Shrink once told me that Ihad said one of the stupidest things he had read when I said math played very little part in gambling.
But THIS is the prime example of when math REALLY means anything at all.
If you can't correlate odds when every game is amust win to win a bet, then don't comment on math being important.
The lines on those individual games would need to be off more than 30 cents to even be close to what you got for the series, versus what parlaying your money would have gotten.
I know I looked at it, and saw how bad +580 was. They couldn't justify a line like that. But with a 3-1 lead people thught the line was way too small on NYY as it was. So the books made out double. They gt the take on the individual games as well as all the guys that were laying -650 on the Yankees.
Easy to say afterwards. But no way anyone could think less than +620 on the Sox there was even close to being right. And as it turned out +620 wasn't even enough.
But THIS is the prime example of when math REALLY means anything at all.
If you can't correlate odds when every game is amust win to win a bet, then don't comment on math being important.
The lines on those individual games would need to be off more than 30 cents to even be close to what you got for the series, versus what parlaying your money would have gotten.
I know I looked at it, and saw how bad +580 was. They couldn't justify a line like that. But with a 3-1 lead people thught the line was way too small on NYY as it was. So the books made out double. They gt the take on the individual games as well as all the guys that were laying -650 on the Yankees.
Easy to say afterwards. But no way anyone could think less than +620 on the Sox there was even close to being right. And as it turned out +620 wasn't even enough.