Shakes wrote:
Well Vegas usually gets it closer than the "experts", the experts can be wrong time and time again and so long as they entertain people they keep their job, if a book maker is consistently wrong they go bankrupt. So in general I think the Vegas odds are pretty realistic.
Obviously the odds from a betting agency are stacked so that they have a margin, which means that the real odds are probably slightly worse. And at least in horse racing that the longest odds horses are actually much less chance than their odds to win. They get backed by people who want a good story to tell, ie "Remember the time when my 200-1 chance won the race, boy am I a genius for seeing that", which brings their odds in more than they should. So I think the Clippers in reality are basically no chance at the title.
Interesting note from last year is that all the stats experts using their systems did worse than the Vegas odds at predicting win totals, but Bill Simmons' predictions were better. Probably just luck, but food for though for those who say Simmons is just a Celtic homer who knows nothing about basketball!
I was thinking about it more and I just don't think the numbers translate. I found this story about the odds for the 1997 Bulls, but they wwere still playing Seattle in the 1996 finals
Bulls even money to win NBA championship - in 1997
Chicago Sun-Times - Tuesday, June 11, 1996
Author: ROMAN MODROWSKI
It's a bettor's dream: even money on the Bulls to win the NBA title. No longer do you have to wager $9 to win $1. Now it's a buck for a buck.
But before making airline reservations for Las Vegas , there is a catch. The even-money bet is for the Bulls to win next year.
Over the weekend, the MGM Grand made the Bulls the favorite to win the 1996-97 championship . However, Bulls fans shouldn't feel too comfortable about that. Last year, Orlando opened as the favorite to win it all.
Dennis Dahl, supervisor of the MGM sports book, said the only risk for the casino is if one of the Bulls ' free agents - namely Michael Jordan - signs with a team that offers high odds .
"If Jordan goes to the Knicks, we'll lower the Knicks' odds very quickly," Dahl said.
So the MGM Grand felt comfortable making the Bulls 1-1 in 1996 before knowing if Phil, MJ or Dennis would be back on the team.
So prior to the season (once everyone resigned) they could have been 1-1 or even lower, 1-2.
So wen Vegas makes a team 1-1, they're saying that the team has a better shot that 50% to win the title. I think that's where we're getting thins mixed up.
I think we would all agree that the 1997 Bulls had a better chance than 50% to win the title. So saying 1-1 odds are 50%, is right in one sense, but not another.
And when Doug said he would give the Bulls a 25% chance to win the title, I guess he was breaking up 100% among all the teams, like the Draft Lottery. But betting odds don't work that way.
So Basically when a team gets 1-1 odds, a casino is saying that teams chances of winning are 85% maybe 90%. Like what's each teams odds. So the Clippers' chances would be 1% but the Bulls 85%. I don't know.
But with that said, the 1999 Bulls probable wouldn't have got 1-1 odds in 1999 like I said, or 1-2. 2-1 might have been the bet.
On a side note, I saw a story that prior to the 95/96 season the Bulls were 5-1 odds to win the title, while Orlando had the best odds at 4-1. Man, if I was old enough to bet back then I would have made a ton on the 1996 Bulls. 5-1. I knew once they got Rodman that they would win the title. Someone probably cashed in on that big time.
I wonder what the Bulls' odds were after they were sitting at 44-3 or whatever they were at one point.
