WSOP Odds

[llabb]

Okay, I'm completely confused at your understanding of odds vs. mine. I thought we all agreed that these are BAD lines.

So why would you want to take one of them? You wouldn't be getting the right price. And if you meant taking the opposite side, you can't reverse the lines to bet against specific people. (And even if you could, would you really lay $50,000 to win a measly $100 on a 500:1 bet?)

That's why we're all hoping to find a field bet somewhere, right?

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Sorry If I'm confusing - I know absolutely nothing about sports betting. I assumed you could bet either side. To answer your question - Yes, I sure would. It would be +EV and I can take the loss, there is nothing else worth considering.

P.S. As a funny side note, I think it's funny how people would view this as reckless, yet talk about how using the Martingale System on roulette is a safe way to play.

[llabb]

Okay, it's all clear, I get it now. Sorry, but you usually can't take that side of the bet. Books aren't that dumb. They just want to take suckers' money, who want to bet on their favorite players, and don't even realize just how bad the odds they're getting are.

Although now that I've been looking at horse racing odds, these poker lines seem a little more reasonable. In the Belmont Stakes, the odds for the favorite are 1-1, in an 11 horse field, while the worst horse is 100-1. That's a wider discrepancy than I would normally think there is. If you applied the same odds to the WSOP field, the best pros would be 660-1 and the worst fools would be 60,000-1. I just don't think you can have as much an advantage in poker as horses do in racing, but by comparison it does make the lines a little less scummy.

Re: the P.S.: Which forum is dumb enough to allow that kind favorable treatment of Martingale talk? Those posters must drastically lower the IQ of 2+2. I had a buddy who tried that once, thinking that he would virtually always win little by little, and even if it were ever to go wrong on him, it would take many, many sessions of play over several trips. Think again. I think he set a record - he got wiped out in half an hour.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

I thought Sportsbooks set lines for bets on either side? I don't know much about sports / sports betting though. I don't think it's something I have any talent for. However, when I saw these odds I was like DING!


P.S. Check out other gambling forum =p

[college kid]

If you get all the bets listed on the origional post, the field has to pay 2.1 to 1 or more (acutally 2.08120090717027 to one or more) to make it a +EV for betting every single person and the field. If anybody finds a site offering this, feel free to let me know right goddamned now.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought Sportsbooks set lines for bets on either side?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sportsbooks usually don't (e.g. you can't bet $100,000 to win $1000 that the Rockies won't win the world series this year), but exchanges like Betfair and Tradesports do allow you to take either side of any bet.

Some guy on Betfair figured he could make a few easy bucks by offering a 999-1 bet on a horse in the back of the field a horse race that was almost over. The front runner fell, and the next few horses either were tripped by the downed horse or had to really slow down to avoid it, and this horse in the back ran around them all and won, costing this guy hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought Sportsbooks set lines for bets on either side?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sportsbooks usually don't (e.g. you can't bet $100,000 to win $1000 that the Rockies won't win the world series this year), but exchanges like Betfair and Tradesports do allow you to take either side of any bet.

Some guy on Betfair figured he could make a few easy bucks by offering a 999-1 bet on a horse in the back of the field a horse race that was almost over. The front runner fell, and the next few horses either were tripped by the downed horse or had to really slow down to avoid it, and this horse in the back ran around them all and won, costing this guy hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's awesome.

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Sportsbooks usually don't (e.g. you can't bet $100,000 to win $1000 that the Rockies won't win the world series this year), but exchanges like Betfair and Tradesports do allow you to take either side of any bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

You could probably make more money in interest off of 100k than the $1,000 that would be won, if sportsbooks were smart they would offer bets like that, and make more in interest than they have to actually pay out.

[Phatferd]

My book only has lines on players making the final table. David Williams is at something like 55-1 to make the final table. I am thinking of just putting 5 bucks down here. I know 55-1 would be a horrible bet to win it all, but does just making the final table make this a decent bet?

I follow poker somewhat and know all these people, but I don't know everything to a great extent. My friend who goes to vegas and commerce says Williams is the hot thing and he is making a killing right now in the "scene." Is he legit?

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
I know 55-1 would be a horrible bet to win it all, but does just making the final table make this a decent bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

This is a slight bit hand-wavy in parts, but think of it this way: Say there are 7200 entrants. Then if everyone is of equal skill, the chance of any specific person making it to the final nine is 1 in 800.

So 799-1 would be a fair line if everyone were of the same skill. If one player were "twice as good" as the others, 400-1 would be reasonable. If one player were "five times as good" as the others, 160-1 would be reasonable. 55-1 means Williams would have to be about "fifteen times as good" as the average player. No one is that good or even close to it.

It is very unlikely you will find a good WSOP bet on any specific player. Last year there was a great Field bet though.