Consider betting against Canada winning gold on Pinnacle

[KingKolzig]

I think this was one of the weirdest lines of the tourney. Sweden was of course the better team but who the hell bet Sweden at -400 or so ML, just ridiculous. Of course easy saying this after the game but Slovakia are solid defensively so +300 vs Sweden was a gift for anyone who took it.

if slovakia was such a gift why didnt you take it? slovakia has plenty of 2nd level foreign league players, thats why the line was -425 sweden, thats why the public shyed away, and thats why you didnt take it........."weirdest line of the tourny" thats funny. I guess any +350 bball upset was a "weird line" to start with huh

[KingKolzig]

you should search out "weird lines", but not after the fact, you will be so rich

[yisman]

Congratulations you are right. You as a senior member of this forum advise all members (especially those noobs that are aplenty here) not to take a very +ev bet cause of your opinion that Canada couldnt win 4 games in a row cause you thought it was too hard to do and not worth it. Anyways enjoy your day.

You figured out it was +ev after Canada won two games and Sweden lost. I'm so happy for you. Kinda sad for your parents, though.

Was I wrong? Well, if you bet against Canada, it doesn't look very good for your bet now, so I suppose I was. I nailed my line projections, though, and I still don't think it made very much sense to bet Canada at that price rather than going game by game and betting according to the lines.

The bottom line? The only people who have the right to talk trash are the people who said something before Canada beat Germany.

[KingKolzig]

yisman +228 was a great bet. your only argument is that sweden was upset. But even so Canada would be -225 against sweden today, im sure you will say -190 lol, but either way canada would win something like 3-1

[yisman]

yisman +228 was a great bet. your only argument is that sweden was upset. But even so Canada would be -225 against sweden today, im sure you will say -190 lol, but either way canada would win something like 3-1

No, my argument was that they likely would have to beat Russia and Sweden, two very good teams, just to reach the finals.

Just because they did beat Russia and Sweden lost, doesn't change the way I felt about the situation at the time.

The way they played against Germany and Russia was a marked change from the way they played against Switzerland and the US.

Remember, you said Canada would be -190 against Russia and that was your rationale for knocking my logic.

[Jaug]

if slovakia was such a gift why didnt you take it? slovakia has plenty of 2nd level foreign league players, thats why the line was -425 sweden, thats why the public shyed away, and thats why you didnt take it........."weirdest line of the tourny" thats funny. I guess any +350 bball upset was a "weird line" to start with huh

What?

[Jaug]

No, my argument was that they likely would have to beat Russia and Sweden, two very good teams, just to reach the finals.

Just because they did beat Russia and Sweden lost, doesn't change the way I felt about the situation at the time.

The way they played against Germany and Russia was a marked change from the way they played against Switzerland and the US.

Remember, you said Canada would be -190 against Russia and that was your rationale for knocking my logic.

This was a terrible estimation.

I agree with yisman. A lot of things have moved in Canada's favor since that +220, most notably Sweden getting knocked out as -400 faves.

[KingKolzig]

What?

bro you said it was a gift. if it was such a gift then you would have taken it......dont throw around terms like gift after the game is over guy

[KingKolzig]

No, my argument was that they likely would have to beat Russia and Sweden, two very good teams, just to reach the finals.

Just because they did beat Russia and Sweden lost, doesn't change the way I felt about the situation at the time.

The way they played against Germany and Russia was a marked change from the way they played against Switzerland and the US.

Remember, you said Canada would be -190 against Russia and that was your rationale for knocking my logic.

yisman you are just wrong on this. canada was +110 at the start of the tournament. they started slow and that line more than doubled, many people hopped on it and it rounded off at +195. and not only was that slow start aided by a very very unlucky loss to the USA, but Russia hadnt exactly been lighting it up...........my logic was that they are the deepest, most talented team in the tourny, the tourny which was on home ice. -190 or -155 (the final line) wasnt that significant in my decision, I just knew that any team that beat canada would need a bunch of really lucky bounces...........only a fool would have taken "NO" at like -260 or whatever it was

also it turns out my line of -190 a lot more accurate than the real line

[yisman]

We were projecting the betting line, not your opinion of what the line should be.

[Regul8er]

yisman, if Canada ends up winning gold.....will you admit that betting against Canada winning gold held terrible value, and that Canada held tremendous value. That's all I want to know.

[KingKolzig]

We were projecting the betting line, not your opinion of what the line should be.

our side bet is a completely seperate matter............."consider betting against canada winning gold" is really what we are talking about. the exact line isnt important, canada being a solid fav in every game is

[yisman]

yisman, if Canada ends up winning gold.....will you admit that betting against Canada winning gold held terrible value, and that Canada held tremendous value. That's all I want to know.

If Canada ends up winning gold, I'll be happy, because I'm pulling for them.

My problem with your line of reasoning here is that it is entirely results-oriented. Something can have value even if it loses.

Now that Canada has played very well, it makes bets against them look bad, but I was basing the opinion that one should consider looking at the Canada line off their play to that point.

When I admit to a bad bet, it's because of a flaw I found in my reasoning at the time I was making a bet. I look back on the original post and the reasoning was sound. I'm glad I didn't make the bet, of course, because it does not look good.

our side bet is a completely seperate matter............."consider betting against canada winning gold" is really what we are talking about. the exact line isnt important, canada being a solid fav in every game is

But your reasoning for taking that line instead of betting each game straight up was based on bad line projections.

[KingKolzig]

-190 to -155 isnt that big of a difference............and why projections (plural)? they are not playing sweden.............-260 is still a joke even if i trimmed down my lines considerably..............my thinking was that Russia could not beat them. and also that after they beat russia by 2+ that line would swing in the complete opposite direction (-260 to +260), which it has

[KingKolzig]

ppl went gaga over russia, i knew better

[yisman]

-190 to -155 isnt that big of a difference.

The line was less in the morning.

It was -139 and even lower.

If you waited for the worst possible line, you could have gotten -155.

It is a big difference.

[KingKolzig]

or does the later -155 represent more action than -139, it think it does............either way i believed russia was the only major/moderate hurdle, and thats reflected in my other projections. i figured no one else could touch canada and no one else will. making, once again +228 a near gem even if they had to play sweden............and it does matter what my feeling was on how canada would dominate russia, the fact that i had -190 actually aides my argument that +228 was a steal. because if +228 was based on a closer game with russia i said no to that, that it would be a canada breeze in that game.......the more inflated projected lines, all the more reason to take the +228 future