NHL Playoff odds

[the dude]

I'd be interested to know if anyone bets playoff series' like they would a live betting game.

For instance, taking an underdog at the start of the series like LA or Philadelphia. I'm not exactly sure at what they started out, but I think LA was around +180 and PHI was around +160 to win the series.

Now, would be a great time to buy VAN +239 and PIT +222 and guarantee profit. I've never thought to do this until now. Basically treat the series as one big live bet.

I'm sure there are some of you out there doing this. Does anyone have experience doing this or any tips on how to do this well?

[SkyBlues42]

I would have to imagine this strategy would have worked fairly well over the years. I could be wrong though. But I'm under the impression that underdogs have performed successfully. At least well enough to put someone with a series ticket on the underdog in a good position.

[the dude]

I think so too.

Playoff seeds don't have the same sort of meaning as in the NBA. 7 and 8 seeds have shown they can make deep runs in the NHL playoffs. And, home-ice advantage isn't as much as an advantage as it is in other sports.

[ChicosBailBonds]

(04-14-2012 11:10 AM)RickRude Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 05:22 AM)ChicosBailBonds Wrote:  Really hard not to ride the Philly-Pitt overs. Every year it seems like one series flies over no matter where the line is set.

I've taken both overs in Pitt/Philly and taken the unders in every other game to see how that would work out. So far taking out the Philly series unders are 1-3-5 so there's no value on the unders as I thought there would be. The refs are calling a lot more stuff and teams are really making the goalies work. Only one shutout so far which is surprising to me anyways.

I'm pretty shocked what's happened in the Canucks-Kings series. The Kings have outplayed them in 2 games. Flat out. Quick has been good as usual, but they haven't needed him to steal a game yet. I can see a 42 save game coming from Quick in LA.

Fun fact. Since the lockout 6 teams have come back down 2-0 to win a series. Pittsburgh and Marc Andre Fleury have done it twice.

Boston last year was one.

If I remember, Game Ones were big unders, Game Twos were overs. So hard to buy off or 5 though at -200 and higher.

[RickRude]

(04-14-2012 11:37 AM)the dude Wrote:  I'd be interested to know if anyone bets playoff series' like they would a live betting game.

I'm sure there are some of you out there doing this. Does anyone have experience doing this or any tips on how to do this well?

I've been doing this for about 4 years. This year I took Philly, Phoenix, and Ottawa. I'll be placing a wager on Pittsburgh to lock in profit and hoping for Phoenix to pull out game 2 to lock in profit there. Ottawa is in trouble. It's a little hit and miss. You really have to have the dog pull out one of the first two because if they don't you can only ride it out. Here are the ones I did last year and one from 2009 I remember

Chicago +190 over Vancouver- Chicago never got ahead in the series, then lost game 7 on the road. Never had a good opportunity to hedge until game 7 and at that point I rode it because I was getting better odds than game 7 was offering taking Chicago.

Rangers +190 over Washington - Rangers got behind 2-0 and that was that.

Montreal +180 over Boston - This one was fantastic. Montreal won both on the road, Boston got up to +230 and I locked in profit.

2009 Caps Rangers- Rangers were +185 to win the series, won the first two in Washington. Caps soared to +225 , so I took it. I should have waited cause the Rangers went up 3-1 and the Caps were then +300 or something and pulled the series out.

You have to be really patient though. Vancouver got down to -110 over LA and I took it thinking Vancouver would still win, now I didn't get the best of the number.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Tough loss for Phoenix, gives up a goal with :05 to tie, then lose n OT.

[arzoman]

(04-14-2012 02:00 PM)RickRude Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 11:37 AM)the dude Wrote:  I'd be interested to know if anyone bets playoff series' like they would a live betting game.

I'm sure there are some of you out there doing this. Does anyone have experience doing this or any tips on how to do this well?

I've been doing this for about 4 years. This year I took Philly, Phoenix, and Ottawa. I'll be placing a wager on Pittsburgh to lock in profit and hoping for Phoenix to pull out game 2 to lock in profit there. Ottawa is in trouble. It's a little hit and miss. You really have to have the dog pull out one of the first two because if they don't you can only ride it out. Here are the ones I did last year and one from 2009 I remember

Chicago +190 over Vancouver- Chicago never got ahead in the series, then lost game 7 on the road. Never had a good opportunity to hedge until game 7 and at that point I rode it because I was getting better odds than game 7 was offering taking Chicago.

Rangers +190 over Washington - Rangers got behind 2-0 and that was that.

Montreal +180 over Boston - This one was fantastic. Montreal won both on the road, Boston got up to +230 and I locked in profit.

2009 Caps Rangers- Rangers were +185 to win the series, won the first two in Washington. Caps soared to +225 , so I took it. I should have waited cause the Rangers went up 3-1 and the Caps were then +300 or something and pulled the series out.

You have to be really patient though. Vancouver got down to -110 over LA and I took it thinking Vancouver would still win, now I didn't get the best of the number.

I may be alone in this, but I just don't understand the point of betting a team to win a series (especially an underdog) then when they get up a couple of games, wagering on the other team just to make a profit. I've hedged tons of bets over the years, but when it comes to a series/future bet, I would personally only do it in a situation like if the Sharks make it to the finals this year, since I have them at 25-1 to win it, I would put a small bet on the other team. But if I bet an underdog to win a playoff series and they went up a couple of games, betting the other team just to make sure I come out ahead just seems kind of boring to me. It would kill the whole rooting interest thing, and ultimately put a damper on things if the underdog ended up holding on. I think the Flyers were +165 to win the series against the Penguins. Let's say I laid $300 to win $495 on the Flyers. They are up 2-0 now so I could now lock in the Penguins who are currently at +220 and let's say I risk $150 to win $330. The reason I would never do this is if the Flyers hold on and beat Pitt I've won $345, not $495. Meaning this great upset that I picked did not pay me at +165, it paid me at +115. And why did I reduce my payout? Well, if the Penguins had come back and won the series, I would have made a profit of $30. Why would I spend all that time following and watching and rooting for a team to win a series, then cut my odds down, and for what? A $30 profit? It wouldn't be worth it to me to cut my payout down just for a measly gain. Making a profit is nice, but time spent watching, rooting, investing myself emotionally...that has to count for something right? I wouldn't be content with a hedge that pays me $10, $20, $30...etc. Again, I'm just talking about myself here, but I just don't think most series prices justify hedges (unless you get a price of +500 or something in that range).

Anyhow, just thought I'd put my two cents in. Good luck with your plays guys!

[RickRude]

(04-15-2012 02:39 AM)arzoman Wrote:  I may be alone in this, but I just don't understand the point of betting a team to win a series (especially an underdog) then when they get up a couple of games, wagering on the other team just to make a profit. I've hedged tons of bets over the years, but when it comes to a series/future bet, I would personally only do it in a situation like if the Sharks make it to the finals this year, since I have them at 25-1 to win it, I would put a small bet on the other team. But if I bet an underdog to win a playoff series and they went up a couple of games, betting the other team just to make sure I come out ahead just seems kind of boring to me. It would kill the whole rooting interest thing, and ultimately put a damper on things if the underdog ended up holding on. I think the Flyers were +165 to win the series against the Penguins. Let's say I laid $300 to win $495 on the Flyers. They are up 2-0 now so I could now lock in the Penguins who are currently at +220 and let's say I risk $150 to win $330. The reason I would never do this is if the Flyers hold on and beat Pitt I've won $345, not $495. Meaning this great upset that I picked did not pay me at +165, it paid me at +115. And why did I reduce my payout? Well, if the Penguins had come back and won the series, I would have made a profit of $30. Why would I spend all that time following and watching and rooting for a team to win a series, then cut my odds down, and for what? A $30 profit? It wouldn't be worth it to me to cut my payout down just for a measly gain. Making a profit is nice, but time spent watching, rooting, investing myself emotionally...that has to count for something right? I wouldn't be content with a hedge that pays me $10, $20, $30...etc. Again, I'm just talking about myself here, but I just don't think most series prices justify hedges (unless you get a price of +500 or something in that range).

Anyhow, just thought I'd put my two cents in. Good luck with your plays guys!

Totally understandable. I like to watch the series and see how they play out. I'm not always hedging, but the Rangers-Caps series in 2009, The Rangers got extremely lucky to win 2 games and even though they won two I wasn't comfortable in them winning the series. Same with Montreal last year.

Same goes this year for Phoenix-Chicago. Chicago has really outplayed Phoenix in two games. PHX got a split soley based on Mike Smith so if they steal game 3 I'll be locking in profit because I have zero faith in Phoenix winning this series after watching the first two. I thought Phoenix's grit would wear Chicago down a little, but Toews and Kane are just skating circles around the Coyotes.

[arzoman]

(04-15-2012 02:45 PM)RickRude Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:39 AM)arzoman Wrote:  I may be alone in this, but I just don't understand the point of betting a team to win a series (especially an underdog) then when they get up a couple of games, wagering on the other team just to make a profit. I've hedged tons of bets over the years, but when it comes to a series/future bet, I would personally only do it in a situation like if the Sharks make it to the finals this year, since I have them at 25-1 to win it, I would put a small bet on the other team. But if I bet an underdog to win a playoff series and they went up a couple of games, betting the other team just to make sure I come out ahead just seems kind of boring to me. It would kill the whole rooting interest thing, and ultimately put a damper on things if the underdog ended up holding on. I think the Flyers were +165 to win the series against the Penguins. Let's say I laid $300 to win $495 on the Flyers. They are up 2-0 now so I could now lock in the Penguins who are currently at +220 and let's say I risk $150 to win $330. The reason I would never do this is if the Flyers hold on and beat Pitt I've won $345, not $495. Meaning this great upset that I picked did not pay me at +165, it paid me at +115. And why did I reduce my payout? Well, if the Penguins had come back and won the series, I would have made a profit of $30. Why would I spend all that time following and watching and rooting for a team to win a series, then cut my odds down, and for what? A $30 profit? It wouldn't be worth it to me to cut my payout down just for a measly gain. Making a profit is nice, but time spent watching, rooting, investing myself emotionally...that has to count for something right? I wouldn't be content with a hedge that pays me $10, $20, $30...etc. Again, I'm just talking about myself here, but I just don't think most series prices justify hedges (unless you get a price of +500 or something in that range).

Anyhow, just thought I'd put my two cents in. Good luck with your plays guys!

Totally understandable. I like to watch the series and see how they play out. I'm not always hedging, but the Rangers-Caps series in 2009, The Rangers got extremely lucky to win 2 games and even though they won two I wasn't comfortable in them winning the series. Same with Montreal last year.

Same goes this year for Phoenix-Chicago. Chicago has really outplayed Phoenix in two games. PHX got a split soley based on Mike Smith so if they steal game 3 I'll be locking in profit because I have zero faith in Phoenix winning this series after watching the first two. I thought Phoenix's grit would wear Chicago down a little, but Toews and Kane are just skating circles around the Coyotes.

I hear ya Rick. It definitely makes sense in the context of losing faith in a team. If I hedge a bet and my original bet comes through, I kind of kick myself for placing the hedge and losing money on my original wager. I wish I wasn't like that, as I'd probably be a more successful gambler if I didn't think like that...but oh well. I hope you didn't perceive my post as a criticism of your gambling methods, I just personally wouldn't hedge a series. I also wouldn't feel confident in Phoenix. Both games have been fun to watch, but I think Chicago wins as I can't see Phoenix winning it after that collapse last night.

This Philly-Pitt series is crazy. I'm not sure if both teams have horrendous defense, or incredible offense.

[RickRude]

(04-15-2012 04:43 PM)arzoman Wrote:  I hear ya Rick. It definitely makes sense in the context of losing faith in a team. If I hedge a bet and my original bet comes through, I kind of kick myself for placing the hedge and losing money on my original wager. I wish I wasn't like that, as I'd probably be a more successful gambler if I didn't think like that...but oh well. I hope you didn't perceive my post as a criticism of your gambling methods, I just personally wouldn't hedge a series. I also wouldn't feel confident in Phoenix. Both games have been fun to watch, but I think Chicago wins as I can't see Phoenix winning it after that collapse last night.

This Philly-Pitt series is crazy. I'm not sure if both teams have horrendous defense, or incredible offense.

No offense taken. Everyone has different approaches. The reason I come here is for differing viewpoints. You make total sense and I can see where you're coming from.

MAF has been awful for Pittsburgh, but his D has really hung him out to dry. Of the 6 he gave up today 2 were directly his fault ,The shorthanded and Matt Read's first, but other than those his defense has let him down. 2 on 1s all over the place, guys uncovered in the slot, what a debacle. Bryzgalov hasn't been great by any stretch, but he's made the big saves that Fleury hasn't (second half of game 1, couple big saves game 2, and last 25 minutes today)

If it ends up being Philly-Boston in round 2, Philly isn't going to get these gimmes and I think Philly is going to be way overvalued against anyone based on Pitt's D being terrible.

[ChicosBailBonds]

i will fade Philly Game one next round. How can they get up for that after this series?

[Beyond the Bets]

I'm waiting to see series prices on the Pens-Flyers. If it's 20-1, and I suspect it could be, I'd consider taking a stab. If Fleury can recover his confidence a bit, and if the Pens get their head back after a three-day break, then who knows ... maybe they can force a Game 7.

Anyone?

[illadelphia]

(04-15-2012 05:39 PM)ChicosBailBonds Wrote:  i will fade Philly Game one next round. How can they get up for that after this series?

It might be a good spot to fade but I would wait and see who they are playing first. All other series are 1-1 at this point and everything gets reseeded in round 2.

Also, as it stands right now with the Flyers being up 3-0 should have a nice long break before the next round. Plenty of time to rest, prepare and "get up" for the next series.

If you want to look into fading the flyers based on what RickRude said about being overvalued in the 2nd round based on Pitt's D being terrible that might be smart. However, I don't buy into the "they can/can't get up" for this series angle one bit. I find it to be very similar to the point BTB showed about betting on a team in a "must win" game in the NHL playoffs.

These guys are professional athletes and I find it very hard to believe that they will lack the effort/desire/intensity/etc to "get up" for the 2nd round of the Stanley Cup playoffs. More specifically the flyers youth should give them ample energy to "get up" for the next round. You can see that young energy in the way these guys skate in the 2nd & 3rd periods.

Can we all agree that Sidney Crosby is gutless punk? I talked to a buddy in Philly today and there is an electronic billboard along I-95 that reads: "Hey Sidney, do you sit or stand?"

[illadelphia]

(04-16-2012 12:14 PM)Beyond the Bets Wrote:  I'm waiting to see series prices on the Pens-Flyers. If it's 20-1, and I suspect it could be, I'd consider taking a stab. If Fleury can recover his confidence a bit, and if the Pens get their head back after a three-day break, then who knows ... maybe they can force a Game 7.

Anyone?

I don't see it happening. Fleury's confidence is shattered and beyond repair. He's the only goalie to start all three games and not earn a win. The worst save percentage of anyone. Worst goals-against average of anyone. His current save percentage is .798, the lowest of any goaltender to make at least three appearances in a playoff since Jim Carey's worst-ever .744 in 97 minutes in 1996. Currently, his save percentage is bottom-5 ever. His current GAA is 6.34, the second-worst all-time among that same group behind Greg Stefan's 7.39 for Detroit in 1985.

The pens are facing some likely suspensions so they will not have a full compliment of players. If the Pens can win on Wed night, they can look forward to coming back home where they have really struggled against the Flyers.

Also, no 3 day breaks coming in this series. They have Mon & Tues off this week before playing Wed in Philly. If the Pens win on Wed, game 5 is Friday in Pittsburgh with only Thurs off. Game 6 would be Sun., April 22 in Philly and Game 7 Tue., April 24 in Pittsburgh.

[RickRude]

(04-16-2012 12:41 PM)illadelphia Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 05:39 PM)ChicosBailBonds Wrote:  i will fade Philly Game one next round. How can they get up for that after this series?

It might be a good spot to fade but I would wait and see who they are playing first. All other series are 1-1 at this point and everything gets reseeded in round 2.

Also, as it stands right now with the Flyers being up 3-0 should have a nice long break before the next round. Plenty of time to rest, prepare and "get up" for the next series.

If you want to look into fading the flyers based on what RickRude said about being overvalued in the 2nd round based on Pitt's D being terrible that might be smart. However, I don't buy into the "they can/can't get up" for this series angle one bit. I find it to be very similar to the point BTB showed about betting on a team in a "must win" game in the NHL playoffs.

These guys are professional athletes and I find it very hard to believe that they will lack the effort/desire/intensity/etc to "get up" for the 2nd round of the Stanley Cup playoffs. More specifically the flyers youth should give them ample energy to "get up" for the next round. You can see that young energy in the way these guys skate in the 2nd & 3rd periods.

Can we all agree that Sidney Crosby is gutless punk? I talked to a buddy in Philly today and there is an electronic billboard along I-95 that reads: "Hey Sidney, do you sit or stand?"

Totally agree on "desire" angle. That has no bearing in the Cup playoffs. Hockey is way different than basketball in that respect. These teams come to play every single night no matter what the series is at. That's the beauty of hockey and IMO the reason that the "bet on the team that must win" theory doesn't exist. If that reason existed, the Pens and Canucks would have both won game 2 or at the least game 3. Every game in the playoffs is the biggest game which is why it's my favorite sport. In today's NHL there's no "nights off." Flyers and Kings will be just as intense in game 4 with a 3-0 lead as they were in game 1 all square. Same with every team. If I were looking for an angle to bet against Philly in round 2 it would be based on A) inflation of their offense due to the Penguins D problems and B) Still don't fully trust Bryzgalov.

I actually didn't mind what Crosby did. I find him very whiny, but I thought he was just trying to antagonize to get Philly off their game. I found it kind of humorous that the game's best player was relegated to pest. I have a huge problem with what Neal and Asham did. Asham is a goon, but for Neal to level a head shot to Giroux, who has concussion problems, in a game that's out of reach is beyond the pale. Then for Adams to pull Hartnell's hair. A black mark for the Pitt organization.

I can't see any way that Pitt will be a 20-1 dog. Those odds don't exist in NHL series prices. If Pitt wins game 4 then they get 2 out of 3 on home ice so I would guess Pittsburgh would be in the 8-1 range to win the series. Does anyone know the odds on Philly in 2010 against Boston down 3-0? Philly was FAVORED in game 4 for sure that year. That I know.

[RickRude]

Also a couple quick trends for anyone playing tonight's games and such.

The "grand Salami" which is the total number of goals in all games that particular night has gone over every night Philly-Pitt has played and has gone under the other two nights. Tonight and tomorrow are both "other" nights. With the Rangers losing Hagelin, Alfredsson iffy for the Sens and the Senators really taking space away from Gaborik/Richards that looks like a low scoring game.

Since Claude Julien joined the Bruins in 2007 the Boston Bruins are 8-1 in game 3s. Their only loss being in 2009 to Carolina. The Caps since Ovechkin got there are only 1-3 in Game 3s. Their only win was against the Rangers in 2009.