FR Baseball thread: W/E 9/5/2005...Races tighten, and BTW, the Cards are the BEST team in baseball

[GraniteStateConservative]

The odds would be pretty good, I'd think. They aren't looking at last year. Anything that happens this year vs. last year is purely coincidence. So, you have the odds of the Red Sox winning the ALCS + the odds of the Cards winning the NLCS + odds of the Red Sox losing Games 1, 2, 3, and 4. Well, the first two aren't at all improbable. Both are favored to make the playoffs, both have home field in the first round (at least), both are playoff tested. So, you're just looking at the odds that the Cards front four will outpitch our front four. Well, we faced the Cards already and only Wells picked up the win. They got hits against Wakefield last WS and this year's interleague game, and they know Clement's pitches before he pitches them because they faced him so much as a Cubbie. So, you just need a bad game from Wells for us to possibly lose 3 games, and Wells runs hot or cold. Only one more to go-- Schill or Arroyo or Miller or Pap. I don't trust any of those guys, so a 4th loss is possible. I'd say the odds are at least 10%.

[ken5050]

I think you'll get the Yankess game on ESPN..because the REs Sox are on the local coverage..

[ken5050]

".....odds are at least 10%...." HUH???? please expound, elaborate...

[GraniteStateConservative]

The odds of a sweep by the Cards against us in the 2005 WS, as of today. A 10% chance, at least, of that happening, IMO. The fact that we swept them last year is just a coincidence, an oddity. It doesn't affect the odds this year of a Cards sweep.

I wrote why I think the odds are not awful.

[ken5050]

Got it..you think that it would be 10-1..I think it'd be 1000-1, at least....how can we find out?

[SCALEMAN]

I don't trust any of those guys, so a 4th loss is possible. I'd say the odds are at least 10%

Thats the way either you or I would figure the bet, but a sports book is done differently.

A proposition bet is forwarded by the book ie Cards over the Sox in 4 and a line of probablility is assigned to it which, in the mind of the odds setter, will attract bettors to each side in quantities to balance the payouts. After it is on the board the odds start to vary as people place money on it. The books don't look to make money on the bet (if they do the odds are really a failture), just the vig, or cost of the bet. In a perfect world for a book, a proposition bet would have enough bettors on each side of the line to balance out and the books collects a fraction of each bet.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Well, I don't know anything about sports betting, but was just talking about the actual odds-- which, IMO, aren't remote at all.

[JohnnyZ]

That's one hell of a wild card race -- you'd think Minnesota really has no chance, since they'd have to play 5 games better than THREE teams to win it.

[SCALEMAN]

Well, I don't know anything about sports betting, but was just talking about the actual odds-- which, IMO, aren't remote at all.

Your assesment wasn't bad. But any Sox fan will argue that it should be at least 1,000 to 1.

I don't bet on sports, except for a football pool, as there are too many variables involved.

I do have a friend that was in Vegas prior to the season when the Rams won the SB. He put $100 down on the Rams to take it all. He won over $30k. It paid for his trip back to collect and then some.

[JohnnyZ]

I'd say the odds are at least 10%.

25% chance of Sox and Cards actually meeting in the WS again maybe. If you assume something like 60% chance of winning the first round matchup, 80% the second round, or vice versa, or 70/70. You'd think the Cards would have an easier time than the Sox, if only because of the NL West, but ya never know. That's about 50% chance for each team of making it, so 25% meeting --> then if you think the Cards are the better team and have a 80% chance of winning each game, you have a 40% chance of a sweep, and you can get to 10%. Or a 40% chance of a Cards-Sox rematch, with the Cards favored 70% in each game.

I'm sure Elias could model it, but a more realistic figure I'm guessing is 1.5% (25% chance meeting, evenly matched teams).

[GraniteStateConservative]

Your assesment wasn't bad. But any Sox fan will argue that it should be at least 1,000 to 1. I'm not sure if you're trying to say it would be a lock the Cards would or would not do that. But, I'm certainly a Sox fan and we are realists. We don't believe in Aura and Mystique (who are now just the names of strippers in NY clubs) and aren't hopeless homers like the Yanks. We went 1/3 in St Louis in June, the Cards can still hit, and their pitching is a lot better than ours. Your closer, too. We hit better than the Cards overall, but that's our only clear edge.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Your assesment wasn't bad. But any Sox fan will argue that it should be at least 1,000 to 1.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say it would be a lock the Cards would or would not do that. But, I'm certainly a Sox fan and we are realists. We don't believe in Aura and Mystique (who are now just the names of strippers in NY clubs) and aren't hopeless homers like the Yanks. We went 1/3 in St Louis in June, the Cards can still hit, and their pitching is a lot better than ours. Your closer, too. We hit better than the Cards overall, but that's our only clear edge.

[SCALEMAN]

Here's a good dissertation about "futures"

The books generally love these future bets as much as the public. From the bettor’s standpoint, for a few dollars on up, you get to follow your team through the season, and if they win, you feel vindicated. You’re a true sports genius for the strength of your predictive powers, and you win money, too. Even if you don’t win, you get the thrill of rooting for a team all season long with a little something riding on it. For the books, the futures usually work out well. They get to hold money for as long as nine months (NBA). Few professional bettors want to tie up their working capital, which could be used for daily betting. Fans supporting their favorite teams, for the most part, play these futures, so the betting action tends to be spread through the spectrum. The men and women who run the Las Vegas sportbooks are all too aware that each year, in almost every sport, the cream rises and the better teams win. Naturally, there are upsets and longshots do work out. But, as we say in Vegas, "Form holds," and usually, what might appear to be a great bargain, isn’t.

[JohnnyZ]

I'm sure Elias could model it,

And I would bet that they'd come out to less than 1.5%, since there's also the possibility that the Red Sox don't make the playoffs and aren't the best team in the AL, ideas that don't exist in my reality.

[SCALEMAN]

I'm not sure if you're trying to say it would be a lock the Cards would or would not do that.

I was just saying that your assesment was pretty good. At 10-1 it can't be considered a lock either way, just that there is a 10% chance that it could happen.

As I have said many times, the best team doesn't always win the WS. There are too many variables, and most bets are made primarily on emotion.

As an example, a lady who I bowl with in the winter was enthralled with her Illini Basketball team last year. At one point she was spouting about them taking it all, so I proposed that she put her money up. She took me up for a straight bet of $25 that the Illini would win the NCAA Tourney. This was a month before it even started. Needless to say, I got her $25. She let her emotions rule her bet.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I just discovered the lowly Cubs are 7-4 against the Cards this year. WTF?

[SCALEMAN]

I just discovered the lowly Cubs are 7-4 against the Cards this year. WTF?

Unexplainable. Cards have a losing record against the Pods also. I think it goes to the rivalry thing. Flubs play way above their heads against the Cards. Also goes to the old saying.. 'on any given day .....
Last nite the Cards looked as if they didn't even want to show up. Pitching sukked, defense sukked, offence sukked. What do you do? Fire them?

[misterrob]

And the Yankees are down 4-0 in the first inning, Shefield has left the game due to a hamstring injury

[JohnnyZ]

So .... what the heck happened with Vlad's triple?

[nutmeg]

And the Yankees are down 4-0 in the first inning, Shefield has left the game due to a hamstring injury

WHOA... thanks for that update!