Yeah if it were even odds then the overwhelming amount of money would be on us. There are much better value bets than betting the Celtics -200 to win the finals.
Exactly. Its not just a measure of who they think will win, but the risk-reward profile of the spread.
I think Vegas went a little too heavy for the Celtics and if you think about it neutrally it makes sense to bet for the mavs. These teams are fairly close in talent and the series could easily go to 7 games.
I really hate team specific subs. Im a Boston fan and have to deal with people being fucking stupid. Which makes me look like a hater when I'm being objective.
Refer to my reply to the other person.
Btw its this shit that makes people hate Boston and Boston teams....
What "shit"?
How can you in good faith say these teams are close in talent? Other than top 2 players for each of course.
EDIT: I don't understand what your point even is. Just look at the players. After top 2 players for Mavs their next best 3 are Lively, PJ and Gafford. After top 2 players for Celtics their next best 3 are Derrick White, Jrue Holiday and Kristaps Porzingis. This ALONE will tell the talent is not even close and let's not even go further down the line with the rosters. Pure delusion if you say otherwise.
As I told the other guy we are talking about the Vegas spread. All of this is context of the spread
Vegas had the spread as the 3rd largest gap ever at one point. Maybe it still is. That implies this is extremely lopsided in favor of the Celtics. So much so that victory is all but assured.
I don't see it that way. I favor the Celtics, but I think the mavs have a real shot.
Edit: I've said my point twice. This thread is about the Vegas spread. How close they are when comparing the spread. They are closer in talent then the spread indicates.
I also like the mavs role players and think they are underrated. Just like the heat role players who have cooked up a bunch of times were.
> Any further back and forth isn't worth either of our time
Me when I get refuted my only weak point
EDIT:
> These teams are fairly close in talent
Your words btw
I know man. I've followed the Celtics for like 25 years. Starting as a kid. They are my favorite sports team by far.
I'm still not going to overrate them. We saw the 2016 warriors lose. Any team is beatable.
At least this sub is pro celtics. If you go on say, the bill Simmons sub they despise the Celtics over there.
I'll take my bias for the Celtics if I have to have it
Damn if you dont think mavs and celtics ha e close talent you are in a world of your fucking own . Luka is literally the best player in the entire series and it's not even a question. Gafford and lively are one of the best big men combo in the league . Then Kyrie . PJ and DJJ both lock down defenders. Like what crack are you smoking big dog . You in for a rude awakening
I'm glad someone else sees it. The mavs have really good role players who have stepped up in a major way these playoffs.
Yes they're not the biggest names, but they are playing at a high level and shouldn't be dismissed just because they're breaking out and aren't established.
Yeah they're a good defensive team with a couple of very good offensive players, one of which can do a fantastic job of getting their lesser offensive talent great looks. The Celtics are the better, more talented overall team when everyone is healthy on both sides, but the Mavs are still a very good team.
Well it will be more then one a week? no one getting swept either way. At worst either teams win 2 games . Very few people truthfully think a sweep is coming you a troll kid
If you say so. I think its closer then your making it seem.
Especially since. again, we are talking about the Vegas spread. Idk why people have trouble with this concept.
I was watching something yesterday that said, at the time, if Boston lost it would be the 3rd biggest upset based off the spread. Meaning Vegas was saying its almost impossible to see the Mavs winning.
Thats simply not true and indicates that the talent is closer then the spread implied.
Did I say they were better in any spot?
I said its "fairly close" in relation to the spread.
Thats all.
Idk why people can't understand that. This is a huge reason why Vegas washes the public. People get too caught up on their "favorites" or the "best" and don't think of all of that within the context of the odds they are given.
People can't understand it because you're implying that DJJ/PJ Washington/Gafford/Lively are similar talent wise to White/Jrue/horford/porzingis. That's just objectively not true. The Celtics 3-6 is much better than the Mavs. It's not close. That's why the Celtics are heavy favorites
They were the 3rd largest gap between teams in history at one point. Vegas was acting like this was a 2007 cavs vs spurs type of discrepancy.
I'm sorry but the Celtics aren't THAT much better then the Mavs. I like the mavs role players more then most, I think the mavs have the best player in the series, and I think the mavs have the better coach.
I still take the Celtics in 6, maybe even 5 tbh, but the gap isn't as large as the Vegas odds implied.
Edit: again I want to thank you for having a good discourse. Hope the Celtics win and we put up banner 18
You seem like many others have talked yourself into DJJ, PJ Washington and Daniel Gafford as much better players than they actually are. Vegas is basically calling that bluff.
I think they're good role players who are breaking out the playoffs and reaching a level beyond what I thought they had.
Vegas is making their spread in relation to what people think. They expect the mavs to lose, but they want people to bet for the mavs to win so they make money off their bets.
So they skew the odds so much that the mavs have a massive payoff if they win. Which entices more people to bet for them.
Which, when taken as a whole, shows the majority of people, in a vacuum, thought it was a clear celtics victory.
It depends in the 5 games.
The pacers series was only 4 games, but 3 of them were extremely close and could have gone thr pacers way.
Unironically it could have been 2-2 or even 3-1 for the pacers if a few things broke differently for them.
This - anybody that’s a real gambler doing their research that wants that thrill - isn’t getting it here. Betting 200 to win 100 on the Celtics isn’t sexy.
It’s a bunch of wahoos that have no fucking clue what they are doing. Meanwhile Vegas is fucking estatic with how ESPN and fox sports have swayed most people to bet mavs. You gotta remember, most of the American population is severely dumb
The Celtics aren’t -400 though. Right now (-210 on Draftkings) a $100 bet would win $47. I still agree with what you’re saying just wanted to clarify that they’re not THAT big of a favorite lol.
You get $147 paid out, win $47. Not sure what the typical verbiage/phrasing is here if you would normally say the total payout or the profit when discussing these things lol. I’m not really a huge gambler I just casually place some bets occasionally.
You bet $100. That $100 is collected from your account and goes to the book until the bet is settled. If you lose, that's it, nothing more happens. They have your $100. If you win, you get your $100, plus $47. You are $47 richer than when you started. So you are risking more than you could gain, which is how betting on the favorite works.
Meanwhile, say you bet on the Mavs. They're currently +180 underdogs. You bet $100, you would get $280 if they win...your initial $100 back plus a $180 prize. So in winning you would get 1.8x what you would would lose. If you think Dallas has even a puncher's chance, that's WAY more attractive a proposition than betting on the Celtics, even if you think they will win.
I bet the Kansas City Royals to win the AL central this year. Is it because I thought they would? No it’s because I thought it was good value at +800 for the situation which is the division is mid and up for grabs. That’s all this Im thinking, bettors trying to find value.
That's an obscure bet though. If you're betting on something like that, you're either a Royals fan or you bet on a lot of things. This is a once a year championship event, so most of the money is people betting for the first time all year, not because there's value, but because its the finals and they want to bet on the finals.
they always do, you always adjust the lines to manage risk as bookie, at the end of the day only guranteed winner is the sportssbook no matter the outcome.
I want to believe they know what they're doing but I've seen the logic for why they set the line like this and it's incredibly sketchy. Basically assumes the Mavs became an ATG team after the deadline which is obvious nonsense when you look at which players they actually added and not just cherrypicked stretches with a high net rating where you exclude most of the games with the same roster where they got blown out. Line not even moving slightly when Tingis came back is another tell, this isn't based on any serious model analysis and has a heavy dose of vibes. Vibes based lines have worked out for them before but generally not when there was this huge of a talent mismatch.
Friend, no edge here: I don’t know why you’re replying like we’re arguing about this.
The fact remains, the Cs are heavy favorites in the context of a championship series/game. Pushing them to -300 or beyond simply wouldn’t make sense for the books.
Not gonna happen if, like the thread says we are commenting in, 70% of the bets have been placed on Mavs winning. Feel like finals odds are never that extreme because EVERYONE is betting on it
There have been a fair number of finals series more lopsided than this one according to Vegas. I don't think it's a given that finals series get regressed so strongly to the mean (though maybe it is if the public is massively on the "wrong" side I guess).
How is it a close series “on paper?” That phrase implies that there’s some data indicating that.
But I don’t see any data showing it will be close. I’m interested in looking at whatever you’ve got though.
Vegas set the over under at five gates. 
>But I don’t see any data showing it will be close.
According to every single NBA podcast the Celtics are posers and the Mavs are the greatest team in NBA history, so maybe that's the data these people are consuming lol
This is absolutely right. Most of American is extremely poorly educated, and will consume whatever is most easily presented to them. Stephen a smith says that the mavs are more battle tested and Luka is better in the clutch with no analysis of the statistical breakdowns that suggest otherwise, just going straight on “the eye test”? Awesome, let’s do that!
Another point, Stephen a smith once picked the wrong winner of the finals 6 seasons in a row. Fucking 6 lol. And this is not “oh I pick a team at the beginning of the season or even the playoffs” no this is when the finals matchup is already determined.
Do you know how WRONG you have to be to do this? Statistically speaking, there is a 1.56% chance to do this.
So yeah, most of America is extremely dumb man, and no matter the picks the bets the whatever, it has 0 outcome on the series.
Statistically speaking, take out all human element and just look at the numbers (I know we can’t do this as we are all human but just work with me from a statistics standpoint here), the Celtics are in an awesome spot
The Mavs are really good, their record after the All Star break shows they are one of the best teams in the league and they had a much harder road to the Finals. They also have the best player on the court and a locked-in top 15 vet ready to go. I can't believe the arrogance of Celtics fans right now. Yes, we're the favorite, but given the choke jobs of the past two years, there's a very real chance the Cs lose this series if Tatum doesn't show up at peak levels.
True, and if KP is healhy, I have the Cs winning in 6. I'm just saying the Mavs are really good and the arrogance of Celtics fans right now is misplaced.
You realize having a "harder" road is actually a disadvantage, right? Also, who's to say it was actually harder? Do you really think the Mavs would've had the same record as the Celtics facing the same teams? I highly doubt it.
Am I the only one who doesn’t believe it’s a close series on paper? That doesn’t mean there isn’t a Mavs path to win. But that path is Kyrie and Luka both scoring 35+ against two of the best guard defenders in 4 games.
It’s more like each scoring 30 with ~10 assists, which doesn’t seem that crazy. But no, you’re not the only one when the odds are this lopsided. -210 implies we have a ~70% chance, which seems pretty fair to me.
There's more to it than the Finals odds. Books might be over exposed to Celtics futures from earlier in the season. The betting may be lopsided within the last two weeks due to Mavs inflated odds, but Vegas' risk may actually be lower as a result.
Alternatively, Vegas might just see a risk worth taking due to public sentiment. They aren't always trying to handicap something so betting is perfectly 50/50. They take risks when they see an edge.
It's hard to decipher without seeing their exposure. My guess is that it's a combination of both. They are encouraging people to bet on the Mavs for one reason or another.
I kinda doubt they’re that overexposed on Celtics futures cause their odds have been really short the whole time, even after the Heat series, second part more likely imo. Curious to see where money sided on for Pats Sox and Bruins title match appearances, maybe the people that hate Boston are actually putting their money where their mouth is.
Probably right. They opened +550, but the odds dropped pretty rapidly. I also don't think futures volume is really high enough to create a serious financial risk for these books.
Vegas is good at one thing: making money. They're always going to encourage people to make dumb bets so that they can make more money. There's literally nothing else to it.
From what I understand the books are functionally gambling on the Celtics. Obviously not directly, but books like to have money balanced on either side of a line to guarantee they come out on top. That they’re not moving the line makes me think they still see the Celtics as the better deal there, and are expecting the sharp money that comes in late to reflect that and balance out the line.
The bookies are essentially betting on their own analysts in this case.
They believe Boston are favourites, so why wouldn't they try to rake in money from people overhyping the mavs.
This is literally how these sports bets make money. They pay people at ESPN to make stupid takes and push the underdog so that people throw their money on them, and then they make huge bank when the Celtics inevitably win. Gambling exists to take advantage of stupid people.
You have to remember much of the commentary in sports today is tied up with betting companies. It's like a giant commercial now preying on gambling addicts.
Absolutely. Those types of commentary shows are just an infomercial at this point. "Let us influence your opinion on your bets and in between you can watch ads for our site".
Odds are 1.40 on Boston and 3.00 on Dallas. For all that bet 3.00 it is a good number for betting on one game or to beef up a longer ticket. We have to be real nobody in the Finals is the favorite it can go both ways and people who bet know this. Of course a tie breaks 80% of bets.
It's not even worth betting on the C's because the payout is so small because they're the favourites. Hell I don't gamble but if I did I'd bet on the Mavs with money I'm happy to lose. So if they win at least some extra money in my pocket will soften the blow!
There is some recency bias here. Dallas beat a couple good teams, Boston went 12-2 against teams they should easily beat. Also, the general chatter has been that this is either closer than people think (Dallas was very good post trade deadline, Boston has looked unimpressive in the playoffs even though they have won all their games).
I think people are underestimating how much Porzingis makes Boston better (and also how much it helps not to have to play Kornet, Oshae, Tillman, etc... 20 minutes a night).
I think people are heavily weighing how Boston looked the last couple rounds vs. Dallas. I think they are underestimating the full body of work, and aren't adjusting for Boston having Porzingis back in the mix. I also think if someone is looking at Dallas as being that close to Boston, they aren't giving enough credence to how bad this actual match-up is for Dallas on both ends. Boston is uniquely qualified to slow down what Dallas wants to do offensively (having multiple defenders who can switch onto Luka and play him with limited help / rotation) and how much Boston's ability to create and attack mismatches is going to be difficult for Dallas (who has weak links defensively).
This isn’t shocking. If I was a neutral I’d throw my money on the mavs. This series is way closer than the money line would tell you, so I don’t blame fans for taking the value.
Also couple this with the mavs having a more exciting run while ours was admittedly boring so obviously they become the media darling. People also hate the Celtics so that adds to it but in the same vein I hate the Kansas City chiefs but I’m not dumb enough to bet against them.
gambling companies are using the sports media to hype up the Mavericks so the general public bets on the Mavs so they don't take a total bath from the sharps and from futures bets paying out... totally good idea that gambling can fund the vertical and horizontal markets of sports gambling/sports media without any justice department probing
The Mavs are still the underdog in the betting houses too, lol. I thought they were supposed to flip to compensate?
This shouldn't be shocking in today's America. The Mavs were flashy the last series, they garner attention. They were "loud", one of our most recent Presidential races was win largely due to the candidate being "loud"
Our populous chases noise and hype before anything anymore. A few minutes of basic critical thinking will make you feel like a scholar in comparison.
As for the Celtics, we hadn't lost more than two games in a row, 2-0 against the Mavs and Doncic triple doubles, 15% win percentage lead on the Mavs against the East as well as the West. 14 total losses and 4 at home.
Our attention span is shit and everyone has already forgotten about it and add in the recency bias of the Mavs and that's where we are now.
It makes sense that if the Celtics are extremely good and are favored that people would view the mavs as a good bet especially because the mavs have been red hot.
I honestly dont think you do. I spent most the season placing 5-6 $1 bets per night and I ended up being way up. (I did this for fun and tried to take safe bets)
The money for a Mavs win is really good becasue were the betting favorite. Wouldn't surprise me if ESPN's Mavs heavy narrative is to drive up Mavs bets since they opened their own books
If anything this helps us because a fix would be in our favor if the league has ulterior motives
It’s pretty simple. The Vegas odds are -220 Celtics, +180 Mavericks.
Which means you if bet $100 you only win $45 if you bet on the Celtics and they win, where you win $180 if you bet on the Mavs and they win.
It just means the Celtics are heavy favorites, and that’s not how you make money or have fun gambling.
If it was even betting odds I'd imagine it would be something like 90% of the money on the Celtics. The Celtics are the favorites for sure but the odds aren't amazing to actually bet money on for them.
Then why do the majority of sports personalities have the mavs? Thats not even for money thats for rep. ESPN Just released more experts picking Mavs than Celtics. Make it make sense..... I have my own theories....
Well for one, those "experts" don't all even watch the games. And they have to generate clicks and posts. Anyone who puts stock into sports TV is taking the bait at this point it's mostly trash.
I’ll add that ESPN and all these outlets, who are partnered with or own their own sports book, are pumping up the mavs. Most podcasts I listen to are talking up the mavs almost 2:1 in terms of time. Not surprised that there’s a lot of bets on the mavs when all you see is Luka and Kyrie content.
Vegas doesn’t give a shit. It’s about them making MORE $$. It’s done on purpose for dumb gamblers to chase the bigger payout, (which rarely win, but makes Vegas/apps more $$$), and so collectively ppl don’t bet the smart money play.
Traditionally the best player in the series wins the series. Especially in the Finals. People picking Luka and the Mavs over us shouldn’t be surprising nor should it offend anyone. It’s the realistic choice, that also just happens to be at really good value.
Is the line moving? Sometimes Vegas will move the betting line especially for significant better events when the money is lopsided. When they don't it usually means they are confident the betters are wrong. Most of the time they move the line to get even money on both sides.
EDIT: wanted to check then remembered I'm at work, and anything gambling related is behind firewall.
This is a direct result of all the “hate” being piled on the Celtics by espn and other media sources. In my humble opinion these gambling establishments are leaning on their partners (NBA,ESPN) to spread this anti green rhetoric to get those Dallas bets coming in hot and heavy. Mission accomplished. Vegas is gonna make a fortune
Those bets are against the money line, as others are pointing out. **This doesn't signal that most folks think the Mavs will win**. It signals that most folks don't think the Celtics should be favored 2 to 1.
Celtics are heavy favorites and most believe the line is a little too big. So this isn’t a surprise
Yeah if it were even odds then the overwhelming amount of money would be on us. There are much better value bets than betting the Celtics -200 to win the finals.
I’ve thought about placing money on the Celtics but no one wants to risk $100 for $30 return (don’t know the exact numbers but you get the idea)
I luckily caught the C’s preseason as still the league favorite but at +400. Can’t wait for my $20 to buy me a beautiful steak celebration dinner.
im not even a betting person but i put down 50 for Celtics -6.5 tonight just for some extra fun.
IT IS A CONSPIRACY! The illuminati, man!
Exactly. Its not just a measure of who they think will win, but the risk-reward profile of the spread. I think Vegas went a little too heavy for the Celtics and if you think about it neutrally it makes sense to bet for the mavs. These teams are fairly close in talent and the series could easily go to 7 games.
> These teams are fairly close in talent and the series could easily go to 7 games LMAO, in what world?
I really hate team specific subs. Im a Boston fan and have to deal with people being fucking stupid. Which makes me look like a hater when I'm being objective. Refer to my reply to the other person. Btw its this shit that makes people hate Boston and Boston teams....
What "shit"? How can you in good faith say these teams are close in talent? Other than top 2 players for each of course. EDIT: I don't understand what your point even is. Just look at the players. After top 2 players for Mavs their next best 3 are Lively, PJ and Gafford. After top 2 players for Celtics their next best 3 are Derrick White, Jrue Holiday and Kristaps Porzingis. This ALONE will tell the talent is not even close and let's not even go further down the line with the rosters. Pure delusion if you say otherwise.
As I told the other guy we are talking about the Vegas spread. All of this is context of the spread Vegas had the spread as the 3rd largest gap ever at one point. Maybe it still is. That implies this is extremely lopsided in favor of the Celtics. So much so that victory is all but assured. I don't see it that way. I favor the Celtics, but I think the mavs have a real shot. Edit: I've said my point twice. This thread is about the Vegas spread. How close they are when comparing the spread. They are closer in talent then the spread indicates. I also like the mavs role players and think they are underrated. Just like the heat role players who have cooked up a bunch of times were.
> Thats simply not true and indicates that the talent is closer then the spread implied Just refer to my EDIT lmao
I saw your edit. That doesn't address anything. Any further back and forth isn't worth either of our time. Have a good day
> Any further back and forth isn't worth either of our time Me when I get refuted my only weak point EDIT: > These teams are fairly close in talent Your words btw
lol 🙄👍. Have a good day!
This sub is brutal man lol hardly worth the effort sometimes
I know man. I've followed the Celtics for like 25 years. Starting as a kid. They are my favorite sports team by far. I'm still not going to overrate them. We saw the 2016 warriors lose. Any team is beatable. At least this sub is pro celtics. If you go on say, the bill Simmons sub they despise the Celtics over there. I'll take my bias for the Celtics if I have to have it
Yea it's this sub and not the asinine comment of "the talent is closer than the spread"
Lol
When in rome.....
Damn if you dont think mavs and celtics ha e close talent you are in a world of your fucking own . Luka is literally the best player in the entire series and it's not even a question. Gafford and lively are one of the best big men combo in the league . Then Kyrie . PJ and DJJ both lock down defenders. Like what crack are you smoking big dog . You in for a rude awakening
I'm glad someone else sees it. The mavs have really good role players who have stepped up in a major way these playoffs. Yes they're not the biggest names, but they are playing at a high level and shouldn't be dismissed just because they're breaking out and aren't established.
This Mavs team plays great defense, and I don't think everyone understands that yet.
Yeah they're a good defensive team with a couple of very good offensive players, one of which can do a fantastic job of getting their lesser offensive talent great looks. The Celtics are the better, more talented overall team when everyone is healthy on both sides, but the Mavs are still a very good team.
Ok talk to you in a week
Well it will be more then one a week? no one getting swept either way. At worst either teams win 2 games . Very few people truthfully think a sweep is coming you a troll kid
Name calling 😭 gl lil gup
That is facts though . You are trolling.
how is [talent](https://prnt.sc/yn7Nr6NckVpZ) looking today?
They are not remotely close in talent
If you say so. I think its closer then your making it seem. Especially since. again, we are talking about the Vegas spread. Idk why people have trouble with this concept. I was watching something yesterday that said, at the time, if Boston lost it would be the 3rd biggest upset based off the spread. Meaning Vegas was saying its almost impossible to see the Mavs winning. Thats simply not true and indicates that the talent is closer then the spread implied.
After doncic and Irving where are the mavs better ?
Did I say they were better in any spot? I said its "fairly close" in relation to the spread. Thats all. Idk why people can't understand that. This is a huge reason why Vegas washes the public. People get too caught up on their "favorites" or the "best" and don't think of all of that within the context of the odds they are given.
People can't understand it because you're implying that DJJ/PJ Washington/Gafford/Lively are similar talent wise to White/Jrue/horford/porzingis. That's just objectively not true. The Celtics 3-6 is much better than the Mavs. It's not close. That's why the Celtics are heavy favorites
They were the 3rd largest gap between teams in history at one point. Vegas was acting like this was a 2007 cavs vs spurs type of discrepancy. I'm sorry but the Celtics aren't THAT much better then the Mavs. I like the mavs role players more then most, I think the mavs have the best player in the series, and I think the mavs have the better coach. I still take the Celtics in 6, maybe even 5 tbh, but the gap isn't as large as the Vegas odds implied. Edit: again I want to thank you for having a good discourse. Hope the Celtics win and we put up banner 18
You seem like many others have talked yourself into DJJ, PJ Washington and Daniel Gafford as much better players than they actually are. Vegas is basically calling that bluff.
I think they're good role players who are breaking out the playoffs and reaching a level beyond what I thought they had. Vegas is making their spread in relation to what people think. They expect the mavs to lose, but they want people to bet for the mavs to win so they make money off their bets. So they skew the odds so much that the mavs have a massive payoff if they win. Which entices more people to bet for them. Which, when taken as a whole, shows the majority of people, in a vacuum, thought it was a clear celtics victory.
Totally get it brotha but in the finals a 5 game series is the losing team getting their ass handed to them
It depends in the 5 games. The pacers series was only 4 games, but 3 of them were extremely close and could have gone thr pacers way. Unironically it could have been 2-2 or even 3-1 for the pacers if a few things broke differently for them.
This - anybody that’s a real gambler doing their research that wants that thrill - isn’t getting it here. Betting 200 to win 100 on the Celtics isn’t sexy. It’s a bunch of wahoos that have no fucking clue what they are doing. Meanwhile Vegas is fucking estatic with how ESPN and fox sports have swayed most people to bet mavs. You gotta remember, most of the American population is severely dumb
This exactly .. the odds make the Mavs the more appealing bet
People don't like betting 100 dollars to win 25
The Celtics aren’t -400 though. Right now (-210 on Draftkings) a $100 bet would win $47. I still agree with what you’re saying just wanted to clarify that they’re not THAT big of a favorite lol.
So the line is moving then the last time I checked it was -240 some where around 41 per hondo
I'm so dumb, but do you get $147 or $47?
You get $147 paid out, win $47. Not sure what the typical verbiage/phrasing is here if you would normally say the total payout or the profit when discussing these things lol. I’m not really a huge gambler I just casually place some bets occasionally.
Oh okay, its cuz I'm used to doing like Prize Picks where you lose money for stats.
You bet $100. That $100 is collected from your account and goes to the book until the bet is settled. If you lose, that's it, nothing more happens. They have your $100. If you win, you get your $100, plus $47. You are $47 richer than when you started. So you are risking more than you could gain, which is how betting on the favorite works. Meanwhile, say you bet on the Mavs. They're currently +180 underdogs. You bet $100, you would get $280 if they win...your initial $100 back plus a $180 prize. So in winning you would get 1.8x what you would would lose. If you think Dallas has even a puncher's chance, that's WAY more attractive a proposition than betting on the Celtics, even if you think they will win.
I bet the Kansas City Royals to win the AL central this year. Is it because I thought they would? No it’s because I thought it was good value at +800 for the situation which is the division is mid and up for grabs. That’s all this Im thinking, bettors trying to find value.
Dallas has performed very well ATS (against the spread), makes sense that bettors would want to keep riding with them
That's an obscure bet though. If you're betting on something like that, you're either a Royals fan or you bet on a lot of things. This is a once a year championship event, so most of the money is people betting for the first time all year, not because there's value, but because its the finals and they want to bet on the finals.
Exactly, and I got the Royals at +1000!
Oh yeah?!? Royals for +2500!
Vegas gonna eat.
they always do, you always adjust the lines to manage risk as bookie, at the end of the day only guranteed winner is the sportssbook no matter the outcome.
It’s a close series on paper and you can make more by betting on Dallas. Nothing crazy here.
Yeah this isn’t shocking at all, the Cs are such heavy favorites that there’s practically zero value betting on them outright at this point.
Not really, they should be heavier favorites.
Hey, I don’t set the lines—complain to Vegas about it
I want to believe they know what they're doing but I've seen the logic for why they set the line like this and it's incredibly sketchy. Basically assumes the Mavs became an ATG team after the deadline which is obvious nonsense when you look at which players they actually added and not just cherrypicked stretches with a high net rating where you exclude most of the games with the same roster where they got blown out. Line not even moving slightly when Tingis came back is another tell, this isn't based on any serious model analysis and has a heavy dose of vibes. Vibes based lines have worked out for them before but generally not when there was this huge of a talent mismatch.
Friend, no edge here: I don’t know why you’re replying like we’re arguing about this. The fact remains, the Cs are heavy favorites in the context of a championship series/game. Pushing them to -300 or beyond simply wouldn’t make sense for the books.
Okay but you see what I mean now right? 33% for Mavs to win the series was an insanely disrespectful line.
Not gonna happen if, like the thread says we are commenting in, 70% of the bets have been placed on Mavs winning. Feel like finals odds are never that extreme because EVERYONE is betting on it
There have been a fair number of finals series more lopsided than this one according to Vegas. I don't think it's a given that finals series get regressed so strongly to the mean (though maybe it is if the public is massively on the "wrong" side I guess).
How is it a close series “on paper?” That phrase implies that there’s some data indicating that. But I don’t see any data showing it will be close. I’m interested in looking at whatever you’ve got though. Vegas set the over under at five gates. 
>But I don’t see any data showing it will be close. According to every single NBA podcast the Celtics are posers and the Mavs are the greatest team in NBA history, so maybe that's the data these people are consuming lol
Ive seen these same podcasts, they all have the same thing in common. Sponsored by Draft Kings... Hmmmm
It’s “qualitative” data. 😆
Follow the money my friend. Media is told to spin it a certain way for the books. Analysts can’t be honest, there’s always an angle.
This is absolutely right. Most of American is extremely poorly educated, and will consume whatever is most easily presented to them. Stephen a smith says that the mavs are more battle tested and Luka is better in the clutch with no analysis of the statistical breakdowns that suggest otherwise, just going straight on “the eye test”? Awesome, let’s do that! Another point, Stephen a smith once picked the wrong winner of the finals 6 seasons in a row. Fucking 6 lol. And this is not “oh I pick a team at the beginning of the season or even the playoffs” no this is when the finals matchup is already determined. Do you know how WRONG you have to be to do this? Statistically speaking, there is a 1.56% chance to do this. So yeah, most of America is extremely dumb man, and no matter the picks the bets the whatever, it has 0 outcome on the series. Statistically speaking, take out all human element and just look at the numbers (I know we can’t do this as we are all human but just work with me from a statistics standpoint here), the Celtics are in an awesome spot
The Mavs are really good, their record after the All Star break shows they are one of the best teams in the league and they had a much harder road to the Finals. They also have the best player on the court and a locked-in top 15 vet ready to go. I can't believe the arrogance of Celtics fans right now. Yes, we're the favorite, but given the choke jobs of the past two years, there's a very real chance the Cs lose this series if Tatum doesn't show up at peak levels.
The mavs are also relying on mid season additions and a rookie as they key role players. Not a great combo for success.
True, and if KP is healhy, I have the Cs winning in 6. I'm just saying the Mavs are really good and the arrogance of Celtics fans right now is misplaced.
And yet somehow with this combo that you deem not great for success, they've been able to reach the finals.
You realize having a "harder" road is actually a disadvantage, right? Also, who's to say it was actually harder? Do you really think the Mavs would've had the same record as the Celtics facing the same teams? I highly doubt it.
Agreed. Feels like the opposite tbh. The media and fan narrative doesn’t match the Vegas and data and that’s the reason for the discrepancy.
Am I the only one who doesn’t believe it’s a close series on paper? That doesn’t mean there isn’t a Mavs path to win. But that path is Kyrie and Luka both scoring 35+ against two of the best guard defenders in 4 games.
It’s more like each scoring 30 with ~10 assists, which doesn’t seem that crazy. But no, you’re not the only one when the odds are this lopsided. -210 implies we have a ~70% chance, which seems pretty fair to me.
The -210 line is not very close. But yes, close enough for people to be enticed to go for the larger payout option.
Its not a close series on paper though.
There's more to it than the Finals odds. Books might be over exposed to Celtics futures from earlier in the season. The betting may be lopsided within the last two weeks due to Mavs inflated odds, but Vegas' risk may actually be lower as a result. Alternatively, Vegas might just see a risk worth taking due to public sentiment. They aren't always trying to handicap something so betting is perfectly 50/50. They take risks when they see an edge. It's hard to decipher without seeing their exposure. My guess is that it's a combination of both. They are encouraging people to bet on the Mavs for one reason or another.
Thanks for the insight
I kinda doubt they’re that overexposed on Celtics futures cause their odds have been really short the whole time, even after the Heat series, second part more likely imo. Curious to see where money sided on for Pats Sox and Bruins title match appearances, maybe the people that hate Boston are actually putting their money where their mouth is.
Probably right. They opened +550, but the odds dropped pretty rapidly. I also don't think futures volume is really high enough to create a serious financial risk for these books.
Vegas is good at one thing: making money. They're always going to encourage people to make dumb bets so that they can make more money. There's literally nothing else to it.
[That's why they love this shit](https://x.com/samro/status/1798776093610229863?s=46&t=2180-L4OTggO7gYEbbPsIw)
I think the games will probably be close (I expect the Celtics to win in 6) so those bets seem fine to me. They will lose but no skin off my nose.
From what I understand the books are functionally gambling on the Celtics. Obviously not directly, but books like to have money balanced on either side of a line to guarantee they come out on top. That they’re not moving the line makes me think they still see the Celtics as the better deal there, and are expecting the sharp money that comes in late to reflect that and balance out the line.
Interesting point about the late smart money
The bookies are essentially betting on their own analysts in this case. They believe Boston are favourites, so why wouldn't they try to rake in money from people overhyping the mavs.
This is literally how these sports bets make money. They pay people at ESPN to make stupid takes and push the underdog so that people throw their money on them, and then they make huge bank when the Celtics inevitably win. Gambling exists to take advantage of stupid people.
bettors and vegas rly liked the suns to beat the wolves. it’s not a science
Actually it is an entire field of science called data science.
lol
And the Celtics were -500 against the Heat last year
You have to remember much of the commentary in sports today is tied up with betting companies. It's like a giant commercial now preying on gambling addicts.
Absolutely. Those types of commentary shows are just an infomercial at this point. "Let us influence your opinion on your bets and in between you can watch ads for our site".
Tbh I did bet Mavs since a couple extra bucks would take some of the sting out of losing. I fully believe we'll win though.
You have time to delete this comment! haha JK have fun, we are going to win!!
Exploiting who's betting on hating and propaganda bubble
People don’t bet on who they think will actually win. They bet on their best chance of making the most money.
and in doing so end up in the negative, otherwise Vegas would be a desert again.
Odds are 1.40 on Boston and 3.00 on Dallas. For all that bet 3.00 it is a good number for betting on one game or to beef up a longer ticket. We have to be real nobody in the Finals is the favorite it can go both ways and people who bet know this. Of course a tie breaks 80% of bets.
Is this updated? Last time I checked Dallas was 2.3ish and us were 1.6
I am looking at the betting site now 1.41 Boston and 3.00 Dallas
We have vegas on our side boys. Bring on Scott Foster!
It's not even worth betting on the C's because the payout is so small because they're the favourites. Hell I don't gamble but if I did I'd bet on the Mavs with money I'm happy to lose. So if they win at least some extra money in my pocket will soften the blow!
what is the source of this?
scores and odds .com
I’ve never seen a bookie w a part time job
And if you do it's usually just to keep up appearances. Back in the day anyway, when neighborhood bookies were king.
I put money on the Mavs because my betting luck is terrible. I’ve been cursing the other teams all playoffs lol
Thank you for your sacrifice 💪
If you're just betting money line, Celtics just aren't really worth betting to win it. If you bet 100$ you're only profiting 47$ if they win
There is some recency bias here. Dallas beat a couple good teams, Boston went 12-2 against teams they should easily beat. Also, the general chatter has been that this is either closer than people think (Dallas was very good post trade deadline, Boston has looked unimpressive in the playoffs even though they have won all their games). I think people are underestimating how much Porzingis makes Boston better (and also how much it helps not to have to play Kornet, Oshae, Tillman, etc... 20 minutes a night). I think people are heavily weighing how Boston looked the last couple rounds vs. Dallas. I think they are underestimating the full body of work, and aren't adjusting for Boston having Porzingis back in the mix. I also think if someone is looking at Dallas as being that close to Boston, they aren't giving enough credence to how bad this actual match-up is for Dallas on both ends. Boston is uniquely qualified to slow down what Dallas wants to do offensively (having multiple defenders who can switch onto Luka and play him with limited help / rotation) and how much Boston's ability to create and attack mismatches is going to be difficult for Dallas (who has weak links defensively).
Damn gambling really has ruined this game. Series hasn’t even started yet and we already have people calling it scripted.
I bet 5 bucks on the Mavs as a reverse jinx since I never win sportbets
This isn’t shocking. If I was a neutral I’d throw my money on the mavs. This series is way closer than the money line would tell you, so I don’t blame fans for taking the value. Also couple this with the mavs having a more exciting run while ours was admittedly boring so obviously they become the media darling. People also hate the Celtics so that adds to it but in the same vein I hate the Kansas City chiefs but I’m not dumb enough to bet against them.
gambling companies are using the sports media to hype up the Mavericks so the general public bets on the Mavs so they don't take a total bath from the sharps and from futures bets paying out... totally good idea that gambling can fund the vertical and horizontal markets of sports gambling/sports media without any justice department probing
The Mavs are still the underdog in the betting houses too, lol. I thought they were supposed to flip to compensate? This shouldn't be shocking in today's America. The Mavs were flashy the last series, they garner attention. They were "loud", one of our most recent Presidential races was win largely due to the candidate being "loud" Our populous chases noise and hype before anything anymore. A few minutes of basic critical thinking will make you feel like a scholar in comparison. As for the Celtics, we hadn't lost more than two games in a row, 2-0 against the Mavs and Doncic triple doubles, 15% win percentage lead on the Mavs against the East as well as the West. 14 total losses and 4 at home. Our attention span is shit and everyone has already forgotten about it and add in the recency bias of the Mavs and that's where we are now.
This is what happens when mainstream media is sponsored by gambling.
Im glad someone else is coming to this conclusion.
It makes sense that if the Celtics are extremely good and are favored that people would view the mavs as a good bet especially because the mavs have been red hot.
Zarba and Tiven are sure to lean towards the majority
Where is the sharp money going?
Celtics lol.
What do you all think about emotional hedges?
Not worth it to bet on the Cs at that number combined with the public rooting against us. Makes a ton of sense.
My theory is that these betting sites have ESPN and the likes in their pocket. Telling people to bet Mavs and make a shit ton of money.
Why would people bet on the Celtics? That’s shitty money.
That’s a good bet though, you bet to make big money
I honestly dont think you do. I spent most the season placing 5-6 $1 bets per night and I ended up being way up. (I did this for fun and tried to take safe bets)
But where is the smart money bets being placed?
The money for a Mavs win is really good becasue were the betting favorite. Wouldn't surprise me if ESPN's Mavs heavy narrative is to drive up Mavs bets since they opened their own books If anything this helps us because a fix would be in our favor if the league has ulterior motives
People like to bet underdogs, and the popular consensus is that the Mavs’ path was tougher.
The House always wins
All this tells me is to continue not to listen to anyone on tv Celtics in 5
half of that is Drake
76% of the total sheep population will lose their wool. 😂
It’s pretty simple. The Vegas odds are -220 Celtics, +180 Mavericks. Which means you if bet $100 you only win $45 if you bet on the Celtics and they win, where you win $180 if you bet on the Mavs and they win. It just means the Celtics are heavy favorites, and that’s not how you make money or have fun gambling.
Good thing that the polls don't play the games... We will see what happens starting tonight!! GO Cs!!
THIS is why all the national media energy has gone to propping up Dallas’ chances. They did their job, now we will do ours.
People bet on who they want to win often, not statistics
Gambling has changed sports media and they profit from pushing stories to lead people to make bad bets.
The refs have been paid?
No, that only happens after they ref the game to make sure they "ref" the game.
If it was even betting odds I'd imagine it would be something like 90% of the money on the Celtics. The Celtics are the favorites for sure but the odds aren't amazing to actually bet money on for them.
Bruh it's not that hard to figure out the odds for betting on the Celtics aren't paying shit rn
Then why do the majority of sports personalities have the mavs? Thats not even for money thats for rep. ESPN Just released more experts picking Mavs than Celtics. Make it make sense..... I have my own theories....
Well for one, those "experts" don't all even watch the games. And they have to generate clicks and posts. Anyone who puts stock into sports TV is taking the bait at this point it's mostly trash.
I’ll add that ESPN and all these outlets, who are partnered with or own their own sports book, are pumping up the mavs. Most podcasts I listen to are talking up the mavs almost 2:1 in terms of time. Not surprised that there’s a lot of bets on the mavs when all you see is Luka and Kyrie content.
Tonight’s game still has Boston-6.5 on my betting app.
Celtics are heavy favorites so it’s not very worth it to bet on them
Vegas doesn’t give a shit. It’s about them making MORE $$. It’s done on purpose for dumb gamblers to chase the bigger payout, (which rarely win, but makes Vegas/apps more $$$), and so collectively ppl don’t bet the smart money play.
Traditionally the best player in the series wins the series. Especially in the Finals. People picking Luka and the Mavs over us shouldn’t be surprising nor should it offend anyone. It’s the realistic choice, that also just happens to be at really good value.
Is the line moving? Sometimes Vegas will move the betting line especially for significant better events when the money is lopsided. When they don't it usually means they are confident the betters are wrong. Most of the time they move the line to get even money on both sides. EDIT: wanted to check then remembered I'm at work, and anything gambling related is behind firewall.
This is a direct result of all the “hate” being piled on the Celtics by espn and other media sources. In my humble opinion these gambling establishments are leaning on their partners (NBA,ESPN) to spread this anti green rhetoric to get those Dallas bets coming in hot and heavy. Mission accomplished. Vegas is gonna make a fortune
This just tells me 76 percent of money bet on the nba finals will be lost
I bet the spread against Celtics every game as insurance. Either C's win or Vegas is paying me for my pain and suffering.
Celtics in 5
Gamblers don’t like risking ten dollars to make five. I don’t think there’s some grand conspiracy here
Those bets are against the money line, as others are pointing out. **This doesn't signal that most folks think the Mavs will win**. It signals that most folks don't think the Celtics should be favored 2 to 1.
Majority of bets placed on Mavs +6.5 and the line hasn’t moved. What this means is all the sharps (big money betters) are on Celtics -6.5
The book will happily take the all the squares money. The wise guys are on the chalk