GDT: A game of utmost importance: Islanders vs Hurricanes 2/16/18

What the Faulk

You'll know when you go
May 30, 2005
42,121
3,851
North Carolina
For those, like me, that aren't into betting, what does -155 and -200 mean?

A $1 bet on -155 pays out $1.64 while a $1 bet on -200 pays out $1.5. In terms of percentages, it's about a jump from a 60.78% to 66.67% chance to win. Generally, most odds aren't going to fall far from 45-55% (125 to -125), so they're a pretty significant favorite in Vegas' eyes.

EDIT: For comparison, they're one of the highest favorites of the weekend. Winnipeg over Colorado (-220), Tampa over New Jersey (-230), Vegas over Montreal (-235), and Nashville over Detroit (-220) are the only ones higher, and all of them only have 10-20 point jumps from the open to the current average, in one direction or another. Playing at home is a decent-sized factor, but obviously not the only one.
 
Last edited:

Svechhammer

THIS is hockey?
Jun 8, 2017
23,970
88,211
Been watching a lot of Isles games lately, and they're a lot of fun. Unless you coach team defense. Darling's sv pct would be around .200 with these guys. Maybe even sub-Mendoza.
The rate this season is going, they're going to be referring to the Darling Line in terms of crappy play by goalies in the future.
 

My Special Purpose

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
8,151
21,787
For those, like me, that aren't into betting, what does -155 and -200 mean?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't feel that WTFs reply really cleared up the "money line" odds much. The -155 actually stands for how much money you have to wager to win $100. It works out the way WTF says, but in the interest of oversimplifying for a newbie, this works better. So when wagering opened, you had to risk $155 to win $100 (i.e. you pay $155 for the ticket, they pay you $255 if you win), but now, you have to risk $200 to win $100. (Obviously, you don't have to bet to win $100. You can bet any amount you want, but the payouts will be at this ratio.) The reason the number has increased is to incentivize future bettors to take the Islanders, since most of the early wagering has been on the Hurricanes, and the job of the sports book is to take in as close to the same amount of money on both sides.

It shouldn't be looked at as a prediction by the sports book, only that most of the betting to this point has been on the Hurricanes and they've had to jack the payout up by a very large margin to encourage betting on the Islanders.

IMO, anytime a hockey or baseball line gets to the 200-mark, the underdog is a good play. I'll automatically bet on any baseball, football or hockey underdog paying +250 or more (i.e. bet $100 to win $250).

UFC fighters who are huge favorites can go off at -800 to -1,000. Mike Tyson regularly went off as a -2,000 favorite (i.e. to win $100, you had to risk $2,000) until most sports books stopped taking bets on his fights. On the night he lost to Buster Douglas, Tyson was a 42-1 favorite (i.e. -4,200), but only one sports book was even taking bets.
 
Last edited:

Surrounded By Ahos

Las Vegas Desert Ducks Official Team Poster
Sponsor
May 24, 2008
26,486
82,018
Koko Miami
Side note, if you believe in following the money (and you should), the Hurricanes opened as -155 favorites and are now -200, which indicates heavy betting on them. That's significant line movement. O/U is 6.5 goals.
Is that 6.5 goals total or per team?

Either way I’ll take the over.
 

My Special Purpose

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
8,151
21,787
Is that 6.5 goals total or per team?

Either way I’ll take the over.

It's total. Most hockey totals are 5.5. Sometimes, they go to 6 (most of these games include the Islanders, Lightning and/or the Leafs). Going all the way to 6.5 is very high. The highest I've ever seen a total for a Canes game. It seems easy, doesn't it?
 

What the Faulk

You'll know when you go
May 30, 2005
42,121
3,851
North Carolina
Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't feel that WTFs reply really cleared up the "money line" odds much. The -155 actually stands for how much money you have to wager to win $100. It works out the way WTF says, but in the interest of oversimplifying for a newbie, this works better. So when wagering opened, you had to risk $155 to win $100 (i.e. you pay $155 for the ticket, they pay you $255 if you win), but now, you have to risk $200 to win $100. (Obviously, you don't have to bet to win $100. You can bet any amount you want, but the payouts will be at this ratio.) The reason the number has increased is to incentivize future bettors to take the Islanders, since most of the early wagering has been on the Hurricanes, and the job of the sports book is to take in as close to the same amount of money on both sides.

It shouldn't be looked at as a prediction by the sports book, only that most of the betting to this point has been on the Hurricanes and they've had to jack the payout up by a very large margin to encourage betting on the Islanders.

IMO, anytime a hockey or baseball line gets to the 200-mark, the underdog is a good play. I'll automatically bet on any baseball, football or hockey underdog paying +250 or more (i.e. bet $100 to win $250).

UFC fighters who are huge favorites can go off at -800 to -1,000. Mike Tyson regularly went off as a -2,000 favorite (i.e. to win $100, you had to risk $2,000) until most sports books stopped taking bets on his fights. On the night he lost to Buster Douglas, Tyson was a 42-1 favorite (i.e. -4,200), but only one sports book was even taking bets.

This is all correct too, I just always felt it was a little easier to understand by doing it in terms of how much you win rather than how much it takes to win $1(00). You've got to use an odds calculator for that, though.

I mainly do football, so I think I used come concepts that probably don't carry over as well.
 
Last edited:

My Special Purpose

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
8,151
21,787
I mainly do football, so I think I used come concepts that probably don't carry over as well.

When you bet football, do you always bet the money line or do you bet point spreads, too? I gave up on point spreads about 10 years ago (so, no NBA betting for me) because I got tired of losing money on garbage-time plays that didn't affect the outcome of the game. I only bet money lines now, so I rarely ever see an NFL game worth betting. I'm making my living in MLB and the NHL these days. My win pct. has shot up since I stopped betting point spreads.
 

What the Faulk

You'll know when you go
May 30, 2005
42,121
3,851
North Carolina
When you bet football, do you always bet the money line or do you bet point spreads, too? I gave up on point spreads about 10 years ago (so, no NBA betting for me) because I got tired of losing money on garbage-time plays that didn't affect the outcome of the game. I only bet money lines now, so I rarely ever see an NFL game worth betting. I'm making my living in MLB and the NHL these days. My win pct. has shot up since I stopped betting point spreads.

I've found myself mostly doing MLs and O/Us with the occasional prop to correlate with my DK habit, but if there's a spread that I like, I'll jump on that (maybe one game every week or two). Spreads are definitely tougher due to the nature of garbage time in the NFL, though they obviously come in handy when you take the underdog (which I generally do).
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad