The oddsmakers do favor the bulls more than the Knicks, and better than Indy. Those odds are to win the championship, though. So I'm not seeing it as that relevant. They're basically saying that the Bulls may match up better against West Conference teams, or get past the Heat. Or that Indy could be favored (but no bet/line) to have the best record but not to have the experience to go through all the teams in the playoffs. It's also early. Portland just signed Mo Williams, who should improve their chances. Not sure it's reflected in the lines yet. A major injury could shake things up, too. The Spurs just took the Heat to 7 and made it really close. Their odds are worse than the Bulls' at his point. If Duncan looks great again early on, they'd have to move up. Indy took the Heat to 7, too. The Heat won 4-straight the last two times against the Bulls to win 4-1 series.
Oddsmakers aren't allowed to make predictions? They don't agree with me, I think. VegasInsider: Bulls are 6:1 odds to win the championship. The Heat 2:1, OKC 4:1 Spurs 7:1 That's one oddsmaker, there are several I looked at and they don't all agree with these odds. Some of the odds are money line, too. My commentary took all that into consideration.
OK. VegasInsider also has odds for just the conference. It's the Heat at 5/7, Bulls at 5/2, Nets and Pacers at 7/1, Knicks at 12/1 and then a bunch of teams at 45/1. Link While I'm not a betting man, I see value in these early lines. Over time, these lines will change based on actual betting action, but the initial setting of the lines requires some fairly in-depth knowledge of all the teams...something I freely acknowledge that I don't have. And unlike the predictions of media "experts," these early lines don't get distorted by an individual media member's agenda and/or the media's need to be controversial.
Odds to win the conference. Do you see the team with the best odds to win it and the team with the second best odds are not necessarily their 1-2 pick? If not... the odds to win aren't the same as the odds to come in second. Those are two very different propositions (bets), like win/place/show. The guys that set the lines are statisticians of the highest order. I've met a few. Interestingly from the odds, you might get a take on my view of things. At 5/2 to win the conference, I don't think I'd wager on the Bulls. At 12/1, I'd be sorely tempted. When's the last time they won the conference? Jordan era. Both bets would have been sucker bets for the past like 20 years. They literally call these bets "Homer Bets" as an aside. EDIT: if the win/place/show analogy didn't make sense, consider this question: What are the Heat's chances of coming in 2nd? You can't come in 2nd if you come in first! Their odds may be worse than the bulls odds to come in 2nd. I'd also point out the the number 4 seed can still be champs.
I understand that each set of odds are unique to the betting proposition (e.g., win the conference) and can't accurately be used on other betting propositions (e.g., finishing 2nd in the conference). However, to paraphrase what you said earlier, the oddsmakers are higher on the Bulls than you are. Not surprising and it doesn't make them right or make you wrong.
They're not out to get my bet, they're out to get yours. You are probably typical of most fans. I am a huge fan, too. Don't get me wrong. All the things I've advocated for, like starting Marco or trading Deng are with the idea that the team would have a better chance to win. And though I hate management, I still buy NBA LP to watch all the games and root for the team to win.. I have big stash of Bulls memorabilia in my house, much of it given to me as gifts by friends who know how big a fan I am.
If these are "homer odds," they're homer odds for every team, unless, of course you're saying they only give homer odds for the Bulls. This being the case, Vegas Insider's hotshot statistician oddsmakers think the Bulls have the second-best chance of winning the EC. I don't doubt this. When I disagree with you, I also am doing so in the interests of the Bulls winning. I appreciate the candor. I don't love management and can't imagine why anyone would feel either emotion towards Bulls' management. However, as I've said many times, I think Reinsdorf is a great team owner and that Paxson and Forman have done a very good job of building a legit contender, the difficulty of which is something many typical fans don't appreciate. I need more generous friends.
They're homer bets. It's the gamblers' slang for what they're called. Most fans bet $10 on their lousy team at 100:1 for a chance to win $1000. For fun. Like I said, no matter how much you would have bet on the Bulls, you'd have lost it all every season since the last championship. Very few outside of the Bulls fan base would bet on the Bulls. Just the homers. The litany of issues with management starts with them not being nice people. Few free agents want to play here because of them. They drove PJax to leave for the Lakers. The GM cuts a guy a day after he's eligible to sign with another team for playoffs. The GM gets into a physical altercation with the coach. The owner, in rare interviews, talks about the team as a cash cow vs, wanting badly to win championships. Etc.
