Huge value in KC tonight

No coincidences · 08-02-10, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by 2daBank

isnt 2.85 equal to +185?

Yes.

2daBank · 08-02-10, 01:58 PM

so not only is it not tripling it is a shitty line as most places are at +195

iloseagain · 08-02-10, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by lunchbawks

Bannister is VERY consistent though, last 10 games era's between 3-6. He never lets a team bat around, he'll give up a few runs but it ends there- the guy is a legit MLB pitcher.

dude are you serious...his ERA in his last 10 GAMES IS 7.13 THAT IS FVCKIN HORRIBLE

lunchbawks · 08-02-10, 01:59 PM

What's the issue here?

2.85 is equal to 2.85

2daBank · 08-02-10, 01:59 PM

if i wanted to play big dogs today i would think a lot harder about tor and cle, at least they got solid starters going for them....

HoulihansTX · 08-02-10, 02:01 PM

Trevor is the Best pitcher on the West Coast next to Latos.

lunchbawks · 08-02-10, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by iloseagain

dude are you serious...his ERA in his last 10 GAMES IS 7.13 THAT IS FVCKIN HORRIBLE

What you are referring to is his season ERA, 7.13.

L10 he's well under 5.6 ERA

2daBank · 08-02-10, 02:03 PM

8 of Bannister's last 9 starts he has givin up at least 4 runs, more in several of those and that is before the shit pen gets involved...Oak scores 4 and it is over.....

CHAZ · 08-02-10, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by lunchbawks

100$ multiplied by 2.8 = ALMOST TRIPLE YOUR GODDAMN MONEY wiseass

Originally posted by 2daBank

isnt 2.85 equal to +185?

3.00 would be +200

+200 is doubling your money

lunchbawks · 08-02-10, 02:05 PM

whatever guys

300 is 100 tripled, right?

ttm · 08-02-10, 02:10 PM

Except 100 is your investment

iloseagain · 08-02-10, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by lunchbawks

What you are referring to is his season ERA, 7.13.

L10 he's well under 5.6 ERA

last 10 games
jul 28 6 IP 5 ER
jul 23 4.2 IP 4 ER
jul 18 6.1 IP 5 ER
jul 10 6 IP 5 ER
jul 5 7 IP 4 ER
jun 29 4 IP 4 ER
jun 23 6 IP 0 ER
jun 18 4 IP 5 ER
jun 12 3 IP 9 ER
jun 6 7.1 IP 2 ER

thats 54.33 IP and 43 ER in last 10 starts =

are u really going to argue this?

CHAZ · 08-02-10, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by lunchbawks

whatever guys

300 is 100 tripled, right?

Yes it is but we are talking decimal odds.

4.00 would be tripling your money.

I don't really care enough to argue this. I'm just trying to let you know.

Rbyrne · 08-02-10, 02:13 PM

never bet on KC.....ever

hush-hush · 08-02-10, 02:15 PM

KC didn't convince me against the O's, so why should they come out strong against the A's playing at home with Cahill on the mound? I don't really get your point. I wouldn't lay that much chalk either, but the RL at plus money is definitely worth a shot.

cb8720 · 08-02-10, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Rbyrne

and if Cahill can shut down the Rangers line up on the road.....he can def handle all the no name chumps in KCs lineup

KC kicked Cahill's ass two weeks ago.

2daBank · 08-02-10, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by cb8720

KC kicked Cahill's ass two weeks ago.

yet Oak still won that game in kc.....what are the odds Cahill gets roughed up by in back to back starts against them? cant be good......

iloseagain · 08-02-10, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by cb8720

KC kicked Cahill's ass two weeks ago.

before they traded away all of their good players

cb8720 · 08-02-10, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by iloseagain

before they traded away all of their good players

No Podsednik or, more importantly, DeJesus. It's certainly a much weaker lineup than Cahill saw last time.

Ninersnut · 08-02-10, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by CHAZ

Yes it is but we are talking decimal odds. 4.00 would be tripling your money. I don't really care enough to argue this. I'm just trying to let you know.

I will never understand how/why people count the money they threw up on the bet as a profit

ACCBlitz · 08-02-10, 02:32 PM

OAK RL to the bank

lunchbawks · 08-02-10, 02:34 PM

The money they threw up is profit, it's called juice... you know that 10% the books take from the public every single day?

SaffaCappa · 08-02-10, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by lunchbawks

whatever guys

300 is 100 tripled, right?

So if I take a calculator and punch in 3 0 0, then the - sign, then 1 0 0, then the = sign.
My answer is 200?

I cant seem to make my calculator take 100 x 3 and equal 200. Am I doing something wrong?

lunchbawks · 08-02-10, 02:42 PM

useless

Ninersnut · 08-02-10, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by lunchbawks

The money they threw up is profit, it's called juice... you know that 10% the books take from the public every single day?

What the fvck are you talking about?

SprtsCapnGuru · 08-02-10, 03:21 PM

Not trying to be a homer by any means, but I have luck this year bettting KC....but not on the moneyline...I take them often when they are getting +1.5...payout is usually decent too....I'm not sure if I would take the moneyline many times with the royals, but they did have a great team batting average. Key word is "did"...a good portion of our line up is back to typical royals ways....bring in good young talent, trade em, bring in good young talent, trade em....if that doesn't work, get some trade bait, then trade em for good young talent, and then trade em. Even though I'm a die hard KC fan, betting on KC will most likely put a dent in your bankroll.
With that being said, my money is on the Royals!

CHAZ · 08-02-10, 04:49 PM

Are you guys serious? It's decimal odds lol

Someone do a search and learn something please.

-400 = 100/400 + 1 = 1.25

If you bet $100 and win on a ML at -400 you get back $125.

Not as if I would make shit up. This is truly how you figure the odds. Believe me or not guys this is how fractional odds to decimal odds is figured.

RockBottom · 08-02-10, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by CHAZ

So and so due for a bad game is a terrible betting angle in my eyes.

Damn right. This game will be about 5-1 Oakland.

sharpcat · 08-02-10, 05:26 PM

Lunchbawks,

My friend decimal odds of 2.80 is equivalent to U.S. odds of +180 and fractional odds of 9/5 meaning if you risk $100 dollars you will win $180 and therefore you will be refunded $280. This is your $180 winnings plus your $100 dollar investment returned to you.

I highly suggest that you familiarize yourself with basic gambling mathematics if you are going to gamble and most importantly before you start tossing the word value around (although if this wager was paying 3-1 it would have value)

CHAZ · 08-02-10, 05:34 PM

Thank you! Hopefully, they get it now and I dont look crazy lol

2daBank · 08-02-10, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by CHAZ

Exactly! Hopefully, they get it now.

who is they? only one person in here seems to be having a hard time grasping this.....

lunchbawks · 08-02-10, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by sharpcat

Lunchbawks,

My friend decimal odds of 2.80 is equivalent to U.S. odds of +180 and fractional odds of 9/5 meaning if you risk $100 dollars you will win $180 and therefore you will be refunded $280. This is your $180 winnings plus your $100 dollar investment returned to you.

I highly suggest that you familiarize yourself with basic gambling mathematics if you are going to gamble and most importantly before you start tossing the word value around (although if this wager was paying 3-1 it would have value)

I know what's going on, don't worry.

i think it's a value bet, it's an opinion, there aren't just value bets everyone agrees on.

FREEPLZ · 08-02-10, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by 2daBank

so not only is it not tripling it is a shitty line as most places are at +195

Its actually almost tripling the money if you turn 100 into almost 300.

You dont earn almost triple the money (That would be bettin 100 for +300, earning 300 and ending up with 400),
but you almost triple your money (bettin 100 for +200, earning 200 and ending up with 300 aka triple of 100).

lunchbawks · 08-02-10, 05:48 PM

...who gives a sh-t?

i never should have said the word triple

CHAZ · 08-02-10, 06:18 PM

What was the bet again? Lol

Goodluck lunchbawks on your royals