This post originally listed the Bodog odds, which were taken down before they were even open for betting. The original post can be found here.
Courtesy of The Greek, here they are:
Arizona- 86.5
Atlanta- 83.5
Baltimore- 73.5
Boston- 94.5
Chicago C- 91.5
Chicago W- 79.5
Cincinnati- 80.5
Cleveland- 85.5
Colorado- 77.5
Detroit- 82.5
Florida- 76.5
Houston- 74.5
Kansas City- 75.5
LA Angels- 89.5
LA Dodgers- 82.5
Milwaukee- 80.5
Minnesota- 83.5
NY Mets- 88.5
NY Yankees- 97.5
Oakland- 81.5
Philadelphia- 87.5
Pittsburgh- 69.5
San Diego- 71.5
San Francisco- 80.5
Seattle- 72.5
St. Louis- 82.5
Tampa Bay- 87.5
Texas- 73.5
Toronto- 80.5
Washington- 71.5
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
2009 MLB Wins Over/Unders
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I wonder what fraction of bettors are sabermetric-inclined? You would think Vegas needs to know the answer to that, and sets a line somewhere between the expectations of Team PECOTA and Team Gut-feeling, depending on their numbers.
CLE O, DET O, SD O and PIT O, NYA U, and BOS U jump out at me. No analysis in there, though.
Agreed on the Padres, I almost mentioned them in the post. They're pretty bad, but 67.5 is absurdly low.
I wish I had more data on this stuff so I could actually check, but I'd guess that overs on teams that are like 69 or lower and unders on 93 and up hit more often than not.
Sounds like a "trend" to me, VW. Seems too arbitrary to be true. There are teams that win that many games (93+) every year. The over on the teams below 70 seems more likely, though. Fuck me it's early.
Suggesting that regression to the mean applies to baseball teams over 162 game stretches isn't exactly the same as saying UNC is going to cover tonight because they're 4-0 ATS in the last two weeks.
No, sure, I wish there was a lot more historical data in this field and it's possible that over the longterm there is some kind of natural edge... the teams that are supposed to win the world Series next year have win totals over 94 and they get hyped more than anybody else. It at least makes some sense, but something as simple as over on the really low and under on the really high seems too arbitrary for me to consider betting blindly. The approach last year seems entirely more reasonable -- just find the shit that looks totally out of place (though I agree there's nothing as blindingly stupid as Tampa Bay opening at 72 and Seattle at 85 to hit).
The standard deviation of these win totals is around 7.8 and the standard deviation of the past three seasons in ACTUAL win totals has been around 10 -- the standard deviation in the (opening) win totals last year was 8.76ish. Just something to note.
"but something as simple as over on the really low and under on the really high seems too arbitrary for me to consider betting blindly"
Nobody was suggesting this.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that last part, but of course the stdevs of actual win totals are going to be higher than any decent projection/line.
Jesus, this is depressing. I was already including my October 2009income in my budget.
What about The Diamondbacks? I was expecting something closer to 83, but the disparity between 86.5 and 92 is significant enough to me to think there's value there.
Bodog probably just smartened up and started watching this blog. Maybe other oddsmakers won't follow their lead and we'll see huge discrepancies out there. Could be a fun year for sports betting and bet hedging.
It's not surprising that the lines are tighter to PECOTA/CHONE than they were in the past. Futures that tie up money for 6 months AND don't have 150-1 (or even 20-1) type payouts are probably not that attractive to squares, but sharps (or wannabe sharps like us) love them.
Given that, I'd guess the books are trying to make these as tough as possible, no traps or shaded lines. I can't imagine there's a ton of public money on these to take that kind of risk.
Plus, Silver got a lot of attention from PECOTA predicting the Rays success and his 538.com blog drew attention to PECOTA as well, so this doesn't surprise me at all.
It sucks, but it's a cat and mouse game.
These tb, oak and kc unders are tempting.
There's a HUGE difference between 66.5 and 68.5 in terms of the dogs.
Sabermetrics is pretty irrelevant for betting purposes. The o/u's are chosen at a point intended to even out the bets on each side.
Anon... le sigh.
From KLaw's latest chat:
Dan (Denver): Last week you mentioned that PECOTA had some value for a FO. What about their pre-season win projections? Any value there? Dose of reality perhaps?
Keith Law: Probably good for bettors' purposes.
KC OVER IS A LOCK. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST
TEXAS I LIKE OVER AS WELL AND MAYBE EVEN CINCY.
YANKS UNDER
DETROIT OVER
Any updated numbers or a link to them? Thanks...
I just simulated 100 games of MLB the Show 2009 for the PS3.
PS3 ran wild with Madden and NBA as it for an 80% clip this year...
For the sake of not writing every line, I will just put in the teams that had more than a 3 game disparity.
BOS 98.5
TB 91.5
NYY 92.5
TOR 75.5
BAL 73.5
OAK 76.5
TEX 76.5
SEA 69
NYM 91.5
FLA 78.5
WAS 66
CHC 97.5
HOU 78
PIT 63.5
LAD 85.5
SF 76
Boston made and won the world series more than anyone else.
The AL teams to play in the world series
Boston 38%
NYY 16%
TB 15%
LAA 11%
DET 9%
TEX 7%
CLE 2%
MIN 2%
The NL world series teams:
CHC 20%
LAD 18%
NYM 17%
ARI 15%
PHI 11%
STL 8%
ATL 6%
CIN 3%
HOU 1%
COL 1%
Post a Comment