Vegas projected win totals over/under

[USAFChief]

That's fair. I'm nervous about 75 wins.

But as others have mentioned, Vegas lines have less to do with prediction than they do making money. Vegas doesn't put the line where they think a team will finish, they put the line so 50% of betters take the over and 50% take the under.

.

Mostly. Again, over/unders are a little bit different than say, one football game. On over unders, there are 30 moving parts, so it's mostly about getting enough money on either side of 30 bets, but it's also about being somewhere close to reality.

 

Vegas books aren't going to offer a line that is totally divorced fom reality, because doing o exposes them to smart money coming in late and killing them. If they make 5 percent on 28 or 29 teams, but lose a ton on 1 or 2, that doesn't work. So it's complicated, but I doubt they think either the Cub or Twins win totals are way out of wack.

 

They might end up way wrong, they missed by a ton on Texas last year, for example, but they are not going to put really bad bets for the house up.

[jimmer]

So far, ZIPs has us as 27th, Schoenfield has us at 27th, and Vegas odds has our over under line at the 29th lowest.  Any that I'm missing?

[TheLeviathan]

They might end up way wrong, they missed by a ton on Texas last year, for example, but they are not going to put really bad bets for the house up.

 

Right, I don't recall many lines that were more than 1-2 games off of what the final results were.  I'm not sure how they make their predictions, but it's uncanny.

 

It takes something pretty crazy for a team to jump these lines and even a 1-2 game swing isn't a dramatic change for a team from year to year.

[tobi0040]

We had 70 last year. The top two teams from a year ago regressed.

 

Ervin has been a 2 or 3 war guy a year. One or two of our four or five regression candidate will regress. Mauer actually had a good second half. He should be better.

 

And the odds tell me one of Meyer, may, or Sano is going to have a really good year.

 

And we have guys nobody is expecting anything from this year like buxton, Rosario, and polanco.

 

Vegas knows nothing. They are going bankrupt this year! I will say that odds makers need to just ensure 50 percent vote on each side. It probably says more about the average betters view of the twins than it does some quants who are always right.

[USAFChief]

We had 70 last year. The top two teams from a year ago regressed.

Ervin has been a 2 or 3 war guy a year. One or two of our four or five regression candidate will regress. Mauer actually had a good second half. He should be better.

And the odds tell me one of Meyer, may, or Sano is going to have a really good year.

And we have guys nobody is expecting anything from this year like buxton, Rosario, and polanco.

Vegas knows nothing. They are going bankrupt this year! I will say that odds makers need to just ensure 50 percent vote on each side. It probably says more about the average betters view of the twins than it does some quants who are always right.

Well, then it appears you have been presented a chance to easily double your money! Quick, mortgage the house, clean out the bank accounts, hock some valuables, and get that bet down!!1! ;-)

[Brock Beauchamp]

Vegas lines are somwhat accurate but they're not uncannily so. Here are the results from 2014:

 

Team : Bovada : Actual Wins : Diff

ATL : 87.5 : 79 : +7.5

AZ : 80.5 : 64: -15.5

BAL : 80.5 : 86 : -5.5

BOS : 87.5 : 74 : +13.5

CHC : 69.5 : 73 : -3.5

CWS : 75.5 : 73 : +2.5

CIN : 84.5 : 76 : -8.5

CLE : 80.5 : 85 : -4.5

 

Okay, I'm bored but everybody gets the point. Frankly, I could pick a line with that kind of accuracy and John/Aaron do just that in the podcast every year. I'm pretty sure if they were making actual bets, they'd walk away with money every season because Vegas isn't necessarily trying to be right, they're trying to make money. It's not hard to be smarter than the Vegas line because it's not trying to be as accurate as possible, it's trying to split the difference.

 

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not a gambler but don't the lines change on a weekly basis leading up to the season? If that's the case - as it is with betting on individual games - then accuracy is nearly irrelevant. If a bunch of people bet on one side because the line is inaccurate, move the line the next week and bring the bets back to an equilibrium.

 

The betters will keep the line somewhat in check but the line is based more on perception than reality at that point.

[USAFChief]

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/9673-2014-mlb-overunder-contest11-win-big/page-3?hl=contest

 

If anyone is interested, results from last years O/U are at the link above.

 

In theory, if you were to wager $1000 on all 30 teams, you would need to be correct on 16 to make a $600 profit. You would lose $1500 if you got 15 correct.

 

Ashburyjohn won last year with 21.

 

I'm assuming that explains why he is retired these days.

[USAFChief]

Also...while we're talking betting lines...lines can and do move.

 

But since Vegas hates to gamble, they hate to move lines. Hate, hate hate it. Doing so exposes them to the (admittedly small) risk of losing to the bigger side of the money on both lines.

 

They moved the number because too much money was on one side, now all the money goes the other way, and the actual result ends up somewhere in between. Vegas loses to the bigger betting side on both lines.

 

Perhaps I know too much about this subject, on reflection. :/

[stringer bell]

While I won't dispute that Vegas does very well at setting lines so that the house makes money, I am not that concerned that the Twins win projection.  We live in flyoverland and even in flyoverland, the other teams in the division are seen as either improving or on the upswing.  The Twins may now be considered "long-time losers" and until they break out, the expectation will be there for them to lose.

 

I've said for all off-season that the Twins could contend, but they have to have a lot of thing go right. There are a lot of guys who are unproven and still large holes at a couple of positions, but sometimes things work out.  Ask the '14 Orioles.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Hah. I don't bet on sports so I know the basics but little more than that.

 

I only bet on the stock market where - provided you're not a moron - it's not about whether you win but rather how much you win.

[USAFChief]

For the record, as of today I would take the over on the Twins.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yep, but I'd often take the over on the worst lines and the under on the best lines no matter what. The odds are in your favor that way, as it's really hard to win 90+ games multiple years in a row and it's really hard to lose 90+ games multiple years in a row.

[Platoon]

Also...while we're talking betting lines...lines can and do move.

But since Vegas hates to gamble, they hate to move lines. Hate, hate hate it. Doing so exposes them to the (admittedly small) risk of losing to the bigger side of the money on both lines.

They moved the number because too much money was on one side, now all the money goes the other way, and the actual result ends up somewhere in between. Vegas loses to the bigger betting side on both lines.

Perhaps I know too much about this subject, on reflection. :/

I was also thinking you were way too much of an expert! . As for me, I rely on my knowledge that they do not build all those big buildings in that desert with my winnings!

[Platoon]

Also, the sad fact remains that even if Vegas is somewhat wrong, it's stll going to be a long year. While I would take the over, it would not be by much. If I am not mistaken we are swapping out Escobar for Hunter. The SS spot is an unknown, we moved an outfielder, and maybe added a plus (for us) pitcher? Why would Vegas or any of the other prognosticators see any significant improvement. We have a team tha has lost 90 games four, count em, four years in a row! And we have virtually NO open spots on the roster. What am I missing?

[jokin]

So how much would one win if they bet 1000 that the Twins would win 69 or more and the team came through?

 

Tempted, huh?  Don't fly too close to the Sun, my friend...

[ashbury]

What am I missing?

The Optimism gene?

[jokin]

Also, the sad fact remains that even if Vegas is somewhat wrong, it's stll going to be a long year. While I would take the over, it would not be by much. If I am not mistaken we are swapping out Escobar for Hunter. The SS spot is an unknown, we moved an outfielder, and maybe added a plus (for us) pitcher? Why would Vegas or any of the other prognosticators see any significant improvement. We have a team tha has lost 90 games four, count em, four years in a row! And we have virtually NO open spots on the roster. What am I missing?

 

Great post, no doubt it will be another long year, expecting to see a win total in the low to mid 70s is pretty reasonably on the optimistic, but realistic, side... but the money coming in has apparently encouraged Vegas not only to not see any improvements, but to see a falloff in production, dropping the O/U number by 2 whole games (70.5 in 2014- 68.5 in 2015).

 

With that said, Vegas and the majority of the public evidently-

 

...has little faith in the potential culture-changing, breath-of-fresh-air event in a former HOFer as the new manager and a new pitching coach,

 

...is completely unimpressed by potentially adding 2-3 WAR in the form of Ervin Santana (based on the previous 2 seasons- AL&NL, using both bWAR and fWAR),

 

...that the Twins might gain a very valuable, 4-5 day a week, true utility man in Escobar.

 

...the chances are reasonably good that Pinto can be a nice upgrade over Fryer at catcher (ZiPS projects Pinto at 2.1 WAR w/ 495 PAs- he won't get that many- but still, better than Fryer).

 

...are seemingly unaware that the Twins got 6+ WAR in 2014 from very unexpected sources-> ie, 3 relatively unheralded prospects and a utility man (Santana, Polanco, Vargas, Escobar).... meanwhile... there's a good chance that 4 of the top 6 prospects, plus a May, Burdi and perhaps another pitcher out of the top ten, could make significant contributions to the 2015 Twins.  Regarding your question about NO open spots on the roster... the Twins roster glass IS more than half full when your 3 top position players are knocking on the door, + #4 position player Polanco is close behind, and 3 of your top pitchers (M & M boys and Burdi) are close enough at this point, that the club is now pretty much past the obligatory DeVries/Kris Johnson/Pino-type callups when replacements are inevitably needed..

[glunn]

I am interested in the how the casinos approach this.

 

Assume that the casino conducts a survey of potential bettors and determines that if the over-under for the Cubs is set at 89.5, then 50% of gamblers will bet the over and 50% will bet the under.  Also assume that the casino asks its experts how many games they expect the Cubs to win and they say 80.

 

In this example, it seems to me that if the casino is risk averse, it will set the over-under at 89.5, so that the casino is guaranteed to win the vig, and the casino could care less what its sports expert says.  On the other hand, maybe the casino takes into account the fact that Cubs fans tend to be stupidly optimistic (for decades), and might therefore rely on its sports analysts to make some money off of the stupidity by setting the line lower so that more than 50% of the bets will be on the over.

 

I also wonder about the impact of competition.  As a gambler, I look for the best line and will bet there if it is anywhere near my hotel.  I wonder if this affects how the lines are set and changed.

 

I have bet the Twins on the over two years in a row and lost both times.  As a gambler I would bet the under this year, but as a fan I will bet the over.  

[Jham]

Are the lines even set by human beings?  I picture a bunch of servers in a back room crunching numbers and crushing on metrics we don't even know about to set lines all while plotting a Matrix style world take-over.

My main concerns are 1) Hughes regressing which seems almost 100%, 2) Glen Perkins loss of velocity and break on his slider and hints at arm fatigue toward the end; 3) Joe Mauer's decline continuing (the thread on this topic had some troubling data in that regard); 4) Nolasco just might not be very good in the AL; and 5) Meyer/ Buxton/ Sano being capable major leaguers but not star caliber.

To me, those issues concern me more than the potential of the prospects, adding Santana/Hunter, and hoping for bounce backs from Mauer and Ricky.  I hope I'm wrong.   Line seems about right...

[Platoon]

The Optimism gene?

I used to have that optimism for the Twins. And I still do, but gene optimism will not resurface until there is some actual change. It's been replaced by the pragmatic gene. While admittedly that gene is less fun, it also less disappointing. Gene pragmatic does not preclude one from hoping or being a fan, it just causes one to question rationale. It causes one to notice that cyber metrics are statistics, and can be used like all statistics. To make an argument from either side of the issue. That's maybe why Vegas, ESPN, et al see the Twins no higher than 27th overal, yet fans can see them over .500? i don't dismiss cyber arithmetic out of hand, but I do think it diminishes the "eye test" (and the smell test). The Twins are not going to play.500 ball with the roster as it is currently constructed.

[TheLeviathan]

My main concerns are 1) Hughes regressing which seems almost 100%, 2) Glen Perkins loss of velocity and break on his slider and hints at arm fatigue toward the end; 3) Joe Mauer's decline continuing (the thread on this topic had some troubling data in that regard); 4) Nolasco just might not be very good in the AL; and 5) Meyer/ Buxton/ Sano being capable major leaguers but not star caliber.

 

 

You could make a compelling case for a number of counter-things that could go right as well.  Personally I see this team as 75ish, but that may be a bit optimistic.

 

I will say this, everything else could stay the same as last year and Hughes just reverts to NYY Hughes and we'd finish 3-4 games worse just with that one plausible thing happening.  Winning baseball games often has a thin margin for error and having a guy who pitched like an ace for us last year go back to a 3/4 starter he's been his whole career could alone account for a difficult drop.  

 

I'm pretty confident the Hughes we saw last year will continue, but a two game dip from 70 to 68 is the equivalent of Eduardo Escobar going from last year back to a replacement level player.  Obviousy none of this will happen in the vacuum of everything else staying the same, but it does show to me how small the margin really is.

[Platoon]

Great post, no doubt it will be another long year, expecting to see a win total in the low to mid 70s is pretty reasonably on the optimistic, but realistic, side... but the money coming in has apparently encouraged Vegas not only to not see any improvements, but to see a falloff in production, dropping the O/U number by 2 whole games (70.5 in 2014- 68.5 in 2015).

 

With that said, Vegas and the majority of the public evidently-

 

...has little faith in the potential culture-changing, breath-of-fresh-air event in a former HOFer as the new manager and a new pitching coach,

 

...is completely unimpressed by potentially adding 2-3 WAR in the form of Ervin Santana (based on the previous 2 seasons- AL&NL, using both bWAR and fWAR),

 

...that the Twins might gain a very valuable, 4-5 day a week, true utility man in Escobar.

 

...the chances are reasonably good that Pinto can be a nice upgrade over Fryer at catcher (ZiPS projects Pinto at 2.1 WAR w/ 495 PAs- he won't get that many- but still, better than Fryer).

 

...are seemingly unaware that the Twins got 6+ WAR in 2014 from very unexpected sources-> ie, 3 relatively unheralded prospects and a utility man (Santana, Polanco, Vargas, Escobar).... meanwhile... there's a good chance that 4 of the top 6 prospects, plus a May, Burdi and perhaps another pitcher out of the top ten, could make significant contributions to the 2015 Twins.  Regarding your question about NO open spots on the roster... the Twins roster glass IS more than half full when your 3 top position players are knocking on the door, + #4 position player Polanco is close behind, and 3 of your top pitchers (M & M boys and Burdi) are close enough at this point, that the club is now pretty much past the obligatory DeVries/Kris Johnson/Pino-type callups when replacements are inevitably needed..

I agree totally with you summation of the future. But my ongoing consternation is not due to the prospective future. It's due to the present reality, AND the concern that the FO will be so slow to pull the trigger that another year will be lost. I think the players are available in the orginasation, the question is whether they are going to be playing in Chatanooga, Rochester, or Mpls. Whether th FO reticence is based on contract issues, trying to cover their posteriors for moves that did not pan out, or the lack of nerve to go "all in", the result is the same.

[Otto von Ballpark]

it's really hard to lose 90+ games multiple years in a row.

It hasn't been easy staying in our rut!

[jokin]

I agree totally with you summation of the future. But my ongoing consternation is not due to the prospective future. It's due to the present reality, AND the concern that the FO will be so slow to pull the trigger that another year will be lost. I think the players are available in the orginasation, the question is whether they are going to be playing in Chatanooga, Rochester, or Mpls. Whether th FO reticence is based on contract issues, trying to cover their posteriors for moves that did not pan out, or the lack of nerve to go "all in", the result is the same.

 

Just not having Antony and Gardy running the team and making the roster decisions this spring will mean there will be a better team come opening day.

 

In addition, the team finally reversed course on the payroll, contract issues and scholarships might be less of an impediment vs. recent years, which presumably implies there will be less reticence in making bold and decisive moves (both in cutting dead weight and bringing up the prospects sooner), intended to impact the team THIS year.

 

The one thing I fear in which Vegas may prove to end up being correct in their projection- is in the notion that the Twins' 2015 AL Central opponents have won the offseason battle- and just plain improved more than the Twins= plus a tougher NL schedule than 2014.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I am interested in the how the casinos approach this.

 

Assume that the casino conducts a survey of potential bettors and determines that if the over-under for the Cubs is set at 89.5, then 50% of gamblers will bet the over and 50% will bet the under. Also assume that the casino asks its experts how many games they expect the Cubs to win and they say 80.

I am pretty sure they don't survey bettors -- this isn't election polling. I would guess they use experts and computer models (which may include past bets as an input).

[JB_Iowa]

I want to see where the Twins stand on May 3 after 22 of 25 against the Central (barring bad weather).

 

If they are somewhere in the vicinity of .500, I'll feel like it's a pretty good start.

 

And until then, I'm going to be optimistic because I have no power over the front office and frankly, I'd rather see the sunny side than watch for storm clouds..

[USAFChief]

I am pretty sure they don't survey bettors -- this isn't election polling. I would guess they use experts and computer models (which may include past bets as an input).

There is lots of info available on this if one is interested. Google.

 

Back in the day, each book used to employ their own expert(s) who would set lines. You might see a football game line differ by a couple points.

 

These days, almost all the major casinos use the same consulting service (Las Vegas Sports Consultants) and so the opening line is identical (or nearly identical, if a given book doesn't like the number they get) for most events. I'm sure computer models are used, but my Personal belief is that the end result is still done by humans. Each book will then adjust as necessary for their situation as money stars to come in.

 

This happens fast these days. I was in Vegas the weekend of the NFC and AFC Championship games ans the Super Bowl line (pick em, to start) was up within minutes of the second game ending.

[jimmer]

Tempted, huh?  Don't fly too close to the Sun, my friend...

Oh, I'm not tempted at all to put 1000 on the Twins going over.  Just used them as the example for my question.  I AM betting the Indians will beat their line though.

[nicksaviking]

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/9673-2014-mlb-overunder-contest11-win-big/page-3?hl=contest

If anyone is interested, results from last years O/U are at the link above.

How depressing, the over/under on my correct picks was 13.5. I should have picked the under.

[jorgenswest]

Do these over/under lines move as money comes in? If so and if the Twins over/under number is unreasonably low, it will move.