Are you that mental that you still think your Pacers to win the East at 100/1 had more value than Cavs to win the East at +100? When the playoff started, Pacers were 75/1 to win the East.
+10000 = 1% implied probability
+7500 = 1.3% implied probaility
----------------------------------------------
= +0.3% implied probability
Prior to game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals, the Cavaliers were -275 to win the East
-275 = 73.3% implied probability
+100 = 50% implied probability
------------------------------------------------
= +23.3% implied probability
And this is coming from someone who thought the Cavaliers should have been BIGGER favorites against the Pacers prior to their first round series LMFAO
"quincy k, post: 140297639, member: 512025"]the cavs might have value at only -244"
So tell me, who is more square? The person who invested in +100 in a team that ended up being -275 to start the ECF, or the guy whose team(s) got bounced in the first round? Also remember that you've basically had futures bets on like half the teams in the Eastern Conference at some point LOL. OH, and you conveniently forget to mention that I've been on Boston in both games in the ECF. Besides game 3, and barring a significant move by the Cavaliers, I fully intend to keep betting the Celtics spread game to game, which will ultimately lead to me winning back my losses and more if the Cavaliers dont win the EC (which, let's be real, is far from over).
But the funniest of all of this, not even 6 months ago you PMed me and admitted to me that you cant pick winners besides tailing my plays. If I wont get banned, I'll gladly post it for everyone to see. Now you're on your little kick talking about absolute nonsense stats and telling everyone that Terry Rozier isn't a good player because he shoots 40% and is short. HAHAHAHAHA. But I digress. I should have be the bigger person and not responded but you deserve a spot with all the other shit posters in the other thread who continually get banned