Why are the Tigers not -400 tonight?

[Stillriledup]

The way people are talking, this game is already in the books, its a fait accompli, Curt Shilling declaring this the surest winner in the HISTORY of sports, Colin Cowherd saying that he's going to have full coverage of Verlander's no hitter on tomorrow's show and the list goes on and on of people giving the Yanks ZERO chance to win. Zero. Not even ONE.

Why are the Tigers only -180 in Vegas if they're the surest thing in sports history?

If i asked you to guess the price on this game, wouldnt you say -400 or -500?

Listening to all the 'pundits' you wouldnt think the Yanks are only +160. Odd.

[GameTheory]

The way people are talking, this game is already in the books, its a fait accompli, Curt Shilling declaring this the surest winner in the HISTORY of sports, Colin Cowherd saying that he's going to have full coverage of Verlander's no hitter on tomorrow's show and the list goes on and on of people giving the Yanks ZERO chance to win. Zero. Not even ONE.

Why are the Tigers only -180 in Vegas if they're the surest thing in sports history?

If i asked you to guess the price on this game, wouldnt you say -400 or -500?

Listening to all the 'pundits' you wouldnt think the Yanks are only +160. Odd.Cause Yankee fans outnumber Tiger fans by 10x and they are betting on their favorite?

Seriously, yes of course the line is probably a more realistic assessment, but lines do get distorted by fan favoritism sometimes...

[horses4courses]

Verlander does not win every time he goes to the mound....and it's the Yankees.
Hard to bet against Detroit tonight, though.

[OTM Al]

Cause Yankee fans outnumber Tiger fans by 10x and they are betting on their favorite?

Seriously, yes of course the line is probably a more realistic assessment, but lines do get distorted by fan favoritism sometimes...

I'd say because Vegas doesn't make money by being stupid. I noted in the other thread that Verlander is a little less than Verlander-esque against the Yankees. Just looked up his post season numbers. Before his excellent series against Oakland, he was 3-3 with an ERA pushing 6 in the postseason. He's on a roll now and the Yanks appear to be going in the opposite direction, but history says the Yanks do have a shot. Baseball lines are really tough things to read. I love baseball more than any other sport and have watched it all my life, but other than a preseason WS bet for fun, I would never bet a dime on it. Too much can change day to day.

[Dahoss9698]

My guess as to why Detroit isn't -400 is because betting lines aren't determined based on the opinions of Curt Schilling and Colin Cowherd.

[Striker]

Can't say I have ever seen a MLB ml that high, but a -400 ml is equivalent to the tigers having an 80% of winning, -500 about 83% of winning, so if you think the tigers can't lose, it sounds like you should be pounding the Tigers at -170. Also, the run line(-1.5) is +115 for the Tigers right now.

[GameTheory]

I'd say because Vegas doesn't make money by being stupid.Why do people act as if there are just some dudes that dictate these lines -- the starting line is set by someone, but after that the betting determines the lines as they attempt to balance the books. Any bookmaker that tries to outsmart the public *is* being stupid.

I wince every time I hear a commentator say, "Well, the oddsmakers think that the chances of such and such..." The betting public are the oddsmakers, same as in horseracing, except with fixed odds betting a line needs to be actively managed to attract money where the bookie needs it to go...

[Valuist]

The way people are talking, this game is already in the books, its a fait accompli, Curt Shilling declaring this the surest winner in the HISTORY of sports, Colin Cowherd saying that he's going to have full coverage of Verlander's no hitter on tomorrow's show and the list goes on and on of people giving the Yanks ZERO chance to win. Zero. Not even ONE.

Why are the Tigers only -180 in Vegas if they're the surest thing in sports history?

If i asked you to guess the price on this game, wouldnt you say -400 or -500?

Listening to all the 'pundits' you wouldnt think the Yanks are only +160. Odd.

-180 is still a solid favorite. You NEVER see MLB games in the -400 territory. Thats why I claimed I had never seen a bigger moneyline underlay than Obama at -400.

[sammy the sage]

Ever since the Braves/Marlins 5th game 1995 debacle...I quit betting/watching baseball...unless it's the 7th game of a play-off in the 8/9th inning and absolutely nothing else is on...then maybe...

Umpires/strike zone...way TOO unpredictable...and corrupt.

[MutuelClerk]

I will say this.

World Series bound and picking up steam. GO GETTEM TIGERS!!!!

[PaceAdvantage]

I will say this.

World Series bound and picking up steam. GO GETTEM TIGERS!!!!I wouldn't be too sure of that. The fact that the Yankees have had chances to beat the Tigers in all three games despite WOEFUL hitting suggests that any team with halfway decent pitching and a lineup that actually can hit will have a much easier time of it...

[OTM Al]

Why do people act as if there are just some dudes that dictate these lines -- the starting line is set by someone, but after that the betting determines the lines as they attempt to balance the books. Any bookmaker that tries to outsmart the public *is* being stupid.

I wince every time I hear a commentator say, "Well, the oddsmakers think that the chances of such and such..." The betting public are the oddsmakers, same as in horseracing, except with fixed odds betting a line needs to be actively managed to attract money where the bookie needs it to go...

I was agreeing with you there. What was originally posted about the line was what would have been stupid and what you describe here

[Stillriledup]

My guess as to why Detroit isn't -400 is because betting lines aren't determined based on the opinions of Curt Schilling and Colin Cowherd.

Absolutely true. My point was that guys like Schilling and Cowherd are voices of what the general public is essentially thinking. I cant imagine that there were too many people who were disagreeing with what was said by the talking heads in the media, so, when i saw -180 it seemed 'low' considering that the public perception is that the Yankees suck and can barely score 1 run per game these days.

[Pace Cap'n]

Just thought things had been tough for the Yankees so far.....if you go > ESPN > MLB > Scores you will see....

"THE GAME HAS BEEN POSTPONED DUE TO RAIN. Detroit wins series 3-0"

[GameTheory]

I was agreeing with you there. What was originally posted about the line was what would have been stupid and what you describe hereAhh...yes of course.

[Stillriledup]

Can't say I have ever seen a MLB ml that high, but a -400 ml is equivalent to the tigers having an 80% of winning, -500 about 83% of winning, so if you think the tigers can't lose, it sounds like you should be pounding the Tigers at -170. Also, the run line(-1.5) is +115 for the Tigers right now.

My point was this. The way that people were talking, you would THINK that the Tigers had an 80% chance to win, or, in some cases, a 100% chance to win.

You're right, lines are almost never -400, they are very few and far between. In the NFL, you will routinely see a -400 on a money line.....when the Ravens played the Browns a few weeks ago on Thursday night football, i think the Ravens were -500 or -600 and i dont remember hearing anyone say the Ravens are the 'surest thing that theyve ever seen'.

I just thought that the line and the 'perception' about this game just didnt seem to match up. The LINE suggested that the Yanks have better than a punchers chance to win, but the perception was that they had very little chance. That was my basic point.

[Valuist]

My point was this. The way that people were talking, you would THINK that the Tigers had an 80% chance to win, or, in some cases, a 100% chance to win.

You're right, lines are almost never -400, they are very few and far between. In the NFL, you will routinely see a -400 on a money line.....when the Ravens played the Browns a few weeks ago on Thursday night football, i think the Ravens were -500 or -600 and i dont remember hearing anyone say the Ravens are the 'surest thing that theyve ever seen'.

I just thought that the line and the 'perception' about this game just didnt seem to match up. The LINE suggested that the Yanks have better than a punchers chance to win, but the perception was that they had very little chance. That was my basic point.

One individual baseball game is just too random to support a moneyline that high. I've seen -350 when you had a Pedro Martinez or Clements going up against a rookie but even then strange things can happen.