I think you're confused with how all this works. I'll try to explain it to you one more time. The daily spreads you see are, for the most part, about public perception and trying to get an even 50-50 split on the money in order for Sportsbooks to collect the juice or vig no matter the outcome of the contest. Although books sometimes do make decisions and will hold firm on spreads no matter what the general public is doing. In relation to futures odds, they're actually pretty accurate in terms of gauging a team's chances to win a title. Books know they will come out ahead on futures no matter what since their can only be one winner so they're priced fairly. Thus, current standings mean very little to futures odds. A long term approach is taken instead. Now, incremental changes are made here and there and of course injuries can happen, but there is no overreacting or over-adjusting the same way ESPN, for example, adjusts their power rankings all over the place on a weekly basis. I'll give you a recent example of how this works with Alabama during the college football season: After struggling to start off the season and losing to Ole Miss and barely beating AR they fell to #7 in the nation and public perception of the team was low, but Vegas oddsmakers always had them rated as the best team in the nation and that was reflected in futures. Another example was the big 3 in Miami. Ever since they got together they were the odds on favorite to win the East and Finals every year despite struggling when they first joined forces. What ended up happening is that Miami made the Finals 4 years in a row when they were favored to do so and and won it all twice when they were once again favorites, with the exception of last year when SA was a slight favorite to win the series once the Finals matchup was set. Again, that's pretty accurate, especially considering nobody out there can predict exactly what will happen in the future. You really shouldn't be so quick to discount the opinions of people who did this sort of stuff for a living just because it conflicts with your own pre-existing notions. The examples I provided above are simply contemporary representations of the strong track record this industry has in relations to futures. That's why I place a lot more emphasis on Vegas' power rankings as opposed to the ones put out by ESPN, NBA.com, or some other site. These people are usually exemplary in not exposing themselves to unnecessary risk. Now, if you still think the futures odds are inaccurate, then feel free to make a very large wager on a team you think is being undervalued and let us know so we can see how that turns out for you. This assumption was inherent in my statement about the Cavs having the easiest path to the Finals. While teams in the West beat up on each other with only one conference winner emerging, whoever comes out the East will have had a much less challenging time of getting to the Finals, which, by default, puts them in a better position. Now this doesn't guarantee that Cleveland will win it or even make it since nothing is for certain, but given their talent and more importantly the conference they play in, the situation is in their favor and books have accounted for that. If, for example, Portland or Houston played in the East, they would also have much more favorable odds of winning it all as well.
A cakewalk to the finals may be advantageous to a veteran championship team like the Spurs (but I doubt it), but I think being challenged in the early rounds toughens a team up for their finals meeting. i actually think Miami would have been a stronger team last year against SA if they'd had to overcome some resistance in the early rounds.
Interesting Rondo vs. Brewer Reactions. Totally opposite. Happy vs. I don't give a F. I can't say which is translates better.
All you have to do is to look at the odds from last year and you'll see why I put little value in the future odds. Here's a few examples: Miami, OKC, Chicago, Clippers, Brooklyn, Houston and Indiana were all more likely to win the title than SA? The Suns were much longer odds than the Kings? So Bovada has the Lakers as 18-1 to win the west while having Phoenix as 150-1? Blazers at 15-1 to win the NW Division while Denver was 6-1 and Minnesota was 10-1? http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on...king-down-team-future-odds-for-the-20132014-n If that's what you're considering an accurate predictor of what will happen then I suggest that you go place a large sum on one of their favorites and us know how that works out for you. See how that Cleveland to win it all bet turns out.
I have before and I've won way more than I've lost. See the NBA Degen Gambling thread for multiple examples. I even post the tickets and betting slips for people to see. Get back to me when you've actually put your hard earned money where your mouth is.
Here's a perfect example that shows that futures odds are influenced by public opinion and are not just factual predictions. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/11/04/bovada-explains-adjustment-of-cubs-world-series-odds/ I don't know how much plainer it can be. Bovada (the source that you were quoting) thought 50-1 was the proper odds but due to heaver betting (i.e. public opinion) they adjusted the odds to 20-1. That's exactly the point that I made in my original post that you tried to refute. You can choose to believe that isn't true but you'd be wrong. The better question is "Why wouldn't the books do that?". Their primary purpose is to make money. If they know that the general public is going to bet on Lebron regardless of the odds they why in the world wouldn't they adjust the odds to give themselves more of an advantage and to hedge their risk? There's studies published that show the accuracy of futures odds to be at around 67%. That's not because the sports books aren't that good, it's because they adjust the odds based on the public betting. The sports books are doing what's best for themselves but by no means can you take their odds as the definitive truth since they are adjusted. EDIT: BTW I have zero desire to bet on sports and by no means was I trying to criticize your gambling skills. My point was that if you simply bet the team that the future odds say will win the title then your not necessarily betting on the team that the sports book thinks is the favorite. If you really believed that the future odds were the be-all-end-all for probability to win a title then you'd just always bet the favorite every time. I don't believe that any of the oddsmakers really think that Cleveland is the favorite to win the title this season but instead have Cleveland at the shortest odds because there is so much of the general public betting on Lebron . It the same situation as with the Cubs in the link I referenced above.
Hey aelliot, you still don't think GSW revamping their entire coaching staff is a major, wholesale change, especially considering the immense positive consequences that have resulted from that move? If you don't, then you're living in an alternate reality.
