 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
If you believe the Bears are definitely going to win
then you might as make yourself some "FREE MONEY"
Bet the Bears to win the NFC Championship game +105
then next week
Bet whoever they play in the NFC Championship game, whoever they play will likely be +130 or higher..
This is only if you are positive the Bears beat the Hawks.. No lose situation..
First person to point out why this is bad advice gets kudos. For extra Kudos, what's better?
Pretty mouthy for a Sportpunter lemming.Originally Posted by Santo
If you are positively sure the bears will beat the hawks.. put 100k on the bears ML instead
I like CHI...but I am not betting these days.
Why don't you explain? Cause you can't..
Bears are -386 to win the game and almost 10 points buddy..
Can't wait for this explanation..
By taking the Bears at +140 (decimal 2.0500) to win the AFC Championship, a bettor is effectively parlaying the Bears over the Seahawks (current Pinnacle ML of -378, or decimal 1.2646) and the Bears over whomever their opponent might in the NFC Championship.
This means that by purchasing this future one is effectively betting the Bears in the finals at a line of about -161 (2.05/1.2646 = 1.6211, US odds of -161).
So putting it all together imgv's bet certainly makes sense for a player who believes both:
- -220 is not an overly disadvantageous line for Chicago over Seattle
- assuming Chicago wins against Seattle, he won't be able to get better odds on the Bears than -161
Notice that the decision to make this bet does not hinge on the player believing that Chicago is a near-lock to win over Seattle. If a player did in fact believe this and had no view on the Championship game, he would almost certainly be better off solely betting the Chicago/Seattle ML so that he would avoid paying extra juice AND limit his overall risk. All that's important in making this decision is the belief that -161 would be a good line on Chicago in the Championship (were they to make it that far) and that the current -378 line is not overly unfair.
Option A) A $100 bet on the Bears +105 and the Saints +130 would return either a profit of $5 or $30.
Three potential outcomes:
Win $5
Win $30
Lose $100
Option B) A $100 bet on the Bears ML -386 would return $25.91.
Two potential outcomes:
Win $25.91
Lose $100
Option A makes no sense.
Are you positive the Saints would be +130? Believe it's quite possible the Saints may end up +150 or higher probably find something really nice at Matchbook if someone has an account there..
Saints/Eagles might even be as high as +170 if they play the Bears on the road.. So possible chance of making alot more than $25.91 my just betting them straight..
O.K Next!!
Last edited by imgv94; 01-07-07 at 08:44 PM.
Because it was more interesting to throw it out to get opinions, and because I was working through a backlog of tennis bets.
Razz's answer is what i was expecting. Ganchrow gives a good explanation also. In essence, you shouldn't bet what you say if you think the Bears are going to win, you need other information too.
I don't even think it would be +130 honestly. I would love to get the Saints at anything even close to +130.
Razz I'm very dissapointed in you.. Thought we were buds..
Even at Soldier Field?Let's not forget it could be the Eagles as well. +180 possibly with them..
Bears will be at least -3 no matter who they play..
Hey Razz are you betting SEMO +9.5 tomorrow?
Well, I mean, I'm not saying it's a dumb idea in principle - because of the possibility of the Eagles winning, it could work in your favor - I just think there are many things better to play than this. If it was "free money", it wouldn't be offered.
You can. Right now. So if you really believe this to be true then you have a great bet of your own.
Bet the Eagles over the Saints for ½ a unit at +200, and bet the Saints to win the NFC for 1 unit at +247.
In this manner, an Eagles win over the Saints would result in a net return of zero (effectively No Action), while if the Saints win over the Eagles then you'd be risking 1.5 units to win 1.97 (2.47 units won on Saints - 0.5 units lost on Eagles), implying a NO line of ~ +131.3.
In fact this is actually even better than it first might appear in that you'd getting the +131.3 on the Saints regardless of their opponent in the NFC Championship (even were it Seattle -- against whom the Saints would ostensibly be a favorite).
So in other words you can get better than +130 on the Saints right now to beat their opponent in NFC Championship game. (Assuming they make it that far -- if they don't make it that far, your bet would effectively be refunded.)
No such thing as Free Money.. Just saying this for people who believe the Bears are definitely going to win..
Considering the line moving up 2pts 60secs after the line came out means obvioiusly a lot of people do..
Right, but the point is that unless a player were to think that he wouldn't be able to get better odds on the Bears than -161 in the NFC Championship (assuming they win over the Seahawks), he'd just be better off taking the straight ML on the Bears/Hawks game and skipping the futures play altogether.
Incidentally Razz, actually a THFC fan in Alabama?
Yeah, I grew up in northern Virginia, where soc/fb was a pretty big deal - and I didn't want to follow the same teams everyone else was, and something about Spurs interested me. Frustrating result yesterday, but at least Keane and Lennon came back.
Acceptable result in Cardiff really, after Leicester last year, and the Premiership scalps yesterday. I'm expecting to get tickets for the replay at WHL.
LYP is absolutely useless, so still should be looking for two left-sided players in the window, some youngsters signed that hopefully will come through the ranks, but still need a stop-gap. LYP doesn't cut it at this level, and we could do with a left winger to complement Lennon, width has really been a problem during his injury. There has been talk at WHL in the last few games I've been to of playing Keane on the left as a way of keeping RK, DB and JD in the side.
Oh yeah, no complaints about the draw, just would have liked to have taken care of things without the replay. It actually looked quite poor from about the 10th minute to the 35th minute or so - I especially liked LYP's header that set up Cardiff's best chance of the night - but I thought Spurs played pretty well the rest of the game.
That's interesting about Keane playing on the left ... what do you think are the chances we land Bent? Obviously he's out for a month or so, but that's an awful lot of quality strikers with some of the other weaknesses, especially at the back.
I understand what you are saying sir, but it sounds more sexy to wager on +105 and +150 odds then to wager on almost -400 odds..
Santo, what's your opinion on DB?
I read in some of the THFC fan forums posters comparing him to some of the greatest in team's history. Do fans sing a special song already for him?
Imho he's one of the best all-round strikers in the world today. I don't think it's a good idea to play all 3 at the same time, but wingers are definitely needed.
Reply With Quote