Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - The Jays are getting noticed

I'm in Vegas this week - the wifely person is on a business trip and I'm just tagging along as a tourist.

I just saw something you might find interesting.

I just got back from the Sports Book at the Imperial Palace casino. It's a pretty fun and busy place right now with tons of gamblers on the edge of their seats watching about a half dozen NFL games that are going on at once.

They've got odds sheets here for the 2006 World Series. Naturally the Yankees are one of the favourites (4 to 1) while teams like the Devil Rays are in the hundreds to one.

To get the latest odds, though, you have to go up to the counter - the sheets are only updated every couple of weeks. On the odds sheet I have in front of me, the Jays are listed at 55 to 1.

At the counter? 40 to 1!

It's not just us few Canadian baseball fans who have noticed the additions J.P. and the front office have made to this team.

Despite the smaller payoff, I'm putting $20 on the Jays. I figure if they win the World Series, I can come back here and celebrate.

Posted by Pepper Moffatt on Sunday, December 11 2005 @ 02:44 PM EST.

The Jays are getting noticed | 32 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Pistol - Sunday, December 11 2005 @ 03:08 PM EST (#136094) #

I just got back from the Sports Book at the Imperial Palace casino.

I see you're living large! Nothing says high class sports book like a marker board.

I got in on the Jays action at 60-1 after the Ryan signing but before the Burnett signing. I just looked and it's down to 50-1 online.

Jim - Sunday, December 11 2005 @ 03:10 PM EST (#136095) #

'I just got back from the Sports Book at the Imperial Palace casino'

Hopefully that means you aren't actually staying there. :)

Ski - Sunday, December 11 2005 @ 04:16 PM EST (#136103) #

Celebrate on 800$? will that even get you to Vegas and back?

Pepper Moffatt - Sunday, December 11 2005 @ 05:05 PM EST (#136104) #

LOL.. no.. I'm at the Aladdin.

Even weirder - I just met Pete Rose.

I was wandering around the shops at Caesar's Palace and I see an attractive 20s-ish woman in a Reds jersey say "want to met Pete Rose?"

I go over to see what's going on.. sure enough, there, in a track suit that looks like it was bought at Jack LaLanne's garage sale, is Pete Rose. And *nobody* else. I mean, nobody.

He was there selling autographs, but nobody seemed to be buying. I just went up to him and said, "Hi, Mr. Rose" and shook his hand. Then I left, because I didn't actually want an autograph.

I never thought I'd feel sorry for Pete Rose, but it was a pretty sad scene. Nobody was taking an interest.

Less than 10 doors down there was a HUGE mob of people. I go over to see what's happening. Billy Dee Williams is there selling autographs. At $50 a pop. And the line is HUGE. Go figure.

Useless Tyler - Sunday, December 11 2005 @ 07:02 PM EST (#136109) #

I was feeling so awful while you were recounting that Pete Rose story - then suddenly I couldn't help but yell "BILLY DEE WILLIAMS?!?!?!?!"

Good emotional rollercoaster, that.

HippyGilmore - Sunday, December 11 2005 @ 08:07 PM EST (#136111) #

Lando's the man. And he never bet on his own team in an...I don't know...pod race? Space race? Whatever it is they do for entertainment in a galaxy far far away.

VBF - Sunday, December 11 2005 @ 08:28 PM EST (#136112) #

Cool story. I wonder where 1-40 ranks us.

Now if you excuse me, I'm off to battle aliens in a far away planet.

...Yes..movie.

Dan H - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 02:08 AM EST (#136121) #

I'll be in Vegas the end of March. I'll have to check and see what the odds are by then, probably put a few dollars on the Jays.

It is kind of sad to see how far Pete Rose has fallen. I'd have probably told the attractive woman no, I'd rather not meet Pete Rose. Great ballplayer, but as a person, I have no interest in meeting him.

Of course, I'm sure the feeling is mutual :)

Michael - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 05:41 AM EST (#136123) #

At a lot of sports bets the bets on teams to win the WS are a bit of a suckers bet. I.e., most places don't let you take the reverse bet (Jays not to win the WS pay $40 to win $1) and as a result the juice is really very big (if you add up all the odds you see something like 1.5 to 2.5 or even 3 WS winners predicted).

That said, sometimes if you shop lines and look at the best line for each team at different sports bets you can knock the lines down.

Online right now at BETonSPORTS.com (the first place online I could find lines, no idea about quality of the book) I see the Jays at 80-1 to win the WS. There are only 4 teams listed as longer odds (although the Jays are tied with 5 other teams). So if you like the Jays at 40-1 what do you think of them at 80-1?

The BETonSPORTS.com lines have just over 1.5 WS winners predicted if you add up the implied probabilities. And you have to tie up your money for a full year. So have fun with the betting, but betting on teams to win the WS is generally a -EV and high variance move.

Pistol - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 09:03 AM EST (#136127) #

"At a lot of sports bets the bets on teams to win the WS are a bit of a suckers bet. I.e., most places don't let you take the reverse bet"

Well, of course. Why would anyone give any odds on the Marlins or Royals winning the World Series?

Here it is in table format (excuse the odd formatting) - the odds are the odds to win and the % is the inverse. So for instance the Cubs are 20:1 to win the World Series - that is, they're given a 5% chance. Of course the percentages add up to 156%, but that's how they make money.

Team			Odds	%
New	York	Yankees	4.5	22.2%
St	Louis	Cards	5.5	18.2%
Boston	Red	Sox	8	12.5%
Chicago	White	Sox	8	12.5%
Los	Angeles	Angels	10	10.0%
New	York	Mets	10	10.0%
Oakland	Athletics	12	8.3%
Cleveland	Indians	14	7.1%
Atlanta	Braves		15	6.7%
Houston	Astros		15	6.7%
Chicago	Cubs		20	5.0%
Minnesota	Twins	25	4.0%
San	Diego	Padres	25	4.0%
Los	Angeles	Dodgers	30	3.3%
Philadelphia	Phill   30	3.3%
San	Francisco 	30	3.3%
Texas	Rangers		50	2.0%
Toronto	Blue	Jays	50	2.0%
Arizona	Diamondbacks	60	1.7%
Baltimore	Orioles	60	1.7%
Cincinnati	Reds	60	1.7%
Detroit	Tigers		60	1.7%
Milwaukee	Brewers	60	1.7%
Washington	Nats	60	1.7%
Seattle	Mariners	75	1.3%
Colorado	Rockies	100	1.0%
Pittsburgh	Pirates	100	1.0%
Tampa	Bay	Devil	200	0.5%
Florida	Marlins		300	0.3%
Kansas	City	Royals	500	0.2%
				156%

Mike Green - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 09:42 AM EST (#136130) #

The oddsmakers have done a good job. There are no favourable odds for bettors; the Yankees and Mets are grossly unfavourable but will draw the money anyway. Las Vegas takes a slice of New York's cash!

Excalabur - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 09:45 AM EST (#136131) #

Actually, that's not quite true. 1:20 odds imply that the team in question has a 1 in 21 chance to win: 1 chance they win vs. 20 they do not.

This reduces, but does not eliminate, the house edge in the list given.

Leigh - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 10:04 AM EST (#136132) #

The oddsmakers have done a good job. There are no favourable odds for bettors

One line jumps out me.

Virtually any team that makes the playoffs should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 7 to 1 to win the World Series (playoffs-as-crapshoot theory and all that). I believe Cleveland to be an absolute, super-duper, undeniable lock to make the playoffs (running away with the AL Central).

14 to 1 is the proper line for a team with a 50% chance of making the playoffs (that is, double the 7 to 1 line that fairly represents their chance of winning the World Series once they've already made the playoffs). I'd put Cleveland's chances of making the playoffs well above 50%.

Pistol - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 10:07 AM EST (#136133) #

20:1 is one in twenty. Take Mike�s bet as an example. He bet $20 on the Jays to win the WS at 40:1. If he wins the bet he�ll get $800 back. If he made 39 other $20 bets at 40:1 and those 39 all lost he would break even (one win returning $800 less forty $20 bets).

Leigh - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 10:10 AM EST (#136134) #

Oh, and Bauxites would be well advised to free up as much capital possible - bonds, deeds, stocks, cheez-whiz futures, unpaid dowries, whatever you're into - and be ready to hammer the White Sox Under when the season win totals come out (assuming the line is set above 85ish).

Leigh - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 10:26 AM EST (#136136) #

Pistol, if Mike D posted up, he'd get $820 (the winnings at 40-1, plus his original stake). If he's betting on credit, then he gets the $800 as you described.

If you make bets at 20-1 (a 5% chance by your math) 100 times for $20 per bet, you should win $400 five times, or $2,000. At the same time, you'll lose 95 bets at $20 each, or $1,900, which gives you a profit of $100 over the course of your 100 bets. If somebody gives you 20-1 on something with a 5% probability, you'll win in the longterm.

But 20-1 actually, as the poster above notes, represents chances of 4.76% (or 1/21). On the 100 bets in my above paragraph, that's 4.76 wins at $400 each, for winnings of $1,904; and 95.23 losses, for losses of $1,904.

Leigh - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 10:31 AM EST (#136137) #

I say that never having been to Vegas and assuming that 20-1 and +2000 are the same thing.

If 20-1 means something other than "If I win you'll give me 20, but if you win I'll give you one", then my above comments are off-base.

Mike Green - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 10:49 AM EST (#136138) #

Cleveland a mortal lock to win the AL Central? Sorry, I can't see it. I think that they will win, with ordinary luck, development patterns and injury experience, but it wouldn't take much for them not to.

Cleveland's offence is heavily dependent on Hafner. He's been healthy so far, but one never knows. The loss of Millwood will sting, and Wickman and Betancourt in the pen both have their questions for different reasons. It is a very good young team, but hardly a lock in a tough division. The Sox probably won't 99 games again, but they still look good to me. The Twins have a bunch of kids who could break out- Kubel, Mauer, Morneau on offence; Liriano may join Santana as a dominant starter. I really like the addition of Luis Castillo in place of Rivas. I can easily see the Twins scoring 50-60 more runs on offence, and cutting 10-15 runs from their runs allowed, which would also put them in the 90-95 win category.

Mike D - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 11:13 AM EST (#136141) #

I believe Cleveland to be an absolute, super-duper, undeniable lock to make the playoffs

This is only true if I bet against it happening.

Craig B - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 11:19 AM EST (#136142) #

be ready to hammer the White Sox Under when the season win totals come out (assuming the line is set above 85ish).

For a team that had a 91-71 Pythagorean, who added a big-hitting DH, and has six good starting pitchers?

You're a braver man than I. I think the White Sox will win 90-94 games, and if Cleveland can match that, godspeed to them. They probably can, but given what they've done (zippa-dee-doo-dah) so far and the career years they got, I wouldn't bet on it.

Leigh - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 11:52 AM EST (#136147) #

I knew I could draw a response...

I overstated both cases, but I think that White Sox Under [whatever the Vegas line is, which I suspect will be in the 93-97 range] and Cleveland at 14-1 for the WS are positive expectation wagers.

Mike Green - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 12:01 PM EST (#136150) #

Actually, the line that jumps out at me is the Brewers at 60-1. It's not that this is necessarily off; it's just that the placement so far behind the Cards, Astros and Cubs is hard to justify. All of the other three numbers are very high, and the Brewers are probably a bit low. The Cards should be the odds-on favourite in the division. At this point, I'd probably have the Brewers second (narrowly) in the division at perhaps 4-1 for the division and 30-1 to be World Series champions. I imagine Milwaukee doesn't get much betting action.

Leigh - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 12:27 PM EST (#136157) #

I agree about the Brewers, Mike G., and your second place projection for them. Another one is the Dodgers, I think, who are at least 35% likely to win the NL West.

The Cardinals could be in trouble, too. Replacing Grudzielanek (2005, OPS+ 92), Sanders (126) and Walker (129) with Miles (65), Bigbie (73) and Taguchi (90) looks to take a sizeable bite out of the offence.

Eldred and Ray are also gone from the bullpen, and Morris from the rotation.

Chuck - Monday, December 12 2005 @ 01:53 PM EST (#136167) #

The Cardinals could be in trouble, too.

I'm not sure how popular a position that is, but I agree.

Walt Jocketty has railed against the size of the recent FA contracts, conveniently ignoring, of course, that attracting players to St. Louis has never been difficult (McGwire, Rolen, Walker, et al). But I am not sure what he's going to do to improve the team. He hasn't done anything so far.

The nucleus of Pujols, Edmonds, Carpenter and Rolen (if healthy) is, off the top of my head, unmatched in MLB. But the team has some big holes and, from what I understand, a thin minor league system to either fill those holes directly or via trade.

If Rolen is still hobbled and Edmonds loses 40 games to injury and Carpenter regresses significantly, I don't know. Were the divison not so weak, I'd say they were vulnerable.

Here's rooting for a David Bush Cy Young season and Milwaukee eking out first place. Isn't that what ex-Jay pitchers do? Win Cy Youngs?

robertdudek - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 12:57 PM EST (#136320) #

robertdudek - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 01:01 PM EST (#136321) #

I forgot to throw in Giambi.

If we extend "core" to include 7 players, no one can hold a candle to the Yankees. The key for them will be in getting value out of the 16 to 25 roster spots.

Mike Green - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:33 PM EST (#136328) #

Mick's Christmas card is in the mail.:)

Seriously, Robert's right. The Yankees have the talent core; if the team can find itself a good defensive centerfielder and 4-5 starters and middle relief, they could very well win 100 games once again. Losing money (at least in the calendar year sense) seems to have focused their minds on the task at hand, and they have rightly stayed out of the free agent market to date, with the exception of Farnsworth.

Craig B - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:45 PM EST (#136330) #

Well, there is the problem of it being an old talent core. They need to keep guys healthy and not have too many drop-offs. No reason why two or more of those guys won't suddenly lose it and two more get hurt for significant periods.

The Yankees' frontline talent was *awesomely* healthy last season. A-Rod and Matsui played 162 games; Jeter 159; Sheffield 154. Giambi played 139 games and started 136. Mussina and Johnson made 64 starts between them, and if perfectly healthy would have made about 68 or 69. Rivera was healthy all year. Posada was healthy all year. Tom Gordon was healthy all year.

The guys who were hurt were Pavano, Kevin Brown, and Jaret Wright, and given the way Chacon, Small and Wang pitched, that was a net positive for the Yankees.

That's just not that likely to happen again. How often does the oldest team in baseball sustain almost no key injuries... and then have those injuries help the team?

robertdudek - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:03 PM EST (#136336) #

Among the players listed, only Johnson and Sheffield are "old". All of them are star players, and we know that the value of truly great players holds up much better as they age than the value of merely good players.

No, those players won't be as healthy, collectively, as they were last year. But the bottom half of the roster was very bad in 2005, and so likely gains there should offset the lost value from the core players.

Mike Green - Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:12 PM EST (#136339) #

Jeter, A-Rod and Matsui have very impressive durability records over the years. Matsui's is actually frightening for his position and build.

The Yankees had Tony Womack and Bernie Williams making "key" contributions in 2005, and they won 95 games. They will surely be able to improve in those areas. What was most noticeable was that their farm system actually produced a useful young player, Cano, who will be around for years at, mirabile dictu, a reasonable price.

Keith Talent - Friday, December 16 2005 @ 09:02 PM EST (#136781) #

Hey! I have one of those Pete Rose autographed baseballs from Las Vegas!

Pistol - Monday, January 02 2006 @ 03:45 PM EST (#138423) #

Following the Glaus trade the Jays are now 20-1 to win the WS at sportsbook.com.

The Jays are getting noticed | 32 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.