Where's the juice?

[pokerjoe]

In sports betting generally, favorites tend to be slightly overbet by the public, because people bet more to gain "the good feeling that comes from winning" than they do to actually make money.

This is even more true in moneyline wagers, and in moneyline sports specifically, where parlay payouts are dependent upon multiplying the individual component odds, this may be yet even more true.

In baseball, the more distinctly favored a side is, the greater the percentage of the juice that side's bettors pay; large favorites hold almost all the juice. And I mean, disproportionately to their greater win chance.

This isn't just because the book's expect disproportionate (to the actual chance) favorite betting. This is also because they have to account for even greater disproportionate usage of large favorites in accumulators. So that even if Price HDA leads to adequately (not necessarily completely) balanced action on single bets, it may require H'D'A' to be offered to minimize risk after the accumulator bets are considered.

So, does this mean that soccer favorites, like baseball favorites, are generically overpriced, even relative to their naturally greater win expectation?

Do soccer favorites, the larger the favorite the moreso, eat the juice?

[turkoman1963]

Excellent questions, poker joe.

My overall theory -- and I'm not as astute a handicapper as yourself -- is that, at least for me, it pays to take moneyline dogs.

This year I am UP about 25 units in baseball DESPITE having a losing record. This is a new phenomenen for me as it takes discipline to find true value dogs. For instance, the A's yesterday, playing well, at home, against a Yankee team that has fallen off, against an overrated Mussina and without Bernie Williams, in my mind, were a great value at + 140.

Those kinds of wins can offset streaks when you go cold.

---

I also like playing the dogs in the NBA and getting + 150 or + 170 when the line is only 3 or 4.

Taking the moneyline on the road teams in the NBA Playoffs, for example, would have been extremely profitable.

As for soccer, I can't seem to master it. A lot of it has to do with the draw. To me, it's like getting split in the exacta and I can't figure out how to bet in soccer when I like a dog, say at + 140. Do I split the bet with the draw? Will I still end up ahead that way? It's hard for me, since I'm not a mathematician...

[The Actuary]

I have a couple of questions PJ.

The public generally overbets favorites, are you including all bettors in the public, ie the whole market slightly overbets favorites?

I suppose it is likely, but not true in racing as we've discussed before, especially big favorites.

Why do you feel in baseball the favorites hold such a high disproportionate amount of juice?

If true, would not said bettors be all over the dogs? Making the juiced up favorite less juiced up.

Am of the opinion any parlay effect encountered, is alternative to a series of single bets, generally seems people will not lay a big number alone, therefore parlay several they WOULD'VE bet alone. Hence, although -2000 would draw few wagers, so why use a number that will not draw even action? Because the expectation is that it will be used in multiples.

My two cents,
TA

[AussieVamp2]

Does the smart money outweight public money? Interesting question. Some places it does, and some it doesn't, I guess, as jetman described.

If you are talking about a walkin betting place, perhaps not. A Carribean bookmaker betting on tennis? Quite possibly it does.

[AussieVamp2]

Turk,

My opinion is that betting the draw as well, is profit reducing generally speaking, on a 3-way. Not as much 'difference' in draw prices also a problem.

Now if you get a low margin handicap line this will offset that somewhat - but not many of those.

e.g. if a 3way is 112% with 4 on away, 4 on home percentagewise as a rough estimate you have to 'beat both'?

If you get a 105% 2-way, with 2.5 one way 2.5 the other as another rough estimate, a little different.

[AussieVamp2]

certainly public teams will be underpriced and as big name big money winning favorites a lot of the time

manchester united, ac milan, real madrid, etc., etc. - so that can bias the 'juice' that way

partly a function of your multi bet thing, too - e.g. UK/some places encourage it, so if they have 'reasonable' prices on teams like this and they keep winning, they keep paying out nice odds multiples, and last year one Saturday (like Norway midweek) all the home teams who were reasonable looking favorites won.

[janne]

Before I make a bet i always consider the following: at what price would you like to book the opponent. For example, imagine that Manchester U is at home vs Bradford. I´m hot for Man U at 1.20 but wait now... 1.2 is the same as 83% winning chance. I would not give 7.00 on a draw and I would certainly not give 42.00 on Bradford. The price must be to low.
When I make my own prices I use to think in terms of ten games without a draw. Let´s use the example from above. Man U is certainly a big favourite. They may win 9 times out of 10. The draw average is 29% in the english league but this is an uneven game. I think I would play the draw at 6.00 but I´m not sure. Let´s assume that the draw is 17% then. So we have 0.9 times 0.83 equals 0.75.
True price may be 75% 17% 8%. You have to count with some error in judgement but I´m pretty sure that the given example wouldn´t be bettable under 1.4, unless there were special circumstances surrounding the game.