I said this in the "Will Federer win the AO" thread and am trying to show that with an experiment in that thread (where I suggest it's better to bet your initial investment on that player you think will win outright and just continually roll that amount over by betting it all on the next match at the match odds), but it'll only work if he actually ends up winning it.
But in Picantel's post in the in-game thread of Colts/Pitt, he cut and pasted a $200 outright ticket where he has them to win the AFC at +1114 odds. His copy and pasted ticket shows that he'd win $2220.80 from his $200 investment if Pitt beats Denver this week (The actual price he should have is $2228.00, NOT 2220.80 from odds of +1114/11.14 to 1 shot, but that's not my point, but if that is the actual ticket, the book shaved off $7.20 of potential profit).
Now, betting Pitt to win the AFC at 11.14 to 1 odds sounds juicy, but let's look at the return if Pitt backers had decided to go for the outright by betting the original investment and rolling it over by betting the Steelers ML every game.
$200 on Steelers ML vs Cincy (-150)
Result: Wins $133.33
New Bank: $333.33
$333.33 on Steelers ML vs Colts (+400)
Result: Wins $1333.32
New Bank: $1666.65
(Of course, we are assuming Pitt beats Denver below to see the actual odds you would've gotten from betting in this manner instead of going for the book's outright odds)
$1666.65 on Steelers ML vs Broncos (+168)
Result: Wins $2799.97
New Bank: $4466.62
So, your new bank after winning an "outright" wager on Pitt at 11.14 to 1 is $2428, that's TWO DIMES less than what you should win on the wager. Now, imagine Picantel has a ticket to win the Superbowl at 17 to 1, meaning his $200 turns into $3600 ($3400 profit) if that comes through. The difference between that and the true odds is ridiculous (You'd bet your whole bank of $4466.62 on the Steelers ML in the SB).
There are very few instances where betting an outright is a smart wager (I explained in the tennis thread, you need to place one fairly long term, like Nadal to win RG last year at the beg. of the year was a 40 to 1 shot, he drifted to 3 to 1 after his amazing run on the clay during the clay court season).
But in Picantel's post in the in-game thread of Colts/Pitt, he cut and pasted a $200 outright ticket where he has them to win the AFC at +1114 odds. His copy and pasted ticket shows that he'd win $2220.80 from his $200 investment if Pitt beats Denver this week (The actual price he should have is $2228.00, NOT 2220.80 from odds of +1114/11.14 to 1 shot, but that's not my point, but if that is the actual ticket, the book shaved off $7.20 of potential profit).
Now, betting Pitt to win the AFC at 11.14 to 1 odds sounds juicy, but let's look at the return if Pitt backers had decided to go for the outright by betting the original investment and rolling it over by betting the Steelers ML every game.
$200 on Steelers ML vs Cincy (-150)
Result: Wins $133.33
New Bank: $333.33
$333.33 on Steelers ML vs Colts (+400)
Result: Wins $1333.32
New Bank: $1666.65
(Of course, we are assuming Pitt beats Denver below to see the actual odds you would've gotten from betting in this manner instead of going for the book's outright odds)
$1666.65 on Steelers ML vs Broncos (+168)
Result: Wins $2799.97
New Bank: $4466.62
So, your new bank after winning an "outright" wager on Pitt at 11.14 to 1 is $2428, that's TWO DIMES less than what you should win on the wager. Now, imagine Picantel has a ticket to win the Superbowl at 17 to 1, meaning his $200 turns into $3600 ($3400 profit) if that comes through. The difference between that and the true odds is ridiculous (You'd bet your whole bank of $4466.62 on the Steelers ML in the SB).
There are very few instances where betting an outright is a smart wager (I explained in the tennis thread, you need to place one fairly long term, like Nadal to win RG last year at the beg. of the year was a 40 to 1 shot, he drifted to 3 to 1 after his amazing run on the clay during the clay court season).
