Tweet
First off, no bet is a "sure thing" or a "lock." Anyone who unironically tells you there is no way to lose betting on a sporting event is not worth listening to.
But in this instance you have a large swarm of heavy factors combining to produce great value. Value lies in the odds deviating from what they should be. If you can bet a dollar that an unrigged coinflip will be tails with the potential to win 4 dollars if it is, that's GREAT value.
Factor 1: This fight has heavy public action, and the public hates laying odds
For many bettors, this is the first time they have been able to bet their favorite Phillipino without having to lay odds, which in layman's terms means bet a lot to win a little. Here is how pacquiao fans have experienced his fights in the past:
Bookie: "ok who do you want to bet?"
Public: "100$ on pacquiao!"
Bookie:"ok this ticket will pay $120, netting you a $20 win."
Public:"uhh... how much if I bet on the other guy?"
Bookie:"a $100 wager would pay $500, netting you a $400 dollar win."
Public:"yeah I'll take the other guy."
And then they'd usually lose their money. But the dream of turning a little money into a lot, the thrill of getting rich quick... it's too strong for most casual bettors.
For why this matters, here's a quick breakdown of sports betting lines and how sportsbooks work. The sportsbooks are not in the business of gambling. At least they prefer not to be. When you bet (most) games with a spread you'll see the line at -110 on both sides, meaning you'd have to bet $110 to net a $100 win. So for the Clippers/Spurs game tonight, the line is -2, meaning if you bet the clippers and they win by more than two you win, or if you bet the spurs and they win outright or lose by 1 then you win. But either side will have to lay 110 to win 100. So ideally the casino will have equal amounts of money on both sides: if two people each bet 110 on either side, the casino will take in $220 of bets and pay the winner $210 (110 original wager plus 100 profit), and pocket the leftover $10. This casino hold is known as the vigorish, or "vig" for short.
So when too much money comes in on one side, the casinos adjust the line to make the other side more enticing. This hopefully draws in money on the opposite side and mitigates their risk. "Lines" for sports games are based somewhat on what should actually happen, but they are based mostly on how the casino feels the money will come in.
In this instance, so much money has come in on Pacquiao, the line has been pushed down from its opening at Mayweather -300 to as low as Mayweather -175. And this is from a line that was skewed to begin with. I think a fair line might be around -500 or even -600.
Factor 2: Manny is a hero and Floyd is a villain
Pacman is a likeable guy. He's pretty funny and has an unorthodox style. He smiles big when he wins and is respectful. He's also got a large Hispanic following. He's fought over a lot of weightclasses, beating naturally bigger guys.
Mayweather, on the other hand, is easy to hate. He did jailtime for domestic violence. He flaunts his wealth and is notoriously stiff when negotiating purse splits for his fights, which most people perceive as greedy. He is far from humble, referring to himself "TBE" (the best ever), and talking lost of trash.
This pushes more money into Pacquiao's camp. People often bet with their hearts and not their heads. Look at every Raiders fan that put 50 bucks on their team to win the last superbowl.
Factor 3: Pacquiao is much less likely to have been taking PEDs before this fight
Reportedly, a big reason why this fight didn't happen years ago when both fighters were peaking was Manny's refusal to submit to olympic style blood testing. He claimed spiritual reasons, citing his blood as the source of his strength. I think Pacqiuao is a great fighter, but his success across so many weightclasses is definitely a little suspicious. There is a more than thirty pound difference between his early fights and his heavier fights. It's entirely possible he's 100% natty, but looking at the scandals in sports regarding banned substances over the years makes me lean the other way.
This time, Manny cares less about losing. He lost twice in 2012. I believe he cares about the guaranteed 80 million dollars he's going to be getting. But really no one will knock him if he doesn't come out on top in this fight. Pacquiao has agreed to the testing, which is strict enough to have faith in.
Factor 4: Defense wins championships, but is boring to watch
I feel that the winner of this fight will be the boxer who imposes his pace the best and controls the fight. If Manny is forced to outbox Floyd, he could struggle, as Mayweather is the better technical fighter.
As far as excitement goes, most people want a big knockout, not a smooth dodge and slick counterpunch. The public wants to pull for excitement. When a sportsbook makes lines for a game they usually also make a "total," meaning the total amount of points scored in the game by both teams. Casual bettors are notorious for taking the "over," meaning that more points will be scored than the prediction. You'll often see many small wagers on the over and fewer larger wagers on the under. Overs win plenty of the time, so it's not like you'll just get rich betting under every time, but this discrepency speaks volumes about how people's emotions play in to their wagering.
The same element is at play here. People want the hero to KO the villain and ride off into the desert sunset.
Factor 5: These guys are not heavyweights, not even close
Many of the great matches in boxing history have been at higher weightclasses. As you can imagine, Mike Tyson swinging sledgehammers is much more dangerous for a man's head than the fists of 145 pound men. Not to say Mayweather and Pacquiao couldn't knock one another out, but the likelihood is much lower. It will take many mistakes and not a single small one.
This ultimately serves as a reduction in risk. The NBA playoffs are more predictable than the NCAA bracket because teams play a seven game series and not a single game. If a tennis match was only one point, the underdogs would have a far better chance of winning. This is pretty obvious, I probably don't need to explain it.
But in this instance you have a large swarm of heavy factors combining to produce great value. Value lies in the odds deviating from what they should be. If you can bet a dollar that an unrigged coinflip will be tails with the potential to win 4 dollars if it is, that's GREAT value.
Factor 1: This fight has heavy public action, and the public hates laying odds
For many bettors, this is the first time they have been able to bet their favorite Phillipino without having to lay odds, which in layman's terms means bet a lot to win a little. Here is how pacquiao fans have experienced his fights in the past:
Bookie: "ok who do you want to bet?"
Public: "100$ on pacquiao!"
Bookie:"ok this ticket will pay $120, netting you a $20 win."
Public:"uhh... how much if I bet on the other guy?"
Bookie:"a $100 wager would pay $500, netting you a $400 dollar win."
Public:"yeah I'll take the other guy."
And then they'd usually lose their money. But the dream of turning a little money into a lot, the thrill of getting rich quick... it's too strong for most casual bettors.
For why this matters, here's a quick breakdown of sports betting lines and how sportsbooks work. The sportsbooks are not in the business of gambling. At least they prefer not to be. When you bet (most) games with a spread you'll see the line at -110 on both sides, meaning you'd have to bet $110 to net a $100 win. So for the Clippers/Spurs game tonight, the line is -2, meaning if you bet the clippers and they win by more than two you win, or if you bet the spurs and they win outright or lose by 1 then you win. But either side will have to lay 110 to win 100. So ideally the casino will have equal amounts of money on both sides: if two people each bet 110 on either side, the casino will take in $220 of bets and pay the winner $210 (110 original wager plus 100 profit), and pocket the leftover $10. This casino hold is known as the vigorish, or "vig" for short.
So when too much money comes in on one side, the casinos adjust the line to make the other side more enticing. This hopefully draws in money on the opposite side and mitigates their risk. "Lines" for sports games are based somewhat on what should actually happen, but they are based mostly on how the casino feels the money will come in.
In this instance, so much money has come in on Pacquiao, the line has been pushed down from its opening at Mayweather -300 to as low as Mayweather -175. And this is from a line that was skewed to begin with. I think a fair line might be around -500 or even -600.
Factor 2: Manny is a hero and Floyd is a villain
Pacman is a likeable guy. He's pretty funny and has an unorthodox style. He smiles big when he wins and is respectful. He's also got a large Hispanic following. He's fought over a lot of weightclasses, beating naturally bigger guys.
Mayweather, on the other hand, is easy to hate. He did jailtime for domestic violence. He flaunts his wealth and is notoriously stiff when negotiating purse splits for his fights, which most people perceive as greedy. He is far from humble, referring to himself "TBE" (the best ever), and talking lost of trash.
This pushes more money into Pacquiao's camp. People often bet with their hearts and not their heads. Look at every Raiders fan that put 50 bucks on their team to win the last superbowl.
Factor 3: Pacquiao is much less likely to have been taking PEDs before this fight
Reportedly, a big reason why this fight didn't happen years ago when both fighters were peaking was Manny's refusal to submit to olympic style blood testing. He claimed spiritual reasons, citing his blood as the source of his strength. I think Pacqiuao is a great fighter, but his success across so many weightclasses is definitely a little suspicious. There is a more than thirty pound difference between his early fights and his heavier fights. It's entirely possible he's 100% natty, but looking at the scandals in sports regarding banned substances over the years makes me lean the other way.
This time, Manny cares less about losing. He lost twice in 2012. I believe he cares about the guaranteed 80 million dollars he's going to be getting. But really no one will knock him if he doesn't come out on top in this fight. Pacquiao has agreed to the testing, which is strict enough to have faith in.
Factor 4: Defense wins championships, but is boring to watch
I feel that the winner of this fight will be the boxer who imposes his pace the best and controls the fight. If Manny is forced to outbox Floyd, he could struggle, as Mayweather is the better technical fighter.
As far as excitement goes, most people want a big knockout, not a smooth dodge and slick counterpunch. The public wants to pull for excitement. When a sportsbook makes lines for a game they usually also make a "total," meaning the total amount of points scored in the game by both teams. Casual bettors are notorious for taking the "over," meaning that more points will be scored than the prediction. You'll often see many small wagers on the over and fewer larger wagers on the under. Overs win plenty of the time, so it's not like you'll just get rich betting under every time, but this discrepency speaks volumes about how people's emotions play in to their wagering.
The same element is at play here. People want the hero to KO the villain and ride off into the desert sunset.
Factor 5: These guys are not heavyweights, not even close
Many of the great matches in boxing history have been at higher weightclasses. As you can imagine, Mike Tyson swinging sledgehammers is much more dangerous for a man's head than the fists of 145 pound men. Not to say Mayweather and Pacquiao couldn't knock one another out, but the likelihood is much lower. It will take many mistakes and not a single small one.
This ultimately serves as a reduction in risk. The NBA playoffs are more predictable than the NCAA bracket because teams play a seven game series and not a single game. If a tennis match was only one point, the underdogs would have a far better chance of winning. This is pretty obvious, I probably don't need to explain it.
Comment