Hossage Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 Promo the Robot posted the vegas odds: http://www2.vegas.com/gaming/futures/ I would bet against dallas, considering these odds.
Sabre Bill Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 YES, but I'd think of it as a $120 donation to the economically-challenged-in-these-hard-times bookie with whom I was placing the bet! Either that, or Kharma bribe!!!!
birdog1960 Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 no, but I might take those odds for the bills to sneak into the playoffs. seems about right for that bet.
CodeMonkey Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 Would have to be at least 1000:1 to even consider it. 120:1 for the Bills after the past 10 years is a fools bet. At least at 1000:1 you can expect a good return to justify your $20 bet. I wish I was in a position to take bets and offer the 120:1. I could use the extra cash if any are foolhearty enough to actually make such a bet.
Bart Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 Promo the Robot posted the vegas odds: http://www2.vegas.com/gaming/futures/ I would bet against dallas, considering these odds. no
1B4IDie Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 no, but I might take those odds for the bills to sneak into the playoffs. seems about right for that bet. If the odds were 1,000,000:1 I wouldn't but a $1 down. Its not in the realm of the possible. However I would put $100 on 120:1 playoff odds. That would be sweet. Vegas has the odds of the Bills winning the AFC Championship from 20:1 to 60:1.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 I am very confused. So the majority of respondents are saying they would only bet money if the odds were even more remote? The odds of losing are not great enough to risk a dollar at 120:1. only for a much greater probability of losing that dollar would many risk that dollar...YIKES. Now I know they say the lottery is just a tax on people who are bad at math.
KD in CA Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 I am very confused. So the majority of respondents are saying they would only bet money if the odds were even more remote? The odds of losing are not great enough to risk a dollar at 120:1. only for a much greater probability of losing that dollar would many risk that dollar...YIKES. Now I know they say the lottery is just a tax on people who are bad at math. The 'odds' are not the same thing as 'the likelihood of X occuring'. Gambling is simply an evaluation of risk of loss vs. value of the probability of profit. People are merely saying they would need the possible return to be much higher to justify the risk of loss. When the odds against a horse winning a race go up, it simply means people aren't betting on him. It doesn't mean the horse is suddenly less likely to win the race.
bigbillsfan12 Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 really aren't the odds more like 1 in 32? I know that's not the way it works but they really are 1 in 32.
Meathead Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 really aren't the odds more like 1 in 32? I know that's not the way it works but they really are 1 in 32. not even close im amazed they are only 120 to 1
birdog1960 Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 really aren't the odds more like 1 in 32? I know that's not the way it works but they really are 1 in 32. no
birdog1960 Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 Maybe at 1,000:1 I'd throw down a dollar. i got 250:1 in feb. 2008 in a lake tahoe casino for this bet. made the bet for a buddy too and gave him the ticket saying that if they made it to the sb we would buy tickets assuming they would win and pay off our trip. when they were 4-0 that year we were ecstatic..we all know what happened then. in retrospect, the fun was worth $20.
NewEra Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 The only reason I would bet them to win the SB is if I REALLY thought they had a good shot to make the playoffs. Then, if the made the playoffs, I would hedge against them to make my money. Winning the SB should be more like 200-1 imo.
Recommended Posts