Also, people generally can't exploit the bet too much, since even sharp betters don't particularly like the idea of locking up a bunch of their bankroll for a small return, not to mention the hassle of cashing the ticket. As it is, if I wanted to make the bet at -1300, assuming Shackleford's numbers are accurate, it would have been a $27 EV bet for every $1000 I had to lay out, and win $77 at best. I also knew it was -1100 at Stations casinos, and even though I wasn't going to be able to get back there, I didn't want to bet Caesar's crappier spread.
By the way, I think that the common "First Score" is a Safety prop bet may have been closer to 50:1.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Kamango_" <vetsen@...> wrote:
>
> I haven't independently calculated it, but I'd expect if M.S. was using 19:1 as the true odds it's because that's the ratio for all NFL games going back for something like 10 years.
>
> The books offer 1:10 because the general public is happy to bet the 'yes' at 7:1 due to A) they don't know the true odds, and B) they like to bet rare events with big payoffs.
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@> wrote:
> >
> > It makes me skeptical that the true odds are 19 to 1. What is that
> > based on and why do the sports books offer such a supposedly
> > ridiculous overlay?
> >
> > johnnyzee wrote:
> >
>
