HOUSE Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) Sal Capaccio Reporting Sal@WGR550.com Just over a month ago, the Buffalo Bills were listed as 66/1 odds to win Super Bowl 50 at Bovada.com. Only six teams were considered more of a long-shot at the time. That was before the the Bills re-signed Jerry Hughes, traded for LeSean McCoy and Matt Cassel, signed Charles Clay and Percy Harvin, and spent over $91 million in guaranteed money during the free agency period. All of that has clearly made a big impression with oddsmakers. Buffalo’s made one of the biggest jumps in the past month, trimming their odds of winning the Super Bowl in half to 33/1. That’s a significant leap. Now, oddsmakers say only 11 other teams have a better chance of winning the Lombardi Trophy next season. Snip http://www.wgr550.com/Bills-offseason-has-made-big-impression-on-oddsmak/21311351 Edited April 4, 2015 by HOUSE
Kirby Jackson Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 It's amazing to me that New England's odds didn't go down. They certainly are a less talented team today than they were a month ago.
BarleyNY Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Sounds about right. Fringe playoff team. A bona fide franchise QB would really make them a favorite.
NoSaint Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 It's amazing to me that New England's odds didn't go down. They certainly are a less talented team today than they were a month ago. Though you'd think Vegas anticipated some bleeding for them this offseason - so maybe those losses were kind of factored in some
LOVEMESOMEBILLS Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 How do the Giants have better odds than the Bills? Is it just because of Eli? Talent wise, they have a looooooooooong way to go to equal the Bills.
YoloinOhio Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 How do the Giants have better odds than the Bills? Is it just because of Eli? Talent wise, they have a looooooooooong way to go to equal the Bills.one-handed catches = SB
Kirby Jackson Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Though you'd think Vegas anticipated some bleeding for them this offseason - so maybe those losses were kind of factored in someMaybe so but probably more that they will get stupid people to bet the same whether they are 7:1 or 10:1 because they are NE. I don't think that they should have fallen far but a little bit. I guess that if you expect the same amount of action in April as you had in March there is no reason to change the odds. From a pure football perspective they are a lesser team today than they were a month ago.
ALLEN1QB Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I guarantee you one thing the goal posts will be torn down this year as we make our way to the Superbowl
NoSaint Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Maybe so but probably more that they will get stupid people to bet the same whether they are 7:1 or 10:1 because they are NE. I don't think that they should have fallen far but a little bit. I guess that if you expect the same amount of action in April as you had in March there is no reason to change the odds. From a pure football perspective they are a lesser team today than they were a month ago. Also true
metzelaars_lives Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Sounds about right. Fringe playoff team. A bona fide franchise QB would really make them a favorite. I think if the Bills had a legitimate QB they would be THE favorite to win the Super Bowl. I really believe they have as good a roster as anyone in the NFL sans the QB position. I am also really drinking the 'we could get Philip Rivers' kool aid. At least next year. I think with their current QB situation they are exactly what you and this article says- fringe playoff team, around the 12th best team in the league.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 How do the Giants have better odds than the Bills? Is it just because of Eli? Talent wise, they have a looooooooooong way to go to equal the Bills. Two times they were given little chance to win the Super Bowl with this coach and this QB and they won it, that's why.
YoloinOhio Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Two times they were given little chance to win the Super Bowl with this coach and this QB and they won it, that's why.their defense was much better back then though...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 their defense was much better back then though... No question. And I think the Bills are a better team. But that's the reason they have a better chance of winning it than a team of equal or slightly better talent.
ThurmasThoman Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Not a very good piece: Oddsmakers are not predicting success, they are trying to entice gamblers. "Vegas" (or any book keeper) wants equal money on both sides of a bet. In this case, the house wants half of the people betting "yes" Buffalo will win a Super Bowl, and half of the people betting "no", Buffalo will not win a Super Bowl. Ideally, money falls equally on both sides for them, they take their cut off the top (how Vegas makes money) and it's all square. Now, if the favorite wins and most of the money went on the under dog, even better (for them). But let's say massive money starts going on Buffalo to win a Super Bowl at 33:1 odds--even if Buffalo does nothing over the next month, if 100,000,000 dollars goes into "yes" for Buffalo winning the Super Bowl, the odds will come down to 10:1. Conversely, if big money goes on Buffalo to not win the Super Bowl, because people think the payout is better than a savings account, the odds will stretch to 50:1. Vegas "oddsmakers" are more accountants than National Football League gurus. This jump in Buffalo's Super Bowl odds is more reflective of the betting public--specifically, the segment of the population making wagers on football right now. The odds are meant to be provocative, not a prediction of future success for either team.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Not a very good piece: Oddsmakers are not predicting success, they are trying to entice gamblers. "Vegas" (or any book keeper) wants equal money on both sides of a bet. In this case, the house wants half of the people betting "yes" Buffalo will win a Super Bowl, and half of the people betting "no", Buffalo will not win a Super Bowl. Ideally, money falls equally on both sides for them, they take their cut off the top (how Vegas makes money) and it's all square. Now, if the favorite wins and most of the money went on the under dog, even better (for them). But let's say massive money starts going on Buffalo to win a Super Bowl at 33:1 odds--even if Buffalo does nothing over the next month, if 100,000,000 dollars goes into "yes" for Buffalo winning the Super Bowl, the odds will come down to 10:1. Conversely, if big money goes on Buffalo to not win the Super Bowl, because people think the payout is better than a savings account, the odds will stretch to 50:1. Vegas "oddsmakers" are more accountants than National Football League gurus. This jump in Buffalo's Super Bowl odds is more reflective of the betting public--specifically, the segment of the population making wagers on football right now. The odds are meant to be provocative, not a prediction of future success for either team. While that is of course true, it's still serves the same function in this case. The Bills improvements made them twice as likely to win the Super Bowl in bettors minds. The books couldn't get many bettors to put any money on the Bills except in unrealistic longshot bets. Now they have a much better chance, twice as good.
Beef Jerky Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 It's amazing to me that New England's odds didn't go down. They certainly are a less talented team today than they were a month ago.they have Brady...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Not a very good piece: Oddsmakers are not predicting success, they are trying to entice gamblers. "Vegas" (or any book keeper) wants equal money on both sides of a bet. In this case, the house wants half of the people betting "yes" Buffalo will win a Super Bowl, and half of the people betting "no", Buffalo will not win a Super Bowl. Ideally, money falls equally on both sides for them, they take their cut off the top (how Vegas makes money) and it's all square. Now, if the favorite wins and most of the money went on the under dog, even better (for them). But let's say massive money starts going on Buffalo to win a Super Bowl at 33:1 odds--even if Buffalo does nothing over the next month, if 100,000,000 dollars goes into "yes" for Buffalo winning the Super Bowl, the odds will come down to 10:1. Conversely, if big money goes on Buffalo to not win the Super Bowl, because people think the payout is better than a savings account, the odds will stretch to 50:1. Vegas "oddsmakers" are more accountants than National Football League gurus. This jump in Buffalo's Super Bowl odds is more reflective of the betting public--specifically, the segment of the population making wagers on football right now. The odds are meant to be provocative, not a prediction of future success for either team. This was clearly the case for the 2012 Toronto Blue Jays.
Recommended Posts