't be way off, not like 10 wins or anything in this scenario. But these are not game matchups, so it exposes one-sided money, therefore it has a larger effect than in a specific game.

Really, you're certain this team can't win 90 games?

[southsider2k5]

Really, you're certain this team can't win 90 games?

 

I wouldn't say "certain", but I would put it out there around a second standard deviation possibility.

[Balta1701]

I wouldn't say "certain", but I would put it out there around a second standard deviation possibility.

That would mean that the Vegas odds are off by more than 10 wins for 1.5 teams every year.

 

Last year there were 3 teams that outperformed their Vegas odds (found here) by 9.5 wins or more, the largest was the Orioles who outperformed by 18 wins. There were 4 teams that underperformed by 9.5 wins or more, the largest was the Rangers who were off by 19.5 wins, so 7/30 teams were off by 9.5 wins. Vegas missing by 10 wins is a 1-standard deviation event. Vegas missing by 20 wins is a 2nd standard deviation possibility.

 

The average miss last season was 6.57 wins.

 

y-Baltimore Orioles 18

New York Yankees -1.5

Toronto Blue Jays 3.5

Tampa Bay Rays -10.5

Boston Red Sox -16.5

y-Detroit Tigers 0.5

w-Kansas City Royals 9.5

Cleveland Indians 5

Chicago White Sox -4

Minnesota Twins -1.5

z-Los Angeles Angels 10.5

w-Oakland Athletics -1

Seattle Mariners 6.5

Houston Astros 6.5

Texas Rangers -19.5

z-Washington Nationals 8.5

Atlanta Braves -8.5

New York Mets 5.5

Miami Marlins 7.5

Philadelphia Phillies -3

y-St. Louis Cardinals -1.5

w-Pittsburgh Pirates 3.5

Milwaukee Brewers 2.5

Cincinnati Reds -7.5

Chicago Cubs 4.5

y-Los Angeles Dodgers 0.5

w-San Francisco Giants 2.5

San Diego Padres -1.5

Colorado Rockies -9.5

Arizona Diamondbacks -16

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Really, you're certain this team can't win 90 games?

Um, what? I wasn't making a prediction at all, I was talking about how Vegas establishes lines and odds. I have yet to make a prediciton about the Sox myself, and if I did I'd certainly say 90 is possible (though maybe not likely).

 

[Balta1701]

Um, what? I wasn't making a prediction at all, I was talking about how Vegas establishes lines and odds. I have yet to make a prediciton about the Sox myself, and if I did I'd certainly say 90 is possible (though maybe not likely).

I took that from the statement "it certainly won't be way off, not like 10 games" about their prediction of the white sox winning 80.

[hi8is]

I think it'd be fun to put 10k on the over for Sox wins... Would make watching all 162 take on a new meaning. Hummmm....

[NorthSideSox72]

I took that from the statement "it certainly won't be way off, not like 10 games" about their prediction of the white sox winning 80.

Thought it was pretty clear, I was talking about their assessment. Meaning, if they think the Cubs win 75, they may put the line at 80. Has zero to do with my own predictions.

 

[1dog]

"One Dog" or "Lance On Point" are tempting.

Do I get a vote?

 

Congrats.

 

So here's what people constantly seem to forget. When these entities set odds, and set O/U wins, that is NOT them saying what is actually most likely to occur. You need to think of setting betting lines of all types as similar to pricing in any other business. That means the level of demand plays a role.

 

Now when you talk to people in Vegas, they will tell you there are certain teams who will always get a LOT of bets on the "buys side", most specifically the Cubs, Red Sox and Yankees. What that means is, they don't have to give odds or lines that are as good for those teams. In other words, if they think the Cubs O/U is really like 75 wins, they may for example set it at 80 anyway. It gives them more room for error, and likely does very little to decrease the number of people putting down money. Same thing happens with odds, where maybe they are 40-1 but they'll set them at 30-1 instead.

 

You just have to remember these are businesses looking to make money off the bets. Their ultimate goal is not to accurately predict an outcome - that is a contributing factor, not a final result.

I think you're conflating season wins with futures. You are 100% correct regarding futures. It's a "one way" bet, meaning there's no price on the "no" for the Cubs not to win the World Series. Books will rip off the public just because they can - the holds can be 50%. Season wins is different. Typically, you can bet on the yes or the no with -110 on both sides (if it's not exactly -110, it's 20 cents of vig total). So because it's a 2 way bet (you can bet the over or under), there's not as much play for the house. The public won't move these lines because they are betting relatively small amounts of money. That said, pros won't typically put down huge amounts of money either, mostly because it takes 6 months to resolve the bet, unless you have access to credit, and even then it's still a pain.

 

So yes, the bettors set the line, as with everything else, but season wins are vastly different from futures pricing. The hold for a season wins bet with -110 pricing is 4.5%, whereas the hold on futures bets to win the World Series are going to be 30-50%. Meaning, the season wins lines are going to be more accurate.

[caulfield12]

Do I get a vote?

 

Congrats.

 

 

I think you're conflating season wins with futures. You are 100% correct regarding futures. It's a "one way" bet, meaning there's no price on the "no" for the Cubs not to win the World Series. Books will rip off the public just because they can - the holds can be 50%. Season wins is different. Typically, you can bet on the yes or the no with -110 on both sides (if it's not exactly -110, it's 20 cents of vig total). So because it's a 2 way bet (you can bet the over or under), there's not as much play for the house. The public won't move these lines because they are betting relatively small amounts of money. That said, pros won't typically put down huge amounts of money either, mostly because it takes 6 months to resolve the bet, unless you have access to credit, and even then it's still a pain.

 

So yes, the bettors set the line, as with everything else, but season wins are vastly different from futures pricing. The hold for a season wins bet with -110 pricing is 4.5%, whereas the hold on futures bets to win the World Series are going to be 30-50%. Meaning, the season wins lines are going to be more accurate.

 

Were you a cast member of "21"?