[princecharles]

Is my perception skewed here.
Last night the Bulls a -1400 fav lost outright. These upsets occur with just enough frequency to make parlaying a handful of huge moneyline favorites a
-EV most of the time. (plus overpaying on the true win probability).

So my question is shouldn't a -300 MLB pitcher offer the same chance of winning as a -300 NBA game?
I think the answer should be yes, but it seems like alot more upsets in the NBA at that price point.

Given a choice of two bets, wouldn't most take the -300 MLB team over the
-300 NBA team?

What gives? :-)

[mathdotcom]

NBA is a joke

Imagine a -400 ML in baseball, the difference in strength would be huge. A -1400 favorite in the NFL could lose, but probably due to a few discrete cases of bad luck like fumbles. In basketball you can't blame the loss on a few bad plays, it means the favorite was consistently outplayed due to the continuous nature of the scoring.

I have my own theories as to why this can happen, but the leading one is that NBA stars are whining drama queens that will mope on the court and not perform because someone looked at them funny or a journalist wrote a mean article that hurt their feelings.

[MonkeyF0cker]

A vastly higher scoring variance in NBA yields a far greater number of -300 ML's than in MLB. The reason it may seem that more -300 ML NBA teams lose is because there are so many more opportunities. A -300 ML in MLB is fairly rare while a -300 ML in the NBA happens nearly every night.

[princecharles]

A vastly higher scoring variance in NBA yields a far greater number of -300 ML's than in MLB. The reason it may seem that more -300 ML NBA teams lose is because there are so many more opportunities. A -300 ML in MLB is fairly rare while a -300 ML in the NBA happens nearly every night.

Ok Monkey, great i think we're getting there.
Now the question still is what would you choose if you were given a free bet that had to be used on a -300 favorite ONLY,
And only on a randomly selected MLB or NBA game?
You could select the sport but not the actual play, you just know that it will be a ML of -300.

Which sport do you think wise gamblers would choose?
Thanks

[CrazyCarl]

Surely there's some statistics available that can give us win%'s of certain moneylines.

[sharpcat]

Ok Monkey, great i think we're getting there.
Now the question still is what would you choose if you were given a free bet that had to be used on a -300 favorite ONLY,
And only on a randomly selected MLB or NBA game?
You could select the sport but not the actual play, you just know that it will be a ML of -300.

Which sport do you think wise gamblers would choose?
Thanks

The cheaper one.

[FreeFall]

the answer to your question is no.

a -300 favorite is a -300 favorite. No matter which sport or which player or which team you want your position on. You have a 75% chance of winning, assuming the number is of FMV.

[skipton]

Is my perception skewed here.
Last night the Bulls a -1400 fav lost outright. These upsets occur with just enough frequency to make parlaying a handful of huge moneyline favorites a
-EV most of the time. (plus overpaying on the true win probability).

So my question is shouldn't a -300 MLB pitcher offer the same chance of winning as a -300 NBA game?
I think the answer should be yes, but it seems like alot more upsets in the NBA at that price point.

Given a choice of two bets, wouldn't most take the -300 MLB team over the
-300 NBA team?

What gives? :-)

only use the dog side on nba moneyline in parleys every once in a u can catch a large parley, i hit one for 9300 in aug and one for 11200 in jan both seven teamers, baseball different story all about the picthers and yes you can make money betting on baseball