Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
NBA Regular Season & Playoffs 2018-19 Thread
Options
Comments
-
simongurnick wrote: »Mate, i know the game. Regardless of liabilty, which for them would be heavier with the US teams, they still offered a price not representive of the raptors likelihood of winning. If i'm a punter i dont care if the sportsbook is offering a discount to entice business and balance their risk or if they have simply underestimated the probabilty...value is value. The americans (media and sportsbooks) slept on the raptors this year without doubt.
Well I'm happy for you that you know the game so well. You should probably stick to singles then, wouldn't want to be nullifying your bball edge by compounding the bookies margin unless of course your exists across all selections.
I will say that given few bookies-if any actually- have a model for pricing bball outrights then picking up some value may be possible. Similar for MVP, MIP etc.
That said, any model I saw suggested the price was representative of their probability of winning. Nate Silvers springs to mind, I was following that and I dont recall anything glaringly different to that and any bookies price. Usually I would get on if I spotted a gap.
My point was that sportsbook didnt sleep on the Raptors as much as everyone else slept on them including myself. That's all my point was, as the bookies arent simply looking at the probability of success, there's far more to consider.
I'm glad you're confident enough to say you knew the game but the bookies didn't know jack.0 -
Well I'm happy for you that you know the game so well. You should probably stick to singles then, wouldn't want to be nullifying your bball edge by compounding the bookies margin unless of course your exists across all selections.
I will say that given few bookies-if any actually- have a model for pricing bball outrights then picking up some value may be possible. Similar for MVP, MIP etc.
That said, any model I saw suggested the price was representative of their probability of winning. Nate Silvers springs to mind, I was following that and I dont recall anything glaringly different to that and any bookies price. Usually I would get on if I spotted a gap.
My point was that sportsbook didnt sleep on the Raptors as much as everyone else slept on them including myself. That's all my point was, as the bookies arent simply looking at the probability of success, there's far more to consider.
I'm glad you're confident enough to say you knew the game but the bookies didn't know jack.
Can you stop “Well actually”-ing anyone who talks about sports betting just to show that you study this stuff? He’s right here. Toronto won, we all saw it happen. So offering longish odds on them did end up being a mistake by the bookies, although how could they see it coming? It’s one of those funny little things and a way to reflect after the finals, not an invitation for a lecture about how oddsmaking works.0 -
Can you stop “Well actually”-ing anyone who talks about sports betting just to show that you study this stuff? He’s right here. Toronto won, we all saw it happen. So offering longish odds on them did end up being a mistake by the bookies, although how could they see it coming? It’s one of those funny little things and a way to reflect after the finals, not an invitation for a lecture about how oddsmaking works.
It wasn't a mistake though, that's my point. The point of a book is not the position that has the chance of highest profit.
It's the position of the largest profit with a position of the lowest risk. Risk neutral position.
Furthermore, just because an event of a lower probability occurred does not mean that the assigned probability is incorrect. Low probability events occur all the time, it makes them unlikely but doesn't automatically mean the probability is wrong.
I simply commented because when someone says "bookies know Jack about the Raps" but I "know the game" then I'm curious as to how they reach that conclusion.0 -
Wow that's mental. Interesting to see what they do with the 4th pick as well.0
-
It wasn't a mistake though, that's my point. The point of a book is not the position that has the chance of highest profit.
It's the position of the largest profit with a position of the lowest risk. Risk neutral position.
Furthermore, just because an event of a lower probability occurred does not mean that the assigned probability is incorrect. Low probability events occur all the time, it makes them unlikely but doesn't automatically mean the probability is wrong.
I simply commented because when someone says "bookies know Jack about the Raps" but I "know the game" then I'm curious as to how they reach that conclusion.
I know, we all understand both sides. He’s making the point that “Toronto were unlikely winners of the NBA Finals, here’s another reason why...” You’re answering a question nobody asked. It’s unnecessary, and while his point is relevant to a thread discussing the goings on in the NBA, this isn’t a thread to establish that Hitch2222 understands how odds are calculated. So yeah, he’s right on this one. You’re factually correct also, but your point isn’t why anyone is here.0 -
Advertisement
-
I know, we all understand both sides. He’s making the point that “Toronto were unlikely winners of the NBA Finals, here’s another reason why...” You’re answering a question nobody asked. It’s unnecessary, and while his point is relevant to a thread discussing the goings on in the NBA, this isn’t a thread to establish that Hitch2222 understands how odds are calculated. So yeah, he’s right on this one. You’re factually correct also, but your point isn’t why anyone is here.
I'm highlighting that taking the position that "bookies know jack" is never going to be a profitable position to start from.
A better question is "Is there a reason why I think the bookies know jack? Generally they know more than most so what's up here?".
I tried to give a rationale as to why the price offered by the bookies was perhaps not representative of their probability of success.
Although I think lower probability events occur all the time, intuitively I think some rationale is there for why it wasn't truly representative of the Raps chances, Kawhi not playing such a large proportion of NBA games may have been dismissed as less of a factor when pricing handicap lines from +/- for example.
Exploring why the bookies assigned probability differed to the "true price" is interesting and challenging someone on their assertions about this seems fair game.
You might not find it pertinent but I think it was in this case. I feel that the bias that causes markets to gravitate away/towards a team/stock etc is interesting.
This wasn't an exercise in me flexing my sports betting prowess, it was challenging someone else's thought process on a topic they raised which I feel is pertinent to the discussion.
You may not think so, which is fair enough, I wont respond again to it given you feel the appetite for the discussion doesn't exist.0 -
The theory of what you’re saying is fair, I get it, and there are times when it’s definitely relevant. For example, yesterday when you challenged me on the overreaction towards the Lakers proved to be accurate, because look what happened last night (although I did mitigate for the fact that there may be smart money involved). Those 4-1 odds look a lot better today than they did yesterday. But also it did cost the Lakers an arm and a leg, and I didn’t foresee them giving up that haul so early into the postseason and there was scope for someone else to sneak in. That may yet prove to be a mistake because they’ve now gone the Golden State route of gutting their roster to go top heavy with stars, and if they suffer similar injury luck to the Dubs it could be a disaster. Maybe Toronto have just shown us that building around one star and a core of well-coached, talented role players is the new way forward, and the reality show that is the Lakers have invested in a roster management process that might have literally just expired. So there was, and still is, a fair discussion to be had there.
It’s just, in this instance, he’s actually right in that Toronto did win. You’re also right in that that was the logical price at the time. That’s what makes it interesting, it’s like looking at Leicester’s odds before they won the Premier League. But that conversation stalls when someone starts saying how the bookies were right and would’ve been proven so 99% of the time because we know that, that’s what makes it remarkable and a talking point. Basically assume we also understand this because when you assume we don’t it can grate, whether you mean to or not.0 -
The theory of what you’re saying is fair, I get it, and there are times when it’s definitely relevant. For example, yesterday when you challenged me on the overreaction towards the Lakers proved to be accurate, because look what happened last night (although I did mitigate for the fact that there may be smart money involved). Those 4-1 odds look a lot better today than they did yesterday. But also it did cost the Lakers an arm and a leg, and I didn’t foresee them giving up that haul so early into the postseason and there was scope for someone else to sneak in. That may yet prove to be a mistake because they’ve now gone the Golden State route of gutting their roster to go top heavy with stars, and if they suffer similar injury luck to the Dubs it could be a disaster. Maybe Toronto have just shown us that building around one star and a core of well-coached, talented role players is the new way forward, and the reality show that is the Lakers have invested in a roster management process that might have literally just expired. So there was, and still is, a fair discussion to be had there.
It’s just, in this instance, he’s actually right in that Toronto did win. You’re also right in that that was the logical price at the time. That’s what makes it interesting, it’s like looking at Leicester’s odds before they won the Premier League. But that conversation stalls when someone starts saying how the bookies were right and would’ve been proven so 99% of the time because we know that, that’s what makes it remarkable and a talking point. Basically assume we also understand this because when you assume we don’t it can grate, whether you mean to or not.
I never gave that a 2nd thought, I'm the least likely person to ever say "I told you so" on a prediction. Predictions are generally pot luck, mine and others so someone getting something "wrong" is not how I view things. To use the prism of sports betting, good prediction is prediction that beats SP, Simon in this case beat SP so their prediction was good- irrespective of outcome. I would just question arriving at it because you think the bookies dont know is the wrong way to come at it, that's all.
On the Lakers, imo unless they get a 3rd star, 4-1 would not entice me at all as you say Raptors model looks like it has the capacity to overthrow the superteam trend which everyone would like.
Leicester imo is the greatest sporting upset of all time, i know someone had 150e on them at 5000/1 with one bookie, crazy really.
Apologies if it seems like I assume others dont know, I think some people know and some people dont. Intuitively some people can recognise value, they can't articulate why it's value but that doesn't mean their wrong.
I just think if someone has the capacity to recognise value which Simon may have then approaching it from a position of assuming they know less might lead to better decisions that's all.0 -
I think if the Lakers strike out on Kemba and Kyrie they take a run at Jimmy. They need a ball handler for when Lebron sits or takes possessions off. If they do nab Kemba or even Kyrie, they'll need to do some serious team building on the defensive end.
Also, naturally after a big trade people are arguing over ****ing vegas not actual basketball. Not to jump on board but FWIW the Raptors after not being in consideration at all, went to minus favourites to sign Kawhi the day before the trade. Vegas knows things.0 -
I think if the Lakers strike out on Kemba and Kyrie they take a run at Jimmy. They need a ball handler for when Lebron sits or takes possessions off. If they do nab Kemba or even Kyrie, they'll need to do some serious team building on the defensive end.
Also, naturally after a big trade people are arguing over ****ing vegas not actual basketball. Not to jump on board but FWIW the Raptors after not being in consideration at all, went to minus favourites to sign Kawhi the day before the trade. Vegas knows things.
I'd be truly shocked if Kawhi resigned. Its incredible to think having guided the team to a championship but its pretty apparent that his primary objective is to be in LA.
It then becomes a question of do you want to be at Clippers where I think they've made some excellent decisions or be part of the drama with the Lakers.
It seems incredible to think that the Lakers are the underdogs in signing a FA who is hellbent on being in LA0 -
Advertisement
-
I'd be truly shocked if Kawhi resigned. Its incredible to think having guided the team to a championship but its pretty apparent that his primary objective is to be in LA.
It then becomes a question of do you want to be at Clippers where I think they've made some excellent decisions or be part of the drama with the Lakers.
It seems incredible to think that the Lakers are the underdogs in signing a FA who is hellbent on being in LA
I was talking about last summer. Raptors were nowhere then suddenly odds on favourite.
That said I still think he signs a 1+1.0 -
I think LeBron has form on this. He’d rather do Kyrie / Kemba / Buckets and fill out the roster with vet mins than spread that $30m around for role players.
An undervalued aspect of the trade for the Lakers is that it makes them more attractive to big FAs / vet min / buyouts. Getting two of the best players in the game together is massive that way.0 -
Oh Dwyane Wade and Mike Miller are sitting by their phones ready to come out of retirement as we speak like.0
-
Well, 3 Championships and umpteen finals have been achieved with multiple decrepit bodies on the roster so it works!!0
-
Now here's a weird development, couple things from Woj:
1. AD is not waiving his trade bonus of around $4m.
2. The deal is expected to be finalised on July 6th.
Don't get me wrong I have no idea why it works like this but due to the deal being completed by this date the Lakers will only be left with $23.5m in cap space, not enough for a max contract. If the deal is finalised after July 30th then the Lakers will have enough cap space for a max contract but the Pelicans have no reason to postpone the deal until then.0 -
As with everything, time will tell with the Davis trade. It kind of makes sense on both sides, Pelicans get a decent amount of assets for a player that was going to bounce anyway. Lakers get a sensational player that almost makes them a contender right off the bat, I’ve seen him play live a few times, he is special in my opinion, I think with the right players around him he could have multiple championships.
Saying that, I hope it all blows up in their face, Klay comes back at Xmas, Durant gets back for playoff and Warriors win a fairytale championship0 -
Why dont you like it?
Assume agents/players are essentially the same thing.
Should players not be afforded the opportunity to have a greater say in their career than simply being passed around as a pawn to the tastes of teams.
They are well compensated but they're still people and expecting a person to be perfectly happy to have little say in their working life for a significant number of years is unheard of outside of the world of sport.
Obviously sport is different and I'm not saying the should be able to leave a team at the drop of a hat but I do think that they are the star attraction and if they're not happy then leveraging their value to put them into a situation where they would be happier while also not leaving a team with nothing seems fine with me.
No matter how well compensated players are or what players leave, they're not the ones pulling the strings and teams will still reap the bulk of the spoils.
I think returning a little bit more autonomy to players such as it has been over the past number of years seems fine with me.
Little has stood out in recent years to make me uneasy about their power to dictate their circumstances.
I don't like if for a number of reasons.
Have you read the baxter Homes piece on the Lakers/Paul/LeBron/Klutch's behaviour this year?
Have you read the SI piece on Paul?
He and they have behaved disgracefully IMO.
So you're fine with players dictating their own destiny to the detriment of all the small market teams in the League and the league itself? Yes teams have had too much control in the past; now players do. I'm sorry but this "I don't want to be here anymore" stuff that comes mid-contract is just bull - if you don't want to sign there and honour your commitment don't sign it. But don't sign it and 18months or more before it's up say you want out.
I don't actually believe Paul has anyone's interests but LeBron's and his own at heart tbh. AD is a pawn and too impressionable to see it. The day it was announced he was joining Klutch last year I said on here he'd be a Laker.
Kevin O'Connor half-joked on a pod recently he wouldn't be shocked if Paul announces he's leaving Klutch to take the Lakers GM Role.
It'll be Simmons next to Team Klutch (Lakers). Hardly even a hot take, it's prob. going to happen and sooner rather than later. They'll likely rinse and repeat the same MO in Feb. '20 (or maybe it's '21 - off the top of my head I can't remember his contract specifics). Will be interesting to see what happens with his contract this summer.0 -
I'm excited to see AD get some coverage next year. Sure he's regarded as one of the top players in the league but he's still criminally underrated in my opinion.0
-
Just watched the full Game 6 (I've been away and just very busy at the moment). Very sad for Klay.
One thing that largely went unnoticed/commented on after the game is the Boogie foul to get Klay out of the game cost GS 2 Free Throws and 2points which actually became crucial down the stretch. Don't get me wrong, even if GS won the game I couldn't see them winning in Toronto without KD and Klay but would have been interesting nonetheless.
Saw a few guys go hard at Steph after the Finals, Kendrick Perkins in particular. Some legit criticisms, but some way OTT.0 -
I'm excited to see AD get some coverage next year. Sure he's regarded as one of the top players in the league but he's still criminally underrated in my opinion.
He's not really under-rated except by casual fans. I'd say he's under-exposed as a star athlete rather than under-rated.
One thing people aren't factoring into this is he has a high injury frequency/recurring injury rate - from memory he's had 25+ injuries to date in his NBA career (I posted a reference to this last year from memory). With LeBron getting injured this year really for the first time in his career, I'd say they'll be on a strict "load management" schedule throughout the regular season. This may end-up affecting their seeding.0 -
Advertisement
-
ButtersSuki wrote: »One thing that largely went unnoticed/commented on after the game is the Boogie foul to get Klay out of the game cost GS 2 Free Throws and 2points which actually became crucial down the stretch.
The GS missed free throws and all of Draymond's turnovers had more impact tbh.0 -
The GS missed free throws and all of Draymond's turnovers had more impact tbh.
Sure, they all add up, but it seems harsh to inadvertently punish a team for taking an injured guy off the court. It's kinda amazing they had a shot to win it given what they endured in that game and in the series as a whole.0 -
Well I'm happy for you that you know the game so well. You should probably stick to singles then, wouldn't want to be nullifying your bball edge by compounding the bookies margin unless of course your exists across all selections.
I will say that given few bookies-if any actually- have a model for pricing bball outrights then picking up some value may be possible. Similar for MVP, MIP etc.
That said, any model I saw suggested the price was representative of their probability of winning. Nate Silvers springs to mind, I was following that and I dont recall anything glaringly different to that and any bookies price. Usually I would get on if I spotted a gap.
My point was that sportsbook didnt sleep on the Raptors as much as everyone else slept on them including myself. That's all my point was, as the bookies arent simply looking at the probability of success, there's far more to consider.
I'm glad you're confident enough to say you knew the game but the bookies didn't know jack.
The four games toronto won against gsw they were way off in the points spread. Facts are facts man. I'm not claiming i know more than the bookies...but they handicapped the raptors incorrectly0 -
I never gave that a 2nd thought, I'm the least likely person to ever say "I told you so" on a prediction. Predictions are generally pot luck, mine and others so someone getting something "wrong" is not how I view things. To use the prism of sports betting, good prediction is prediction that beats SP, Simon in this case beat SP so their prediction was good- irrespective of outcome. I would just question arriving at it because you think the bookies dont know is the wrong way to come at it, that's all.
On the Lakers, imo unless they get a 3rd star, 4-1 would not entice me at all as you say Raptors model looks like it has the capacity to overthrow the superteam trend which everyone would like.
Leicester imo is the greatest sporting upset of all time, i know someone had 150e on them at 5000/1 with one bookie, crazy really.
Apologies if it seems like I assume others dont know, I think some people know and some people dont. Intuitively some people can recognise value, they can't articulate why it's value but that doesn't mean their wrong.
I just think if someone has the capacity to recognise value which Simon may have then approaching it from a position of assuming they know less might lead to better decisions that's all.
Look, this is a similar situation to when the english football team play a half decent outfit. There is always value in the opposition becuase the english punters lump on their boys. Then it becomes the basic economics of supply and demand as opposed to the probability of a certai n event occurring. Lots of people bet - price goes down...opposing market drifts= a value bet
Similar with the raptors. Despite the fact bookies will factor the quantitative over the qualitiative, i feel their oddsmakers simply didnt know enough about toronto or gave what they saw its due respect. Even in the east, they were only a couple games off the bucks record yet they were behind boston, philly and milwaukee in the market', despite kawhi missing around 20% of their games and the team having a 17-5 record without him.
100% they slept on the raptors and trying to educate me on how oddsmaking works doesnt change that. For the record i ran a book for two years and i am also a series 7 63 and 24 licensed broker who ran an options trading desk for a firm with the highest volumes in the world. So trust me, i understand the ins and outs of the numbers, probability, risk, time value etc etc0 -
simongurnick wrote: »The four games toronto won against gsw they were way off in the points spread. Facts are facts man. I'm not claiming i know more than the bookies...but they handicapped the raptors incorrectly
4 games is 4 games, that's a really small sample and tbh I don't really buy that the lines were that far off....
Games 3 & 4 appear to be off and I dont get why one would highlight the Raptors victories only, they should be no more off than their losses outside of simple variance, the 6 games in their totality look fine to me.
Raptors 118-109 line -1.5 G1
GSW 109-104 +2.5 G2
Raptors 123-109 +2.5 G3
Raptors 105-92 +5.5 G4
GSW 106-105 -1.5 G5
Raptors 114-110 +2.5 G6
I cant argue with the result but as I previously acknowledged earlier, I can understand how handicap was wrong given the amount of games played without Kawhi. I dont buy it was mispriced because of that but I'm open to the idea.
However 4(or 6 however you want to make your point) games being off on the spread doesn't mean the spread was technically wrong, it's high variance stuff.
Evidently I'm at a disadvantage trying to make a case because the we know the result but 4 games doesn't mean they're mis-pricing lines as much as the confirmation bias would lend itself to believe.0 -
simongurnick wrote: »Look, this is a similar situation to when the english football team play a half decent outfit. There is always value in the opposition becuase the english punters lump on their boys. Then it becomes the basic economics of supply and demand as opposed to the probability of a certai n event occurring. Lots of people bet - price goes down...opposing market drifts= a value bet
Similar with the raptors. Despite the fact bookies will factor the quantitative over the qualitiative, i feel their oddsmakers simply didnt know enough about toronto or gave what they saw its due respect. Even in the east, they were only a couple games off the bucks record yet they were behind boston, philly and milwaukee in the market', despite kawhi missing around 20% of their games and the team having a 17-5 record without him.
100% they slept on the raptors and trying to educate me on how oddsmaking works doesnt change that. For the record i ran a book for two years and i am also a series 7 63 and 24 licensed broker who ran an options trading desk for a firm with the highest volumes in the world. So trust me, i understand the ins and outs of the numbers, probability, risk, time value etc etc
Yeah simply backing against the fav if they're playing a decent outfit doesn't seem like a prudent strategy to me but each to their own.
Using the quantitative as the baseline and deviating from that using qualitative is obviously what they do. Assuming that Vegas wasn't of everything you mentioned is naive to me, that's all.
I'm not trying to educate you on odds making to be honest, I simply highlighted that assuming you know more is likely a poor position to start from.
That's lovely for you congrats on your previous work experience.0 -
ButtersSuki wrote: »I don't like if for a number of reasons.
Have you read the baxter Homes piece on the Lakers/Paul/LeBron/Klutch's behaviour this year?
Have you read the SI piece on Paul?
He and they have behaved disgracefully IMO.
So you're fine with players dictating their own destiny to the detriment of all the small market teams in the League and the league itself? Yes teams have had too much control in the past; now players do. I'm sorry but this "I don't want to be here anymore" stuff that comes mid-contract is just bull - if you don't want to sign there and honour your commitment don't sign it. But don't sign it and 18months or more before it's up say you want out.
I don't actually believe Paul has anyone's interests but LeBron's and his own at heart tbh. AD is a pawn and too impressionable to see it. The day it was announced he was joining Klutch last year I said on here he'd be a Laker.
Kevin O'Connor half-joked on a pod recently he wouldn't be shocked if Paul announces he's leaving Klutch to take the Lakers GM Role.
It'll be Simmons next to Team Klutch (Lakers). Hardly even a hot take, it's prob. going to happen and sooner rather than later. They'll likely rinse and repeat the same MO in Feb. '20 (or maybe it's '21 - off the top of my head I can't remember his contract specifics). Will be interesting to see what happens with his contract this summer.
I read the SI piece.
What small market teams have suffered detrimentally from superstars or simply stars in recent years pushing hard for trades?
The info we're fed is pretty diluted and asymmetric though. We get to see the players as these villains who are failing to commit and not honouring deals yet I suspect a lot of promises are made to superstars about the direction of teams that arent fulfilled either.
I think it happens in all sports where if players are unhappy they push to be traded but it seems to be blown out of proportion in the NBA.
Perhaps that's due to the value 1 player can add to a team's ability to win over and above most other team sports but I just cant recall too many franchises being set back particularly far because a player dug the heels in.0 -
Yeah simply backing against the fav if they're playing a decent outfit doesn't seem like a prudent strategy to me but each to their own.
Using the quantitative as the baseline and deviating from that using qualitative is obviously what they do. Assuming that Vegas wasn't of everything you mentioned is naive to me, that's all.
I'm not trying to educate you on odds making to be honest, I simply highlighted that assuming you know more is likely a poor position to start from.
That's lovely for you congrats on your previous work experience.
I never assumed i know more
I said the bookies didnt know what they should about the raptors. The results prove me right. And for the record, knowing more than the book is not a bad starting point
Happens all the time in racing when a few lads have a horse tuned up. Its how big gambles are pulled off man0 -
Yes I acknowledged I was fighting an uphill battle.simongurnick wrote: »I never assumed i know more
I said the bookies didnt know what they should about the raptors. The results prove me right. And for the record, knowing more than the book is not a bad starting point
Happens all the time in racing when a few lads have a horse tuned up. Its how big gambles are pulled off man
Obviously knowing more than the book isn't a bad starting point but given that's not what I said, I don't see your point. What I said was "assuming" you know more is not good starting point. They're not remotely the same thing.
Pulling off a gamble in horse racing is not remotely analogous to your perceived edge over the bookies this post season, let's not be silly now.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes I acknowledged I was fighting an uphill battle.
Obviously knowing more than the book isn't a bad starting point but given that's not what I said, I don't see your point. What I said was "assuming" you know more is not good starting point. They're not remotely the same thing.
Pulling off a gamble in horse racing is not remotely analogous to your perceived edge over the bookies this post season, let's not be silly now.
Ok...i also didnt assume. I said they didnt know enough. Think you are barking up the wrong tree at this point0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement