Vegas Watch

BetUS has granted my previous request and posted odds on each team to go undefeated during the 2008 NFL regular season. Using the winning percentages derived from each team's over/under, I've determined the actual odds of each team going undefeated for comparison. The list is quite long, so I've only posted the odds for the five most likely teams below, but the odds for each team are here.

If you believe the over/unders--and it would be silly not to--then the Patriots are by far the best bet of the 30 teams. That's not to say they're a good bet; not even close. As you can see above, they're expected to go undefeated about 1.3% of the time, while it needs to happen at least 6.3% of the time for it to be a good bet. But compared to the rest of these, it's a bargain.

The reason for this is that the relation between W% and undefeated percentage is not linear. A .700 team does not have twice as good a chance of going undefeated as a .350 team; they are actually about 65,000 times more likely. This is quite easy to see if you do the simple calculation (.700^16), but most people obviously do not. So as you go down the list of teams, the chances of them going undefeated decrease dramatically, while the odds change only slightly.

Which brings us to what may be the single worst prop I've ever seen:

I defy you to find a worse bet than this, of any type, at any book. You will not. If you were to bet $10,000, the expected value of your bet would be -$9,999.97.

They've also posted more detailed odds on the Pats, regarding their exact regular season record. Again, I'm using the .761 W% derived from their over/under odds, to come up with the "true" odds of each record:

I have no idea how they came up with these.

The Pats' over/under is 12.5. I think it would logically follow that their two most likely win totals are 12 and 13. Yet BetUS has installed 15 as the favorite, closely followed by 14. This makes no sense.

Maybe the thinking is that they went 16-0 last year, but that was obviously somewhat fluky, so this year they'll go 15-1? I honestly have no idea.

This has the effect of putting value in each number between 9 and 13. That is pretty amazing, since all of these add up to 124%. The best bet here is 10-6; it's not often that you can get 15-1 odds on something that happens nearly 10% of the time.

The 2008 Scripps National Spelling Bee starts next Thursday, and BetUS has kindly provided us with some odds. Sadly, you can't bet on individuals like with the Miss USA odds, but there are three props available. As usual, I will attempt to break them down, and fail miserably.

I would go through how many guys have won over the last 20 years, but I'm looking at the list of winners, and I have no idea if half these names are male or female.

Luckily, I have discovered a "roster of the 288 champion spellers" that will be competing this year. By my count, they say "her sponsor" 154 times, which means that 53.5% of the competitors are girls. So you'd be nuts to lay -140 on the guys here. Unless you think men are naturally better spellers. That's probably a discussion for another day.


I wish I had seen this when it first came out. The total here should be 9.5, or at least 9. 8.5 is an outrageously low number. Over the past 20 years, the winning word has been nine or more letters 15 times, a whopping 75%. Also--and I don't know if this is a random trend, or these competitions have gotten more difficult over time--the final word has been over eight letters in each of the past seven years.

The over is clearly the way to go here. At -150, you need to win over 60% of the time to be profitable. That looks to be the case here.

I've got no stats for this one. Although my one strategy, in a contrarian sense, would be to go with "No", since I'd think "Yes" would be a public dog. Regardless, this is a fantastic prop.

Photo: 2007 champ Evan O'Dorney from The Sydney Morning Herald.

So I understand that Braylon Edwards was on Costas Now this week?

Okay, let's think about this logically. Watch the video (here, here). Then read the responses from Posnanski, TBL, FJM, AA, and Leitch. Who, again, is bringing down the level of discourse?

The Sports VU's 08-09 SEC Basketball preview.

Odds on which NBA player is most likely to be the next to admit to marijuana use.

The Angels brought up their top prospect, Nick Adenhart, who has already undergone elbow surgery, and had a 19:15 K:BB rate in AAA, to pitch on three days' rest. Shockingly, this did not go well.

Oh, so this is why Hansbrough returned to school. Fair enough.

"Meathook Bobblehead Is a Spitting Image...of Johan Santana." Very true.

Did you really think Tampa's six game winning streak would go unmentioned on this site?

At this point, every piece of purely objective analysis indicates that they will finish over .500. PECOTA pegged them at 88 wins in the preseason. They're currently 14-11, which works out to 90.7 wins over a full season. Their record in the adjusted standings is even a bit better than their actual record- based solely on their play so far, they'd be expected to win 87.6 games.

And yet...being "purely objective" is hard. They have never won over 70 games. They allowed 944 runs last year, thanks to a laughably bad defense. Their team payroll is $44MM- the entire pitching staff is making about as much as Barry Zito. None if this is particularly relevant, but it's tough to ignore.

If we were able to ignore the second paragraph, and just went by the information in the first one, would would Tampa's odds for winning the AL East be? Definitely better than the Blue Jays, right? Well, at both BetUS and Bodog, Toronto is 5:1 to win the division. Tampa is 25:1 at BetUS. For comparison, the Royals are 22:1 to win the Central, and the Marlins are 15:1 to win their division.

25:1 is too high. Those are very good odds. Should they be +233, as PECOTA suggests? No, that'd be ridiculous. But there's a whole lot of room between +233 and +2500.

Matchbook is a very good place to look when considering things like this, since you can bet either side- you can bet that the Rays don't win the division. Currently, that prop is being offered at -1500. This presents an arbitrage situation- one can bet on the Rays at +2500 at BetUS, and against them at -1500 on Matchbook, and lock in about 2.5% profit.

But I'm more interested in what the market thinks the Rays' chances are. That -1500 has been available all afternoon, and so has Tampa winning the division at +860. That nobody has jumped at either tells us that their true odds are between 6.3% and 10.4%. Let's be conservative and say 7%. This would put their true odds at 13:1. A far cry from PECOTA's +233, but not close to 25:1 either.

As you probably noticed when I mentioned the odds for the Royals and Marlins to win their division, it's rare that you can find a decent longshot in the "To Win Division" odds at sites like BetUS and Bodog. The 2008 Rays are a pretty rare team, though. Even so, I doubt they will be 25:1 for now- people are starting to pay attention now that they're winning baseball games on the field, rather than just looking good according to some crazy computer.

Photo: STATS Blog.

If I am every asked in an interview, "What is your dream job?" I now have the answer. Being the guy who sets the odds for the Miss USA pageant.

BetUS has lines listed for all 50 states, plus D.C.

The favorite: Jacqueline Bruno (Massachusetts), 7.5:1
23 years old, 5'10"; 3rd Runner-up at Miss Teen USA 2003

How do they come up with this stuff?? I really don't know how much we can take from that 2003 Miss Teen USA finish. One has to think her beauty pageant skills have eroded since then. That is like saying Jeff Kent is an MVP candidate this year because he won the award in 2000. It's just not realistic. There is no value here.

Next In Line: Lindsey Jo Harrington (Oklahoma), Jamie Hill (South Carolina), Crystle Stewart (Texas), Michelle Font (Washington), LauRen Merola (Pennsylvania), each 8:1

The picture on the right is Ms. Merola. And no, her first name is not a typo. Somebody should set her up with this guy. Through my research I have discovered that her talent is a lyrical dance to "I Believe", and she attended Point Park University, which has a reputation for "excellence in dance and theatre".

Ms. Harrington is one of the favorites despite having no previous experience- she is currently a 21-year old senior at Oklahoma St. I wonder if this knowledge would have effected Bill Self's decision.

Ms. Hill (not this one) was a contestant on the tenth installment of The Amazing Race. Her team- herself and fellow cheerleader Kellie- finished 10th out of 12 contestants. This does not bode well for her chances.

I just realized that Shawne Merriman is one of the judges. I don't know how to react to that.

The Sleeper: Amanda Kozak (Georgia), 35:1
23 years old, 5'10", runner-up at Miss America 2007

Ms. Kozak is attempting to become only the fifth woman to place in the top 5 of both Miss America and Miss USA. Shouldn't she be the favorite, considering here finish in a similar contest last year? I obviously don't get how this works at all.

The Longshots: Abbey Curran (Iowa), Daniel Roundtree (New York), 75:1

Another thing I don't understand- Wikipedia has Ms. Curran's hometown listed as Kewanee, Illinois, and Ms. Roundtree's as Miami. Ms. Roundtree and Amy Diaz (Rhode Island) even participated in Miss Florida USA 2007. Shouldn't there be rules against this kind of thing? I do think I see why Mr. Roundtree is so unlikely to win though- she was a "non-finalist" in the Florida competition.

The rest of the odds are here. The contest starts on Friday.

From BetUS:

The clarification of "Field" is brilliant. I am almost surprised they didn't put "Every" in italics- it's like they're trying to bait us into taking those odds.

BetUS has now copied The Greek; they have the exact same odds for bot the MVC and CAA tournaments.

Pomeroy ran the numbers himself this time. This tourney starts Friday at noon ET.

I do not follow the CAA closely at all, but if VCU does not have any injuries or external issues, they have to be a good wager here.

NC Wilmington is extremely overrated. They finished conference play 12-6, tied for with George Mason for second (VCU was 15-3). But Pomeroy has them as just the 172nd best team in the country, far behind VCU (72nd) and George Mason (89th), and also trailing Old Dominion (114th) and Northeastern (164th). They ranked 37th in the country in "Luck", meaning they won the close ones, but lost some blowouts.

Once again, the longshots are very poor bets. There is just nowhere near a 1 in 16 chance that Hofstra beats Towson, then VCU, then Old Dominion, then the team that emerges from the other half of the bracket. If you for some reason want to bet on any team that does not get a bye in any of these tournaments, you're going to be better off doing it game by game.


Edit: VCU is down to +150 at BetUS now. Still +175 at The Greek.

Update: See below.

You just can't make this stuff up. From BetUS:


My favorite part is the qualification at the bottom. As opposed to...just some random dude named Jesus?

Before you rush over to put your life savings on this, the limit is $25. Although $25,000 is a lot of money...

Update: Regarding an issue raised in the comments, I e-mailed BetUS with the following question:

"Hi. I have a question about one of the props currently listed- "The Second Coming of Jesus Christ", under "Entertainment Props". If a child is born, named Jesus, and his father's first name is God, doesn't this satisfy the criteria of the proposition?"

I just got a response:

"Dear Jacob, The Second Coming Of Jesus Christ, will be a glorious event (Matthew 24:29-51). Therefore, there should not be any doubts that he is the son of God. If you need any further assistance from us, please let us know. Best regards, Johnny, The BetUS.com Team."

Well, then.

I got an interesting e-mail from a reader named Heath this morning, asking whether there are odds on the result of the planned shoot-down of a broken spy satellite, which has been in the news lately. I went to check a few sites to see if I could find anything, but didn't expect to be successful.

I really need to stop underestimating how fantastic BetUS is.

"US missile to hit and destroy the satellite, +110
US missile to miss the satellite, -140
US missile to hit but not destroy the satellite, +1000
Satellite to hit US White House, +1000000000"

So this does not inspire too much confidence in a successful shoot-down. I will save you the trouble of counting the zeros on the fourth prop- that's 10 million to 1. The minimum you can wager on that one is $5, and the maximum is $10. That has got to be the smallest range I've ever seen.

What are the actual odds of the satellite hitting the White House? Somewhere in the billions or even trillions, I would guess (you would think they would have some emergency measure in place to stop it if it got close, right?). But how stupid would you feel if this somehow did happen, and you passed on 10 million to 1 odds? Yeah, I thought so.

"If the satellite does not land in the ocean where [will it hit?]
Europe, +1200
Asia, +220
Africa, +350
North America, +450
South America, +700
Oceania, +1400
Antarctic, +1000"

+450. I feel much safer now.

They also have odds on which day it will impact (each day is +550), and if it will hit land (+200) or water (-300). As it gets closer, I think we might be able to figure out what day(s) it is most likely to hit, although they'll probably change the odds at that point.

I will be following this story more closely now, that's for sure.

(Since I know BetUS is impossible to navigate, these odds can be found under Sportsbook/Futures & Props/Entertainment Props/Spy Satellite Special.)

Update: Success!

BetUS has some odds up on how many teams each conference will send to the NCAA tournament. They are below. I've also included what teams Joe Lunardi has in the tournament in his latest Bracketology, with their seeds in parenthesis. Keep in mind that Lunardi's most recent bracket update was last Monday.

Atlantic 10
Over 3 -160 (53%)
Under 3 -120 (47%)

Lunardi: Xavier (6), Dayton (5), Rhode Island (9), UMass (9)

Xavier is in (I am a big fan of this Xavier team, if you haven't noticed). Dayton should be in, but they've been playing so poorly of late without Chris Wright. Lunardi has them pretty high before they got destroyed by Xavier, but they're probably a 6 or 7 at the moment. Wright is probably out for awhile longer, and they could continue to slip.

Rhode Island and UMass will probably end up being on the bubble. Three tournament teams seems about right for the A10; I think two is more likely than four.

Big 10
Over 4.5 -155 (57%)
Under 4.5 +115 (43%)

Lunardi: Wisconsin (3), Indiana (3), Michigan St. (3), Purdue (9), Ohio St. (11)

I wrote about the B10 the other day, so I won't spend too much time on it here. The top three are in, and I'd be surprised if OSU doesn't make it. This line makes sense; they'll probably end up with five, with Purdue or Minnesota being the fifth. But four is certainly possible.

Big 12
Over 5.5 -150 (56%)
Under 5.5 +110 (44%)

Lunardi: Kansas (1), Texas (3), Baylor (6), Kansas St. (7), Texas A&M (8)

Top two are in. Baylor is now 4-0 in the B12 after their 5OT win against TA&M. With the talent they have, KSU better make it. So that's four.

A&M is really digging a hole for themselves. They're 1-3 in conference, and haven't played Kansas or Texas yet. They beat Ohio St. in the preseason NIT, but the didn't do much else in non-conference. They are 0-3 on the road. They'll likely end up making it, but it might be close.

Okahoma has a decent shot. The three game win streak against Arkansas, Gonzaga and West Virginia will help. I'd think they'll be in if they get to nine wins in conference, which is doable.

Nebraska has a couple decent non-conference wins (ASU, Oregon), but they've been terrible on the road. I can't see them making it. Mizzou is 0-5 on the road, but they've beaten Texas and Purdue at home. They have eight losses already, it'll be tough for them to get in.

So that's four teams that should get in, two that probably will, and couple that are very questionable. The O/U looks dead on; probably six, possibly only five.

Big East
Over 7.5 -120 (50%)
Under 7.5 -120 (50%)

LunardI: Georgetown (2), West Virginia (7), Louisville (12), Pittsburgh (4), Notre Dame (7), Connecticut (12), Marquette (4), Providence (10), Villanova (8)

The Big East just has way too many teams. 7.5 sounds good to me. Providence is a tournament team? Really? That would surprise me.

MWC
Over 3 -150 (56%)
Under 3 +110 (44%)

Lunardi: San Diego St. (12)

Three seems pretty high for the MWC, doesn't it? I really don't know. Someone who follows this conference a lot more closely than myself could provide some insight here. That's why we have comments.

Pac-10
Over 6 -160 (56%)
Under 6 +120 (44%)

Lunardi: UCLA (2), Arizona St. (8), Arizona (8). Washington St. (2), Oregon (9), Stanford (4)

UCLA, Washington St., Arizona, Stanford should all get in. Lunardi had USC as the last team out, I think they'll probably end up getting in. Arizona St. started off 4-0 in the P10, but that was because they played three home games, faced Arizona without Bayless, and won @Cal in OT. I think ASU and Oregon could both get in. This line might push, but I'd be really surprised if they only get five.

SEC
Over 5.5 -170 (59%)
Under 5.5 +130 (41%)

Lunardi: Tennessee (1), Vanderbilt (5), Mississippi St. (10), Mississippi (5)

Tennessee is in. Vandy and Ole Miss would have to have Clemson level collapses to miss the tourney. Florida really did nothing in non-conference, but their SEC record should be enough to offset that. Same goes for Mississippi St., but they're already 4-0 in the SEC.

Arkansas will probably be on the bubble. UGA lost to Tulane and East Tennessee St. in Hawaii, so it's difficult to take them seriously.

I thought this line was really high when I first saw it, since I don't think of the SEC as being very good this year. Which is true, and they may only have one team higher than a 6 seed. But they've got all these 6-11 seeds, so there's a good chance they sneak six teams in.

They didn't have ACC odds, I have no idea why.

The chances of each remaining team winning the Super Bowl, based on the futures odds at Sportsbetting, BetUS, Bodog, VIP, Sports Interaction, The Greek, Bookmaker, and Matchbook:

Essentially New England vs. the field at this point, which is to be expected. I would guess the Pats' 51.1% breaks down to something like an 88% chance of winning their first game, 75% for their second, and 78% for the SB (neutral site, but against an NFC team clearly inferior to the Colts, their likely AFC Championship opponent.)

As far as I can tell, the best you can do on the Pats to win the SB is -138 at Matchbook, and -145 at The Greek.

Bodog has the two most likely SB matchups as Pats-Cowboys (2/3) and Pats-Packers (7/2). Indy-Dallas is third, at 5/1. The highest odds I have seen are at The Greek for Bucs-Chargers and Giants-Chargers, at 172.5:1 each. (Something like Titans-Redskins would obviously be much higher than that, but these sites don't list all the possible matchups, and have the field at around 5:1.)

The "Early Super Bowl Line", which was once as high as AFC -16.5 (after New England's 45-point win over the Redskins) is down to 11.

As usual, BetUS has some completely random props. The O/U for total points scored this weekend is 160.5, and the O/U for FGs is 12.5. The prop for Randy Moss' total TD catches in the playoffs came out at 5 (which seemed almost ridiculously high), but is now down to 4.5.

The playoff favorites for most receiving, passing, and rushing yards are Moss (+200), Brady (EV), and Maroney (+350), respectively. I'm shocked. Amusingly, Eli Manning has the highest odds of anyone, at 30:1 to have the most passing yards.

Well, the Pats did it. It looked pretty unlikely a couple months ago, but the chances steadily increased with each win. The graph below tracks their odds of going 16-0 since prior to the Colts game; the horizontal axis is how many wins they had, the vertical axis is their % chance of going undefeated.Big jump after the wins over Indianapolis and Pittsburgh, which makes sense. A similar increase after their 15th win over the Jets, which is kind of strange.

Back when they were 8-0, BetUS had them at +200 to go undefeated, which seemed pretty ridiculous. But looking back, this actually wasn't a bad line. The money lines for their last 8 games were (approximately) as follows:

Their last seven games have really been unbelievable; they have been favored by an average of 18.4 points. Ridiculous.

If you had bet $10 on them to beat the Colts at -240, you would have ended up with $14.17. If you had then taken that money and bet on them to win in Week 10, you would have gotten to $15.11. Continuing this strategy for the rest of the season, you would have finished with $22.68 after tonight's win. So, in total, you would have been betting $10 to win $12.68; essentially a line of +127.

This is much worse than the +200 line BetUS had on them winning their last eight. This surprises me; usually with a prop like that, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. I guess it would have been impossible to know how heavily they would be favored in these games, but even if you slightly underestimated them, you would have found that +200 was the better option.

The fact that it was the better option doesn't mean it was a good option, however. Below is the % chance each of these lines indicates New England had of winning the game, after taking out the house advantage (which is 3.6% on these NFL money lines).

Multiplying all these percentages together gets us to a 33.2% chance they would go undefeated. Amazingly, that would imply a line of +201. So it looks like +200 was too high; in the long run, you would come out pretty much even on that. In hindsight, knowing the ridiculous margins New England was favored by in their final seven games, it probably should have been about +170, allowing the books to have their normal advantage.

I doubt tonight's win changes their SB odds; that's still probably at about 50%.

When you heard that Mike Vick is going to jail for 23 months, I'm sure your first thought was "How much money could I have won on that?" Well, mine was at least. Back in August I had a post looking at various odds on Vick. Many of them are still up in the air ("Will M Vick ever throw another pass as an NFL QB", "Will he run for public office by the end of 2010"; seriously, go to the link and look at all of them). But today's ruling clears up this one:

How much Jail time will M Vick be sentenced to?

Lets see what I had to say about these at the time:

"If you're morbid enough to bet on this, it seems like 19-30 months at 2:1 is
probably a good call. Although the "prosecutors will recommend a sentence of a
year to 18 months," given the judge's reputation, it seems like two years is
pretty realistic."

First of all, my "analysis" doesn't really make sense, since two years falls within the 19-30 months range. I think I meant "it seems like 10-18 months is is pretty realistic." But that's not the point.

Sadly, I was not "morbid enough" to place a wager, but I did call it correctly. 23 months pays out at 2:1, much better than the favored 10-18 months at 1:3.

Note: Did he get fined? There were odds on that as well, but I can't find it anywhere.

Edit: Richard makes a very good point in the comments:

"Interesting comment someone left on your August post:

--------------
Anonymous said...Let's focus on the word JAIL. Anybody who thinks this guy is gonna get actual time behind bars is nuts. He wouldn't have accepted a plea bargin that included time. Now he'll turn on his fellow dog fight buddies who aren't millionaires and who WILL do time. You can take a boy out of the hood, but you can't take the hood out of the boy. Maybe he just wanted to outdo his brother.
------------------------

Ha"

This weeks' Patriots undefeated odds, from BetUS:

I know they're not going to lose five in a row. But 1500:1? That's pretty tempting.

Their percentage has increased by 5.5% since last week which is interesting. The money line for the Eagles game (+1600 for Philly, -4000 for the Pats) indicated they had about a 94% chance of winning. 46.0% to 51.5% is a big jump for unimpressively winning a game you only had a 6% chance of losing.

I have no idea why, but most of the other sites don't have odds up this week. You can bet on the Super Bowl coin toss, but not on whether the Pats will win out. The one site that does have a line is Matchbook, where they're -175 to go 16-0, +150 for 15-1 or worse. So, despite the less favorable line, they think the chances are even better, at 61.4%.

Just to be clear- this means if you want to bet on the Pats to win the game outright, you would have to risk 40 to win 1. Unless you are wagering on the sun rising tomorrow, that kind of ratio is probably poor money management.

At this site (which is admittedly on the high end; it's 24-25 points on others), New England is favored by 14.5 in the first half.

Good luck, Eagles.

This weeks' Patriots undefeated odds, from BetUS:


That percentage is the chance the line indicates they actually have of winning out; for it to be a profitable bet, you'd have to think they have a 60% chance.

They have steadily climbed, from 18% at 7-0, to 26%, 40%, and now 46%.

What's interesting this week, as R-D points out, is how different the odds are at various sites:



Apparently the Intertops line was closer to even earlier in the week. What's interesting here is that one could bet on both sides. If you put $10 on "No" at VIP, and $19.40 on "Yes" at Intertops, you would be betting $29.40, and guaranteed to end up with $32. Regardless of what happens, you have an 8.8% profit.

Or, if you think they'll go undefeated, you could bet on it with no risk. This would involve betting $4.55 on "No", and $10 on "Yes". This way, if they don't go undefeated, you break even, but if they do, you'll end up with $16.49; a 13% profit.

Finally, if you don't think they'll go undefeated, you could bet $10 on "No", and $15.40 on "Yes". If they go undefeated you break even, but if they don't you'll end up with $32, a 26% profit (the % profit is higher this way because it's a less likely scenario).

(Photo is a screenshot from this absurd "interview", which is worth watching (via TBL).)

Last week, the Pats were 2:1 to go undefeated at BetUS.com. Since their win on Sunday, various other sites have put up odds on them going 16-0, although BetUS is still the only site with odds on their exact record. They have 13-3 at 1.2:1, which I'm pretty sure is a mistake, so I took the liberty of changing that.

Two weeks ago they were 3.5:1 (18%). Before the Colts game they were 2~1 (26%), and now they're 1:1 (40%).

SportsBetting's line (+120) puts them at 43% while VIP has it at +115 (44%). Matchbook's line is less optimistic, +140 (41%). Regardless, it seems like they've got a little better than a 2 in 5 chance of winning out.

Meanwhile, the Rams and Dolphins remain winless, so of course there are odds on them going 0-16. BetUS has Miami at 6:1, and the Rams at 10:1. They also have a prop "NE Suffer[s] 1st Loss To Miami", although they don't have a line posted for it, unfortunately. SportsBetting has the Dolphins not winning a game at 8:1, St. Louis at 12:1. So it looks like there's about a 1 in 5 chance that we'll have a team go 0-16.

Edit: Updated odds are here.

As you may have heard, the Colts and Patriots are playing each other this weekend. If the Pats win, they'll move to 9-0; Indianapolis would be 8-0.

Regardless of Sunday's winner, the undefeated hype will really get serious. In fact, BetUS has already posted odds on what record each team will finish with.

Below are the posted odds, as well as the equivalent percentage. The % has been adjusted to take out the house advantage, so each teams' add up to 100%.


Before Sunday's 52-7 win over the Redskins, the Pats were at 3.5:1 (18.2%); prior to beating the Panthers, Indy was 8.5:1 (8.8%). The fact that these lines moved pretty dramatically indicates they got a lot of action on "16-0" for each team last week.

I think this may have unreasonably changed the line. WSEX has the line for either team going 16-0 at +177; the equivalent % for that is 34.7%. The Pats' and Colts' "16-0" BetUS odds add up to 38.2%. So maybe it's closer to 24% for the Pats, and 11% for Indy.

The line on this week's game is all over the place; BetUS has it at 6.5, but The Greek has the Pats favored by 5. Either way, that's pretty unbelievable, since this game is at the RCA Dome. Those lines mean the Pats are between 8 and 9.5 points better than Indy, after you figure in the three points for home-field. I know the Pats are good, but are they really that much better than a team that's 7-0?

Anyway, that means the Pats win on Sunday about 69% of the time, according to Vegas. So it depends on the margin of victory, but if the Pats win on Sunday their "16-0" odds would shift to about even money, or 38% after taking out the house advantage. A Colts win would probably put them at about the same odds (maybe 3:2, although people would probably go nuts if they beat NE). Either way, these guys better watch out.

Finally, here are the remaining schedules for each team (IND on the left, obviously):

Photo from SI, schedules from ESPN.

Previous "What Are The Odds":
.400
DiMaggio's Streak

After three grueling days without American League baseball, the ALCS finally begins tonight. I've already written about the rotations, lineups, bullpens, and defenses. And as if that wasn't enough, I discovered that we really shouldn't just look at the Pythagorean records of these two teams and assume the Red Sox are a lot better; it's actually pretty close.

Game 1 Lineups
Against the righty Beckett, I would assume won't do anything weird- Victor catching, Garko at first, Asdrubal at second, Peralta at short, Blake at third, Kenny in left, Grady in center, Gutierrez in right, and Pronk DHing.

Boston is going to start Kielty in right, since he has the platoon advantage against Sabathia, and has hit CC well in his career (.310/.375/.655 in 32 PAs). Beyond that, I would assume it'll be Youk, Pedroia, Lugo, and Lowell from 1st to 3rd, Manny and Coco joining Kielty in the OF, and Ortiz DHing.

Game 1 Starters
Sabathia vs. Beckett is a pretty ridiculous matchup. I had somehow missed this, but Knuckle Curve points out that against lefties this year, Sabathia has walked four while striking out 75. Yes, his K:BB ratio against lefties this year is better than 18:1. Add in 3 HBPs, and 3 HRs allowed, and his Fielding Independent ERA against LHB is 1.49 this season.

That's pretty amazing, although it isn't going to be particularly helpful against the Sox, since with Drew out of the lineup they'll have only one lefty (Ortiz). Sabathia's FIP against righties is 3.48.

I saw on ESPNNews this morning that Beckett has thrown a shutout in three of his last four playoff starts. This is over the span of three series and five years, with a relief appearance in between, but that's still pretty amazing. In his last five October appearances, he has struck out 41 while walking six in 38.1 innings. He has allowed one homer, and his ERA is 0.70. Wow.

Game 2 Bullpens

Well, everybody is rested. There's a good chance that Papelbon will be the only reliever the Red Sox need, if they need any at all. For Cleveland, I would expect Betancourt to see more action than Perez because of all the righties Boston is starting, although they do have a few lefty bats on the bench (Drew, Hinske, Ellsbury, Cora).

One gambling note: here are the odds from BetUS.com for the exact result of the series.
I think that "Red Sox, 4-3" line is pretty good. G7 would either be Beckett (if they pitched him on short rest in G4) or Matsuzaka, against Jake Westbrook. In Boston. These lines only give Boston a 56.5% chance of winning that game. If it comes to that, even if it's Matsuzaka against Westbrook, Boston is going to be a much bigger favorite than -130, which is the corresponding line for 56.5%.

Completely unrelated, but can everybody (read: ESPN) please shut up about this interference call last night. It was a good call, he went out of his way (intentionally or not) to prevent Matsui from completing the DP. Where is the debate here?

G1 starts in about 3.5 hours, so it's finally time for a prediction. I'm gonna go with Indians in 6. I think Boston wins tonight, but the Indians take G2. Then the Indians take 2/3 in Cleveland (I'm not gonna bother trying to predict the exact games, since we don't really know who Boston's G4 starter is), then Fausto ends it in G6. I'm sticking with my "Fausto becomes famous" prediction.

Update: I would just like to add that my "gorilla math*" has CLE +151 as giving the bettor about a 10% advantage tonight.

*The Urban Dictionary definition for that term is awesome.

Completely unrelated, but a new college football blog written by some friends of mine who are reasonably intelligent: Week 7 Picks [Little Men on Campus]

You probably thought there was a good chance you'd never be able to bet on Michael Vick and the Atlanta Falcons again. Turns out, you were only half right.

The wonderful people at BetUS.com, because they are awesome, have posted odds on what will end up happening to Michael Vick (the irony of odds being posted on a scandal potentially involving a gambling ring...it's overwhelming, really).

They have five different props- what his suspension from Goodell will be, how much jail time he'll be sentenced to, how much he'll be fined, what random stuff he'll do before the end of 2010, and if he'll ever play again. I feel it is my civic duty to break down these lines, so thats what I shall do.

(Note: For each table, the first column is the listed odds, and the second column is the real chance those odds imply for that event happening.)

Will M Vick ever throw another pass as an NFL QB?

Talk about a long term bet! If you wager on "No", when do you get paid out- when he dies? I e-mailed BetUS about this, hopefully they'll get back to me. Update: I did some investigative reporting and called BetUS. This was a struggle, as the guy barely spoke English (they're based in Costa Rica). Apparently, the "No" bet would pay out 10 years from now. Good to know! Update 2: Reader Dustin writes:

"For reference .... If you saved a $100 for 10 years @ a 5% interest rate you would get a payback of 3 to 5. If you won the bet on Vick never passing again you would get 6 to 5.

Seems like a long wait for not much payback."

Seriously though, I thought this prop was really interesting. The oddsmakers think it's 50-50 that Vick throws another pass in the NFL. The wording is relevant here- it's "throw another pass", not "play another down"- as The Big Lead points out, maybe it would be best for him to come back as a DB or something.

If I had to guess, I would go with no- between the jail time, the eventual suspension, his skills eroding, and the battle against public perception, I don't see Vick making it all the way back.


How long will the NFL suspend Michael Vick for?

* Note: Prop is only for the initial sentence any subsequent appeals changes do not apply

Chris Mortensen writes:

"League sources told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that Goodell likely will suspend Vick indefinitely and that a final decision on Vick's suspension will be made after his legal case is resolved."

Unfortunately, Chris, that's not terribly helpful, as there is no money to be won off "Indefinitely". That does seem to be the obvious choice though- Goodell has to do something, and he really can't do anything meaningful until he knows when Vick is going to be getting out of jail, really.

How much Jail time will M Vick be sentenced to?

* Note: Prop is for sentence time not served time. Prop is for initial sentenced time any further appeals do not count.

First off, I like the completely arbitrary capitalization of "Jail".

ESPN's Lester Munson has an interesting article about the recent happenings in the case. Here's the relevant quote:

"[The judge] uses the word 'maximum' more often than he uses the words 'minimum' or 'probation.' If Vick cannot convince Hudson that he can be a good citizen, Vick will be doing 24 months or more."

Finally, someone with some helpful anlysis! If you're morbid enough to bet on this, it seems like 19-30 months at 2:1 is probably a good call. Although the "prosecutors will recommend a sentence of a year to 18 months," given the judge's reputation, it seems like two years is pretty realistic.


How much will M Vick be fined?

This is probably the least interesting prop, since I really can't get too worked up about a guy who signed a $130MM contract getting fined $250K. But if I had to pick one, I'd go with $200K-$250K at 2:1.

What is in store for Michael Vick before 12/31/10?

There are no percentages for this one because the events aren't mutually exclusive- in theory, Vick could open a strip joint with Pacman and run [for] public office.

Although the PETA thing is probably a joke, I feel like Vick would be all for that (if only to improve his image), although PETA clearly wouldn't be very accomodating. I guess there's really nothing stopping him from opening an animal shelter, so that may not be a bad bet.

The one thing that does seem very realistic is a year in the CFL. Say Vick spends the '07 and '08 seasons in jail, then is suspended for '09. I would think he would want to do something for that third season- why not the CFL, Ricky-style?
Update: Anon makes a very good point in the comments; you can no longer play in the CFL during an NFL suspension. For proof, here's an interview with CFL comissioner Mark Cohon!

Photos taken from the geniuses at The Onion, and here.


Previously on Vegas Watch: Erik Bedard Profile