Pacquiao opens up as a 14-1 favorite

[Da Machine]

I think it's just right. Algieri has no chance, and that will be abundantly clear early on.

[Check_hooks]

That's exactly what I'm saying. If Maidana is a 7/1 underdog, it doesn't mean Floyd is a 1/7 favorite. If you can't bet on Maidana at 18/1, then Maidana is NOT 18/1. That's all there is to it, man.

I get what your saying but its different than what I'm saying

Lets use the Mike Tyson vs Buster Douglas odds as an example

Nicknamed ***8220;Iron Mike,***8221; Tyson intimidated other boxers with his fast, powerful punches. Going into the February 11, 1990, match with Buster Douglas, Tyson seemed invincible and was considered a 42-1 favorite to win.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/underdog-buster-douglas-knocks-out-mike-tyson

The Mirage Casino in Las Vegas, the only Las Vegas casino to make odds on the fight (all others declining to do so as they considered the fight such a foregone conclusion), had Douglas as a 42 to 1 underdog for the fight, making his victory, in commentator Reg Gutteridge's words, "the biggest upset in boxing history, bar none."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buster_Douglas

The media always reverses the odds for the favorite as the underdog odds

I agree that betting odds are different but that doesn't mean that Maidana wasn't a 18-1 underdog

[johnm is...]

you gotta split the difference, so if floyd was -1200 and maidana was +700,

the true odds would be 9.5 to 1, gotta split the juice to get "true ******** odds"

I get what you're saying, but that wouldn't be "true odds". The true odds would be the no vig line. At -1200, it's basically saying that Floyd wins 92.3% of the time. At +700, Maidana wins 12.5% of the time.

92.3% + 12.5% = 104.8%

True odds would be -738/+738.

-738 = 88%

+738 = 12%

88 + 12 = 100%.

Unless you mean something else, and I'm just misunderstanding.

[johnm is...]

I get what your saying but its different than what I'm saying

Lets use the Mike Tyson vs Buster Douglas odds as an example

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/underdog-buster-douglas-knocks-out-mike-tyson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buster_Douglas

The media always reverses the odds for the favorite as the underdog odds

I agree that betting odds are different but that doesn't mean that Maidana wasn't a 18-1 underdog

I simply look at odds in terms of betting. That's why they exist. I haven't ever considered Buster a 42/1 underdog, because he wasn't one. If I can't bet it at those odds, then that's all I'm worried about. Using the 42/1 underdog is just making it sound more extraordinary. It's also very misleading.

[kurupt1019]

I get what you're saying, but that wouldn't be "true odds". The true odds would be the no vig line. At -1200, it's basically saying that Floyd wins 92.3% of the time. At +700, Maidana wins 12.5% of the time.

92.3% + 12.5% = 104.8%

True odds would be -738/+738.

-738 = 88%

+738 = 12%

88 + 12 = 100%.

Unless you mean something else, and I'm just misunderstanding.

no what im saying is if there was no such thing as juice the fair bet would be to split the juice both ways. i.e. a standard pickem is -110 -110, no juice would be a 1 to 1. a -1000 +600, no juice would be something like +800 -800. like if youre betting your friend you would split the juice,

but i see you're doing it mathematically , i think your math might be off

[johnm is...]

no what im saying is if there was no such thing as juice the fair bet would be to split the juice both ways. i.e. a standard pickem is -110 -110, no juice would be a 1 to 1. a -1000 +600, no juice would be something like +800 -800. like if youre betting your friend you would split the juice,

but i see you're doing it mathematically , i think your math might be off

I assure you that it's not. Feel free to double check.

You're just splitting the difference. That's not finding the true no vig line.

[revs1227]

im putting 50 on algeri , this fight gives me a bad feeling
hris has the worst possible style for pac and bob seems to be up to no good
hes trying to groom chris to be the next chris weidman

[kurupt1019]

I assure you that it's not. Feel free to double check.

You're just splitting the difference. That's not finding the true no vig line.

yup your right, so then its better to say the + is closer to the true odds on a heavy juice line

[johnm is...]

yup your right, so then its better to say the + is closer to the true odds on a heavy juice line

Absolutely.

Let's do it this way.

-1000/+600

$1000 to win $100 ($1100 total). 1000/1100 = 90%

$100 to win $600 ($700 total). 100/700 = 14.2%

104.2%. 4.2% book advantage.

Divide probability by overall %.

90%/104.2% = 86.4%

14.2%/104.2% = 13.6%

86.4% + 13.6% = 100%

Convert to moneyline.

86.4% = -635

13.6 = +635

No vig line is -635/+635.

Obviously a lot more to it than just finding a site and using those odds, though. Because odds on these things are all over the place, depending on the book.

[joesaiditstrue]

Too high. Should be around 7-1 average..

I'd say more like 5-1, but yeah 14-1 is laughable