Betting Lines are Meaningless (2016 version)

[fightingirish595]

No, his math is right but it is confusing because people are going back and forth between discussing money lines and against-the-spread lines.

He is saying if you bet $110 to win $100 on 15 games against the spread, and go 8-7, you're up $30.

Which is correct, maybe I'm interpreting what he is saying wrong. I'm interpreting what he's saying as if you bet the moneylined instead of spread you make the same Amount and I'm disputing that

 

[1960Pats]

After 12 games played there is only 1 where the favorite won but didn't cover, the SD at Oakland game. Of the other 11, 6 were won by the underdog and 5 were won by favorites that covered, the usual range of the breakdown.

 

[supafly]

Thanks for the help @supafly.

It would seem that you were much more casual a bettor than what I suggested, although technically the term "retired former gambler" still fits.

I was simply attempting to give you credibility in the sense that you know what you're talking about, that's all. I apologize if I misrepresented you or worded things poorly.

 

[supafly]

Which is correct, maybe I'm interpreting what he is saying wrong. I'm interpreting what he's saying as if you bet the moneylined instead of spread you make the same Amount and I'm disputing that

He's simply saying that you don't need to worry about the spread nearly as much as one would think, since a high majority of those who win will end up covering anyway, hence the "spreads don't matter" theory.

In other words, if you focus solely on who's going to win straight up (think of the Yahoo pick 'em contest) you'll also find that those teams end up covering at a higher rate than you or I would've previously believed. So far in the past two weeks, there has only been one team who has won as a chalk but failed to cover, so you'd have done well ATS by simply picking the winner of the game.

 

[1960Pats]

It would seem that you were much more casual a bettor than what I suggested, although technically the term "retired former gambler" still fits.

I was simply attempting to give you credibility in the sense that you know what you're talking about, that's all. I apologize if I misrepresented you or worded things poorly.

My thanks was sincere. I understand completely and you don't owe me an apology.

 

[1960Pats]

He's simply saying that you don't need to worry about the spread nearly as much as one would think, since a high majority of those who win will end up covering anyway, hence the "spreads don't matter" theory.

In other words, if you focus solely on who's going to win straight up (think of the Yahoo pick 'em contest) you'll also find that those teams end up covering at a higher rate than you or I would've previously believed. So far in the past two weeks, there has only been one team who has won as a chalk but failed to cover, so you'd have done well ATS by simply picking the winner of the game.

The total breakdown through 5 weeks is;
32 games won and covered by favorites.
34 games won by the underdogs.
7 games won by favorites that didn't cover.
4 games tied the spread.
4 of the 7 games that didn't cover the spread and 2 of the 4 ties came in the first week.

Just for fun and to illustrate what I'm talking about I decided to pick the 13 games that were played after Thursday. I ended up 6-6-1 (5-7-1 vs the spread because I picked Oakland, the only winner that didn't cover). In my defense the picks were made on the spot and without any information due to my boycotting of all non-Pats related shows. Had I known that neither Denver nor Carolina had a QB I would have changed those picks. I also definitely would have picked Arizona vs SF on Thursday.

 

[1960Pats]

13 games and you picked 12 favorites. Some weeks that strategy will work for you. Other weeks it won't.

Picking favorites didn't work this week. My 6-6-1 record ended up being 5-7-1 vs the spread. Looking at my picks for week 6 at this point, I'll probably pick 10 favorites and 5 underdogs.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Betting lines are meaningless and so is betting itself

I could never figure out why people get excited about laying $100 or even $1000 on a game. Doesn't make sense to me

 

[XLIX]

Betting lines are meaningless and so is betting itself

I could never figure out why people get excited about laying $100 or even $1000 on a game. Doesn't make sense to me

Getting excited about winning money doesn't make sense to you??!!?

 

[PatriotsReign]

Getting excited about winning money doesn't make sense to you??!!?

Not all if I'm risking losing money

I don't even like buying lottery tickets!

 

[Jlaff]

I've been noticing this trend since last year. In Canada there is government sports betting conducted through the lotteries. They have a lame variant on the money line that allows you to choose a "win" for a team, or what they deem is a "tie" where a the final score is within 3 points.

You can imagine how many parlays (and you have to parlay) have been screwed over the years because the team that won really only "tied" because they didn't win by 4 or more points. Off the top of my head I remember reading a statistic that a third of NFL games are decided by 3 points or less. Glad that has been changing recently to disrupt the "tie" scam they got going on.

 

[Jlaff]

Betting lines are meaningless and so is betting itself

I could never figure out why people get excited about laying $100 or even $1000 on a game. Doesn't make sense to me

That's what made the NFL what it is, the betting! Lol, I used to get excited for bad Thursday games if I had a bet on them. Now, betting isn't even exciting enough to make me want to watch anything but the Patriots.

 

[Deus Irae]

If it were really this easy, Vegas wouldn't cover the action, there'd be no illegal football gambling (I'm talking bookies, not buddies), and football would be about #400 on the U.S. sports scene.

 

[1960Pats]

If it were really this easy, Vegas wouldn't cover the action, there'd be no illegal football gambling (I'm talking bookies, not buddies), and football would be about #400 on the U.S. sports scene.

It isn't easy. Quite the opposite. Did I say it was easy?

 

[The NZ Patriots]

The problem with NFL is that each season is such a small sample size that you can pick historical trends within a season (or multiple seasons) that would have been profitable had you bet them.

Unless you have such an extreme knowledge of your sport that you can predict how a game may play out (one successful gambler knew the tendencies of NBA coaches so well that he successfully bet overs/unders in NBA halves - however Vegas eventually adjusted), or have a highly complex predictive model that essentially simulates games, it is highly unlikely that you will be profitable long term betting games.

 

[supafly]

The problem with NFL is that each season is such a small sample size that you can pick historical trends within a season that would have been profitable had you bet them.

Unless you have such an extreme knowledge of your sport that you can predict how a game may play out (one successful gambler knew the tendencies of NBA coaches so well that he successfully bet overs/unders in NBA halves - however Vegas eventually adjusted), or have a highly complex predictive model that essentially simulates games, it is highly unlikely that you will be profitable long term betting games.

There are dozens of systems that have shown an increase or positive ROI each year, over the past 10 years. Most of them can be found by doing a little homework. I prefer to use the BetLabs site, myself.

Some are as simple as taking the under in poor weather (duh), while others are much more complex (betting against Pacific time zones traveling East, but the traveling team had to have covered the spread in its previous week).

The problem for some sports bettors isn't necessarily the inability to choose at a clip of 55% or better, as much as it is bankroll management and laying off games that are questionable. Unfortunately, it can be difficult keeping your wagers at the same consistent bet (say, 50 dollars) despite success or failure. Success makes you think you can "open things up" with larger wagers, whereas failure can make you chase bets by selecting poor match ups in an attempt to make up for it. Keeping things consistent and using proven systems can certainly show profit, but this does not pertain to the average bettor.

 

[fightingirish595]

There are dozens of systems that have shown an increase or positive ROI each year, over the past 10 years. Most of them can be found by doing a little homework. I prefer to use the BetLabs site, myself.

Some are as simple as taking the under in poor weather (duh), while others are much more complex (betting against Pacific time zones traveling East, but the traveling team had to have covered the spread in its previous week).

The problem for some sports bettors isn't necessarily the inability to choose at a clip of 55% or better, as much as it is bankroll management and laying off games that are questionable. Unfortunately, it can be difficult keeping your wagers at the same consistent bet (say, 50 dollars) despite success or failure. Success makes you think you can "open things up" with larger wagers, whereas failure can make you chase bets by selecting poor match ups in an attempt to make up for it. Keeping things consistent and using proven systems can certainly show profit, but this does not pertain to the average bettor.

Thats a great post. Money management is so important. And so is betting the right games

 

[FCB02062]

All I know is I had Indianapolis +3 last night. 8 minutes left in the game I'm counting my money....yeah, not so fast...these oddsmakers are good

 

[fightingirish595]

All I know is I had Indianapolis +3 last night. 8 minutes left in the game I'm counting my money....yeah, not so fast...these oddsmakers are good

You dont have anything until its in your hand. I had a huge day yesterday. In the group we have on yahoo I went 11-1 with two pushes. I hit a 5 team parlay with the Saints, Browns (which almost screwed me over my going for two when they shouldve kicked), The Pats, Jaguars, and the cowboys

Also had the giants and skins in straight bets

 

[1960Pats]

You dont have anything until its in your hand. I had a huge day yesterday. In the group we have on yahoo I went 11-1 with two pushes. I hit a 5 team parlay with the Saints, Browns (which almost screwed me over my going for two when they shouldve kicked), The Pats, Jaguars, and the cowboys

Also had the giants and skins in straight bets

If I were betting for real, I don't know how I would be able to deal with the calls by the refs. Some of them would drive me crazy.

My imaginary betting went better this week. I went 11-4 with my won-lost record and 8-5-2 vs the spread. Two of my wins (Sea, Ten) didn't cover. One of my wins (Hou) and one of my losses (LA) tied the spread. The week 6 winnings helped me get back on the plus side for the three weeks I've been making the predictions.
+30 for week 4 record of 8-7
-270 week 5 record of 5-7-2
+250 week 6 record 8-5-2
That makes me +10, good enough to get a decent glass of chianti at most bars.

For the 6 weeks so far the numbers are about the same as most years.
37 games won and covered by favotite.
40 games won outright by the underdog.
9 games won but not covered by favorite.
6 games tied the line.

Using those numbers there were 77 games played where a spread didn't come into play and 9 where it did. If a person bet 100 on every game so far and went 46-40 or better in those games, they'd be up.