Bears Betting Strategy?

[panerd]

Help me wrap my mind around this. I don't want to miss something obvious and end up getting bitten.

I was going to bet $75 on the Bears tomorrow to win. The line right now is -2.5 (I missed the -2 all week) and so my $75 bet would pay out about $68. We will call this Bet A.

However the futures bet on the Bears to win the Super Bowl is a ridiculous +475! So if I make a $75 bet on this instead I could possibly win about $350. Bet B.

There are three scenerios...
1. Saints win. Either way I lose my bet.
2. Bears win by 1 or 2. I would lose bet A but bet B would still be in play for $350.
3. Bears win by 3 or more. I would be out the $68 from bet A but still have a chance to win $350 on Bet B.

I figure I would just cheer for the Bears to win the Super Bowl, but I could probably even hedge the bet and win $100/$150 guarenteed by taking the Colts/Patriots money line anyways.

Am I missing something or is the futures line kind of screwed up?

[panerd]

By the way, this is on Bodog. I don't know if other sites have similar odds or not.

[st.cronin]

I think the presumption is that the AFC champ will be an overwhelming favorite, regardless of which team wins either game. So, I'm not surprised by that at all.

[panerd]

I think the presumption is that the AFC champ will be an overwhelming favorite, regardless of which team wins either game. So, I'm not surprised by that at all.

I thought that also, but the Saints have lower odds than the Bears and the Patriots to win the Super Bowl. So maybe bodog is trying to persuade people to bet on the Bears to even out heavy Saints betting but I just don't understand the -2.5 line.

If you are interested here is another scenerio I just discovered...

Possible 2007 Super Bowl XLI Matchup (Which teams will meet in the 2007 Super Bowl XLI).
Chicago Bears vs Indianapolis Colts 13/4

Chicago Bears vs New England Patriots 7/2

New Orleans Saints vs Indianapolis Colts 11/10

New Orleans Saints vs New England Patriots 11/4


So if I bet $37.50 on each of the first two bets. I am guaranteed either a win of $121 or $131.25. It makes absolutely no sense to bet on the Bears -2.5. (Or even to give any points in the NFL championship) It doesn't really even make sense to bet on the Colts game either.

[QuikSand]

Well, I guess this makes your $75 to win either $46 or $56 looks basically like a -150 money line, as your winnings are toughly 2/3 of the stake you're putting up. That's slightly less generous that the -140 you're likely to see if you just bet it that way, but not a huge split, really. This isn't a particularly good way to bet the game - exotice rarely are.

[panerd]

Well, I guess this makes your $75 to win either $46 or $56 looks basically like a -150 money line, as your winnings are toughly 2/3 of the stake you're putting up. That's slightly less generous that the -140 you're likely to see if you just bet it that way, but not a huge split, really. This isn't a particularly good way to bet the game - exotice rarely are.

I assume you are talking about the Indy game? In which case I agree it isn't that great a bet, though bodog right now has Indy at -160. But the Bears bet is still a lot better as far as I can tell. Nobody should be betting the -2.5 with the current futures bets that are out there. I know you are good with the math and gambling odds so tell me if I am missing something there.

[st.cronin]

What if you think the Bears will win on Sunday, but think they'll lose the Super Bowl?

[QuikSand]

Well... I trust you are taking a bet on each of these propositions:

Chicago Bears vs Indianapolis Colts 13/4

Chicago Bears vs New England Patriots 7/2

Your $37.50 on each would yield you either $121.875 or $131.25, so let's round that off and say you'r going to win $125, just about in the middle, but slanted slightly toward the favorite Colts in the AFC game.

So, you're betting $75 to win your money back plus $50. That's a -150 money line.

If you bet the same $75 on the Bears to win with a conventional -140 money line (i'm assuming that's where it stands, that's where I see it) then you'd be getting back $128.57... not quite as good as the Pats payout, but better than the fairly weighted average of the two.

Point is... if you just like the Bears, this isn't a particularly good way to bet the game, I don't think.

[panerd]

Well... I trust you are taking a bet on each of these propositions:

Chicago Bears vs Indianapolis Colts 13/4

Chicago Bears vs New England Patriots 7/2

Your $37.50 on each would yield you either $121.875 or $131.25, so let's round that off and say you'r going to win $125, just about in the middle, but slanted slightly toward the favorite Colts in the AFC game.

So, you're betting $75 to win your money back plus $50. That's a -150 money line.

If you bet the same $75 on the Bears to win with a conventional -140 money line (i'm assuming that's where it stands, that's where I see it) then you'd be getting back $128.57... not quite as good as the Pats payout, but better than the fairly weighted average of the two.

Point is... if you just like the Bears, this isn't a particularly good way to bet the game, I don't think.

But I would get back the $37.50 on the winning bet also, right? So actually I am getting back about $162 on average I think. So this would be a +115 ish money line.

[panerd]

What if you think the Bears will win on Sunday, but think they'll lose the Super Bowl?

Good question. I probably would just let the $350 ride. But I could bet $100-150 on the AFC team's line (probably about 7?) and hope it doesn't fall in the middle. Or I could bet $200 to win $100. (again I am guessing on what the line will be for the Super Bowl, this could be off a little) And that would guarantee about a $100 payout either way. I think I would just cheer for the Bears and a big payout. (At least in my mind a big payout)

I trying a lot of hedging last year with Florida in the NCAA tournament and ended up losing money. (I had them in a pool to win $300 and I kept betting against them once they made the elite 8)

[QuikSand]

Bzzzzz on me. Sorry, I hadn't thought through the lines there, but the 11/10 makes it quite clear - those are ont total payouts, they're winning payouts, as you say, on top of the initial bet.

Yes, you're right... it's the Saints/Colts combo that is getting pounded there, and you're totally right that the combos featuring the Bears make the combined bet there a nice overlay. Sorry for missing it initially.

Looks to me like you have a win/win proposition if you can lock in that bet, and then lay it off with a money line bet on the Saints. Or at least lay off half of it with a bet on the Saints to keep you from having any downside risk at all. Depends on how well you are rolled there, but it seems like a can't miss.

[QuikSand]

So, from above, assuming you have $350 to play with on this game:

Your fully hedged bet, using round numbers:

$90 -- Chicago Bears vs Indianapolis Colts 13/4 -- to win $382.50
$90 -- Chicago Bears vs New England Patriots 7/2 -- to win $405
$160 -- New Orleans Saints +120 -- to win $352

...worst you can do is $12 ahead.

I'm more than a little bit shocked that this is really sitting there, but if it is, your only choice seems to be how much to hedge.

[QuikSand]

FWIW, I have the following odds in a long-term market for the SB exacta:


2007 SB CHAMPION OVER SB LOSER (1-Pay) $100 WIN
Series Name Sell Buy
IND OVER CHI 21 25 +300
IND OVER NO 15 19 +426
NE OVER CHI 14 18 +455
NE OVER NO 12 15 +566
CHI OVER IND 10 13 +669
NO OVER IND 9 12 +733
NO OVER NE 7 10 +900
CHI OVER NE 7 10 +900

[panerd]

Bzzzzz on me. Sorry, I hadn't thought through the lines there, but the 11/10 makes it quite clear - those are ont total payouts, they're winning payouts, as you say, on top of the initial bet.

Yes, you're right... it's the home/home combo that is getting pounded there, and you're totally right that the combos featuring the Bears make the combined bet there a nice overlay. Sorry for missing it initially.

Looks to me like you have a win/win proposition if you can lock in that bet, and then lay it off with a money line bet on the Saints. Or at least lay off half of it with a bet on the Saints to keep you from having any downside risk at all. Depends on how well you are rolled there, but it seems like a can't miss.

Unfortuantly they don't offer a Saints money line, only the +2.5 basic line. Now I could set up an entire bankroll bet (only about thee hundred more dollars) and hope for a huge payday with a score like Bears 20, Saints 19. But as it stands I have no Saints money line available. (Maybe somebody at bodog also realized this strategy was available?)

[QuikSand]

I don't know much about Bodog, but if they don't have a money line, then get thy bankroll to another site, or even a local bookie, and get down on them at +120, which is the standard money line for the game.

Hell... worse comes to worse, send me a PM and I will hook you up.

[QuikSand]

Chicago Bears vs New England Patriots 7/2

Is there *any* chance in your mind, panerd, that this might just mean bet $20 to win $70 (and not $90)? I don't see how it could logically be (because of the 11/10 on the Colts/Saints game)... but that calculated awfully close to the conventional money line for the game.

[panerd]

Is there *any* chance in your mind, panerd, that this might just mean bet $20 to win $70 (and not $90)? I don't see how it could logically be (because of the 11/10 on the Colts/Saints game)... but that calculated awfully close to the conventional money line for the game.

I would have some concern except (like you mention) for the Saints line. Nobody in their right mind is betting $100 to win $10 on the Saints vs. the Colts. However I would also hate to get screwed by a website error.

[B & B]

QS that is correct. Its simply implied here that 20 wins 70. Its not a bet where you get back the initial 20, so you dont get 20/90

[QuikSand]

On my site, when you actually go to place a bet, it is clear the amount of the bet, and the amouutn "to win." Any way you can dummy in a tentaive entry of $20 here, just to check that out? $20 to win $70 on the Bears/Colts makes some mathematical sense, but $20 to win $90 is just crazy talk. Would hate to get caught up in a semantic issue, especially with real money.

[panerd]

It says on my super bowl bet...

Football - Futures (Game) Moneyline
Odds to win the 2007 Super Bowl XLI
All wagers have action. No Refunds. No Parlays. Max $500
(701) Chicago Bears 19/4 Sun@3:00p



Risk $75.00 to win $356.25

and then on my Colts bet...

AFC CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP
Winner goes on to Super Bowl XLI, February 4, 2007
(306) Indianapolis Colts -3 (-125) Sun@6:30p
Competitor: (305) New England Patriots



Risk $60.00 to win $48.00

They look exactly the same to me. So they have to be. The 11/10 makes it certain in my mind.

[QuikSand]

Similarly, to essentially buy a share of the IND/CHI combo from the odds posted above, you'd need to buy shares at $25 and $13, costing you $38 to win $100.

There are pretty clearly some ways to play these two markets off one another, if you have the means.

[QuikSand]

It says on my super bowl bet...

Football - Futures (Game) Moneyline
Odds to win the 2007 Super Bowl XLI
All wagers have action. No Refunds. No Parlays. Max $500
(701) Chicago Bears 19/4 Sun@3:00p



Risk $75.00 to win $356.25

and then on my Colts bet...

AFC CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP
Winner goes on to Super Bowl XLI, February 4, 2007
(306) Indianapolis Colts -3 (-125) Sun@6:30p
Competitor: (305) New England Patriots



Risk $60.00 to win $48.00

They look exactly the same to me. So they have to be. The 11/10 makes it certain in my mind.

Do you have the comparable text from any of the SB pairings bets you printed above? Neither of these is a surprise, but I'm still kinda wondering if there's any way that 7/2 means a "7 for 2" rather than a "7 to 2" in the fine print somewhere.

[panerd]

Do you have the comparable text from any of the SB pairings bets you printed above? Neither of these is a surprise, but I'm still kinda wondering if there's any way that 7/2 means a "7 for 2" rather than a "7 to 2" in the fine print somewhere.

From the help section...

Fractional odds are represented as a fractional number and show what your profit will be on a one-unit wager. For example, odds of 4/1 ("four-to-one" or "four-to-one against") means that you stand to win $4 for every $1 you wager. On the other hand, odds of 1/4 ("four-to-one on") means that you must wager $4 to win $1. When the odds are 1/1, you'll win exactly what you wager. The fractional form of a standard line is 10/11.

Fractional odds are widely used in the UK and Australia. In the Bodog Sportsbook, you'll see them with futures and most entertainment props.

The standard line would be 10/19 if it was "for", right?

[QuikSand]

Seems very clear to me. I'm baffled.

[panerd]

Well the $300 max prevents any major shananigans from happening. Maybe Bodog had too many people betting the Saints and decided to eat some possible profit to better their bottom line. :confused:

[lynchjm24]

Bodog doesn't have money lines when the spreads are a field goal or less.

[QuikSand]

Now I could set up an entire bankroll bet (only about thee hundred more dollars) and hope for a huge payday with a score like Bears 20, Saints 19.

This doesn't sound like a bad proposal, probably the easiest thing available. If you actually like the Bears side of it, then maybe you put down $80 on each of the Bears propositions, and then a saving bet of $100 on the Saints plus the points. That way, you still have your rooting and financial interest in the Bears, but you're pretty well covered if they lose -- you basically risk $70 to win $80-100 if the favorites win the game. And if they win but the Saints cover, you end up ahead $270-290, not bad at all.

[panerd]

I thought that also, but the Saints have lower odds than the Bears and the Patriots to win the Super Bowl. So maybe bodog is trying to persuade people to bet on the Bears to even out heavy Saints betting but I just don't understand the -2.5 line.

If you are interested here is another scenerio I just discovered...

Possible 2007 Super Bowl XLI Matchup (Which teams will meet in the 2007 Super Bowl XLI).
Chicago Bears vs Indianapolis Colts 13/4

Chicago Bears vs New England Patriots 7/2

New Orleans Saints vs Indianapolis Colts 11/10

New Orleans Saints vs New England Patriots 11/4


So if I bet $37.50 on each of the first two bets. I am guaranteed either a win of $121 or $131.25. It makes absolutely no sense to bet on the Bears -2.5. (Or even to give any points in the NFL championship) It doesn't really even make sense to bet on the Colts game either.

FWIW here are this morning's lines...

Chicago Bears vs Indianapolis Colts 9/5

Chicago Bears vs New England Patriots 7/2

New Orleans Saints vs Indianapolis Colts 3/2

New Orleans Saints vs New England Patriots 7/2


So either a few people came in and made huge bets to change the lines or they noticed there was a mistake with their lines and fixed it. My guess is they kept going higher and higher until they could get more people to bet on the Bears.

[Joe]

Don't bother betting on the Bears. The NFL is fixing the games this season to ensure a Saints superbowl win.

[lynchjm24]

Don't bother betting on the Bears. The NFL is fixing the games this season to ensure a Saints superbowl win.

And then the referees went out and Chicago got every call. Funny how that works.

[Joe]

oops. I guess they didn't get the message.