Sports book futures bets are an increasing popular and potentially profitable way to wager on the outcome of a full season. There's a few common mistakes that novice players make that can be easily avoided by paying attention to the following:
Search for the best price: A common mistake is to assume that the price on a specific futures wager position will be the same at every sportsbook. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, you'll often see a greater degree of difference between futures prices from book to book than any other form of bet. This is because that books aren't as worried about what price other outfits are offering as they are about keeping their own financial position balanced.
In a competitive field, don't obsess with picking the winner: This may sound like a strange concept, but once you understand the theory behind it it makes perfect sense. In a large field--the NCAA basketball tournament is a perfect example--the top few favorites are invariably priced at odds that are less than the 'true odds' of them winning. On the other hand, there are always teams that fly 'under the radar' available at higher prices that present a betting overlay.
To put this in more theoretical terms, the "true odds" of Duke winning the NCAA Championship are almost certainly higher than the price we're getting. Obviously, determining the "true odds", or actual probability of a future event is an inexact science but think of it this way: if the NCAA tournament was played 100 times would Duke wind up winning 50 of those? Given the number of other good teams and the propensity for upsets along the way, its doubtful. For the sake of argument, lets say that Duke has a 33% chance to win the tournament. That means that I wouldn't consider a bet on Duke to be a good value unless I was getting a price that a) accurately reflected the true probability of their winning and b) gave me some compensation for assuming the "risk of the unknown" inherent in taking the position so far in advance. At +500 I might be interested, but at +200 the value just isn't there.
Note that the more competitive the market, the more difficult it is to find good value on the favorites. Since you can make a case for quite a few teams to win the NCAA tournament at this point this particular futures market is clearly a very competitive one. In a less competitive marketplace it might be possible to "pick the winner" and have it be a good value though you will pay a price for this. Here's a (thankfully) hypothetical example: let's say the UFC decided to hold a one night round robin tournament with 5 competitors. Competitor #1 would be heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar. The other four competitors would be professional figure skaters Elvis Stojko, Rudy Gallindo, Brian Boitano and Evgeni Plushinko. Even if he didn't bring his "A game", Lesnar would be essentially have a 100% certainty of beating the four untrained fighters, who also happen to be rather effeminate. If a sportsbook installed Lesnar as a -1000 favorite a bet on the 63 265 pound takedown would still be theoretically a good value. It's always difficult to risk so much to win a little, but from a strictly theoretical standpoint its a good play.
Don't go for the big killing: Sports wagering is not a good arena in which to make a 'big killing'. It may happen from time to time, but it is extremely rare. A perennial doormat can come out of nowhere to win a championship at a big price, but the fact that it happens from time to time doesn't make it a good value. If you're a recreational player and want to throw a few dollars at a big long shot, no real harm. If you aspire to any degree of seriousness as a sports better, however, you need to maintain your discipline and commitment to value at all times. If you want to hit a big jackpot play the lottery or the slot machines, but don't try to do it in a sports betting paradigm.
Simply stated, the concept of value works the same at the bottom of the wagering ladder as it does at the top. Even if you're betting a big underdog at a huge price make sure that it accurately reflects the 'true odds' of the event occurring.
Don't bet one-sided futures or propositions: Though many of these are not futures per se, a lot of sportsbooks offer silly propositions on nonsport events as a way to get publicity, or just to be funny. Its important to make a distinction between this type of silly bet and more realistic nonsport propositions which frequently present good wagering value. Im talking the really outlandish stuff here. Not too long ago, a sportsbook posted a line on Martians landing on earth and painting the White House red by the end of the year. The "YES" was +2500 or thereabouts, which is far from reflective of the "true odds" of this unlikely event. Even if you're the type that collects classic Art Bell shows on tape and believes in UFOs you wouldn't place the probability of this happening at more than a fraction of a percent. The book only offered the "YES" side of the proposition, meaning that you couldn't lay even a huge price on the more likely outcome. Another book had a futures offering for what would happen first with Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore and Bruce Willis. All of the options were very unlikely--Ashton and Bruce fighting on PPV and my favorite--and the longest odds--Ashton, Bruce and Demi hopping in bed together and releasing a porno video documenting the event. You'd receive a sizable payback if any of the events ever transpired, but I'm not exactly sure how to compute the "true odds" on "when pigs fly.
Search for the best price: A common mistake is to assume that the price on a specific futures wager position will be the same at every sportsbook. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, you'll often see a greater degree of difference between futures prices from book to book than any other form of bet. This is because that books aren't as worried about what price other outfits are offering as they are about keeping their own financial position balanced.
In a competitive field, don't obsess with picking the winner: This may sound like a strange concept, but once you understand the theory behind it it makes perfect sense. In a large field--the NCAA basketball tournament is a perfect example--the top few favorites are invariably priced at odds that are less than the 'true odds' of them winning. On the other hand, there are always teams that fly 'under the radar' available at higher prices that present a betting overlay.
To put this in more theoretical terms, the "true odds" of Duke winning the NCAA Championship are almost certainly higher than the price we're getting. Obviously, determining the "true odds", or actual probability of a future event is an inexact science but think of it this way: if the NCAA tournament was played 100 times would Duke wind up winning 50 of those? Given the number of other good teams and the propensity for upsets along the way, its doubtful. For the sake of argument, lets say that Duke has a 33% chance to win the tournament. That means that I wouldn't consider a bet on Duke to be a good value unless I was getting a price that a) accurately reflected the true probability of their winning and b) gave me some compensation for assuming the "risk of the unknown" inherent in taking the position so far in advance. At +500 I might be interested, but at +200 the value just isn't there.
Note that the more competitive the market, the more difficult it is to find good value on the favorites. Since you can make a case for quite a few teams to win the NCAA tournament at this point this particular futures market is clearly a very competitive one. In a less competitive marketplace it might be possible to "pick the winner" and have it be a good value though you will pay a price for this. Here's a (thankfully) hypothetical example: let's say the UFC decided to hold a one night round robin tournament with 5 competitors. Competitor #1 would be heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar. The other four competitors would be professional figure skaters Elvis Stojko, Rudy Gallindo, Brian Boitano and Evgeni Plushinko. Even if he didn't bring his "A game", Lesnar would be essentially have a 100% certainty of beating the four untrained fighters, who also happen to be rather effeminate. If a sportsbook installed Lesnar as a -1000 favorite a bet on the 63 265 pound takedown would still be theoretically a good value. It's always difficult to risk so much to win a little, but from a strictly theoretical standpoint its a good play.
Don't go for the big killing: Sports wagering is not a good arena in which to make a 'big killing'. It may happen from time to time, but it is extremely rare. A perennial doormat can come out of nowhere to win a championship at a big price, but the fact that it happens from time to time doesn't make it a good value. If you're a recreational player and want to throw a few dollars at a big long shot, no real harm. If you aspire to any degree of seriousness as a sports better, however, you need to maintain your discipline and commitment to value at all times. If you want to hit a big jackpot play the lottery or the slot machines, but don't try to do it in a sports betting paradigm.
Simply stated, the concept of value works the same at the bottom of the wagering ladder as it does at the top. Even if you're betting a big underdog at a huge price make sure that it accurately reflects the 'true odds' of the event occurring.
Don't bet one-sided futures or propositions: Though many of these are not futures per se, a lot of sportsbooks offer silly propositions on nonsport events as a way to get publicity, or just to be funny. Its important to make a distinction between this type of silly bet and more realistic nonsport propositions which frequently present good wagering value. Im talking the really outlandish stuff here. Not too long ago, a sportsbook posted a line on Martians landing on earth and painting the White House red by the end of the year. The "YES" was +2500 or thereabouts, which is far from reflective of the "true odds" of this unlikely event. Even if you're the type that collects classic Art Bell shows on tape and believes in UFOs you wouldn't place the probability of this happening at more than a fraction of a percent. The book only offered the "YES" side of the proposition, meaning that you couldn't lay even a huge price on the more likely outcome. Another book had a futures offering for what would happen first with Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore and Bruce Willis. All of the options were very unlikely--Ashton and Bruce fighting on PPV and my favorite--and the longest odds--Ashton, Bruce and Demi hopping in bed together and releasing a porno video documenting the event. You'd receive a sizable payback if any of the events ever transpired, but I'm not exactly sure how to compute the "true odds" on "when pigs fly.
About the Author:
Ross Everett is a freelance sports writer and noted authority on sports betting odds comparison. He writing has appeared on a variety of sports sites including sportsbooks and betting odds portal sites. He lives in Las Vegas with three Jack Russell Terriers and an emu. He is currently working on an autobiography of former energy secretary Donald Hodell.
Posts
