Sports book futures bets are an increasing popular and potentially profitable way to wager on the outcome of a full season. There's a few common mistakes that novice players make that can be easily avoided by paying attention to the following:
Search for the best price: A common mistake is to assume that the price on a specific futures wager position will be the same at every sportsbook. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, you'll often see a greater degree of difference between futures prices from book to book than any other form of bet. This is because that books aren't as worried about what price other outfits are offering as they are about keeping their own financial position balanced.
Don't fixate on picking the winner from a competitive field: This may sound like strange advice, but from a theoretical standpoint it makes perfect sense. As with every other element of sport wagering its crucial to always focus not on winners and losers, but on the value you're getting on individual bets. For example, in most years there are several teams with a realistic shot of winning at the start of the NCAA basketball tournament. The problem is that these top teams invariably offer low paybacks that are less than their 'true odds' of winning. Every team is subject to the same variables like injuries, slumps, bad matchups but backing teams that are 'under the radar' at higher prices offer more compensation for these 'risks'.
To put this in more theoretical terms, the "true odds" of Duke winning the NCAA Championship are almost certainly higher than the price we're getting. Obviously, determining the "true odds", or actual probability of a future event is an inexact science but think of it this way: if the NCAA tournament was played 100 times would Duke wind up winning 50 of those? Given the number of other good teams and the propensity for upsets along the way, its doubtful. For the sake of argument, lets say that Duke has a 33% chance to win the tournament. That means that I wouldn't consider a bet on Duke to be a good value unless I was getting a price that a) accurately reflected the true probability of their winning and b) gave me some compensation for assuming the "risk of the unknown" inherent in taking the position so far in advance. At +500 I might be interested, but at +200 the value just isn't there.
Note that the more competitive the market, the more difficult it is to find good value on a favorite. In a smaller field, or in a field with one dominant competitor it can be easier. For example, say the UFC were to have a tournament involving heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar and three male figure skaters. Even if Lesnar was slightly injured, or not at the top of his game he'd essentially have a 100% chance of beating the smaller, effeminate men who are untrained to fight. If a book installed Lesnar as a -1000 favorite in this spot, it could still be considered a good value. It's never easy to risk a lot to win a little, but from strictly a mathematical standpoint it makes sense.
Don't go for the big killing: Sports wagering is not a good arena in which to make a 'big killing'. It may happen from time to time, but it is extremely rare. A perennial doormat can come out of nowhere to win a championship at a big price, but the fact that it happens from time to time doesn't make it a good value. If you're a recreational player and want to throw a few dollars at a big long shot, no real harm. If you aspire to any degree of seriousness as a sports better, however, you need to maintain your discipline and commitment to value at all times. If you want to hit a big jackpot play the lottery or the slot machines, but don't try to do it in a sports betting paradigm.
Wagering value is just as important at the bottom of the barrel as it is at the top. Just because you're getting a huge potential payback on a big dog doesn't make it a good value. Make sure that the payback you're getting presents an overlay situation--even on a huge underdog.
Don't bet one sided props: Sometimes sports books will offer silly bets just to get publicity or in some cases just to be funny. While there may be life on other planets, the 'true odds' of a Martian being named to President Obama's cabinet wouldn't justify a +5000 line that it would occur. - 16887
Search for the best price: A common mistake is to assume that the price on a specific futures wager position will be the same at every sportsbook. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, you'll often see a greater degree of difference between futures prices from book to book than any other form of bet. This is because that books aren't as worried about what price other outfits are offering as they are about keeping their own financial position balanced.
Don't fixate on picking the winner from a competitive field: This may sound like strange advice, but from a theoretical standpoint it makes perfect sense. As with every other element of sport wagering its crucial to always focus not on winners and losers, but on the value you're getting on individual bets. For example, in most years there are several teams with a realistic shot of winning at the start of the NCAA basketball tournament. The problem is that these top teams invariably offer low paybacks that are less than their 'true odds' of winning. Every team is subject to the same variables like injuries, slumps, bad matchups but backing teams that are 'under the radar' at higher prices offer more compensation for these 'risks'.
To put this in more theoretical terms, the "true odds" of Duke winning the NCAA Championship are almost certainly higher than the price we're getting. Obviously, determining the "true odds", or actual probability of a future event is an inexact science but think of it this way: if the NCAA tournament was played 100 times would Duke wind up winning 50 of those? Given the number of other good teams and the propensity for upsets along the way, its doubtful. For the sake of argument, lets say that Duke has a 33% chance to win the tournament. That means that I wouldn't consider a bet on Duke to be a good value unless I was getting a price that a) accurately reflected the true probability of their winning and b) gave me some compensation for assuming the "risk of the unknown" inherent in taking the position so far in advance. At +500 I might be interested, but at +200 the value just isn't there.
Note that the more competitive the market, the more difficult it is to find good value on a favorite. In a smaller field, or in a field with one dominant competitor it can be easier. For example, say the UFC were to have a tournament involving heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar and three male figure skaters. Even if Lesnar was slightly injured, or not at the top of his game he'd essentially have a 100% chance of beating the smaller, effeminate men who are untrained to fight. If a book installed Lesnar as a -1000 favorite in this spot, it could still be considered a good value. It's never easy to risk a lot to win a little, but from strictly a mathematical standpoint it makes sense.
Don't go for the big killing: Sports wagering is not a good arena in which to make a 'big killing'. It may happen from time to time, but it is extremely rare. A perennial doormat can come out of nowhere to win a championship at a big price, but the fact that it happens from time to time doesn't make it a good value. If you're a recreational player and want to throw a few dollars at a big long shot, no real harm. If you aspire to any degree of seriousness as a sports better, however, you need to maintain your discipline and commitment to value at all times. If you want to hit a big jackpot play the lottery or the slot machines, but don't try to do it in a sports betting paradigm.
Wagering value is just as important at the bottom of the barrel as it is at the top. Just because you're getting a huge potential payback on a big dog doesn't make it a good value. Make sure that the payback you're getting presents an overlay situation--even on a huge underdog.
Don't bet one sided props: Sometimes sports books will offer silly bets just to get publicity or in some cases just to be funny. While there may be life on other planets, the 'true odds' of a Martian being named to President Obama's cabinet wouldn't justify a +5000 line that it would occur. - 16887
About the Author:
Ross Everett is a freelance sports writer and respected authority on sports betting odds comparison. He writing has appeared on a variety of sports sites including sports news and betting odds portal sites. He lives in Las Vegas, Nevada with three Jack Russell Terriers and an emu. He is currently working on an autobiography of former interior secretary James Watt.
No comments:
Post a Comment