Notice: This is an old thread. The last post was 301 days ago. If your post is not directly related to this discussion please consider making a new thread.
February 11th, 2013 01:11 PM
$2 bet wins $9 million
Payout if TCU beat Kansas for its 1st Big 12 victory. My goodness...where the hell was Marty McFly on that shit!?!?
February 11th, 2013 01:12 PM
Uh what book was offering this line?
February 11th, 2013 01:16 PM
Don't make no gawdam sense!!!
February 11th, 2013 05:42 PM
No idea. My old boss (TCU grad) told me about it at lunch. He found out about it on their team site.
February 11th, 2013 07:30 PM
February 11th, 2013 07:50 PM
lol yep you are correct but I will say after watching TCU tonight it should have won somebody 9mil LoL...as usao asked in the game thread ... How in the blue **** did TCU beat Kansas?
Maybe it was part of a 15 team teaser? ****you.gif" border="0" alt="" title=":D" class="inlineimg" />
February 11th, 2013 07:58 PM
Tyson was regularly 35-1 against whatever tomato can he fought - even Holyfield. You'll see the bottom pro teams at 250-400 to 1 as far as odds to win it all. No book, wise guy, or anyone is going to give 4,500,000 - 1. I call
February 11th, 2013 08:15 PM
$2 bet wins $9 million
Pretty much this. I'm better than a 4,500,000 to 1 shot to win the Masters.
February 12th, 2013 09:47 AM
I'll pass your sentiments onto my old boss.
Personally, it doesn't make any sense to me either. I immediately thought "4.5MM to 1"? Who the **** would do that?
February 12th, 2013 10:05 AM
Everyone in their right mind would sacrifice 10 bucks to earn 45 mil.... Total bullshit.
February 12th, 2013 01:27 PM
Mainly the players playing on the other team ;-)
February 12th, 2013 01:46 PM
I still have a problem with how way that books set futures payouts.
For instance, the Astros are 200:1 to win the World Series. Should be closer to 10,000:1 if we are really calculating odds. If they set this line, shouldn't there be equal action at 1:200 that hey don't win it?
If so, it would be stupid for a wealthy gambler to not throw several million at it.
February 12th, 2013 01:58 PM
But the 200:1 isn't really the "odds" of the Astros winning, is it? Isn't it just based on the amount of action the Astros are getting win it all? In other words, I think if they set the odds at 10,000:1, so many people would jump on that outrageous line that it would quickly correct to 200:1.
For instance, the Astros are 200:1 to win the World Series. Should be closer to 10,000:1
That's essentialy what IS happening. The sum total of the action on the rest of the field to win it (or bets that the Astros won't win) would be the inverse of the Astros' "odds", right?
If they set this line, shouldn't there be equal action at 1:200 that hey don't win it?
February 12th, 2013 02:18 PM
That isn't happening, the inverse is covered just on bets of Toronto (7:1) and Oakland (30:1)
The odds of the field (non Astros) is 1:1220
February 12th, 2013 06:04 PM
They aren't going to set odds that high - even in the beginning. As I said 200-400 is as high as it will ever get. Even when Tyson was 35-1 tons of money would come in one Tyson. People would bet 300K just to win 10K. I made money on Holyfield because I put my usual 20$ on the opponent and as the odds went down I put more and more. It eventually closed at 6-1. I made about six grand on the fight. On odds like 200-1 you are more likely to get smaller bets and the larger sums will be on the lower odds. People that have larger sums of money to bet don't gamble on long shots.
Tags for this Thread