Spreads are nearly meaningless

[1960Pats]

Here's how I see it. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong.
Three things happen in games vs the spread.
1 - The underdog wins.
2 - The favorite wins and covers.
3 - The favorite wins and doesn't cover
On average, number 3 only happens a little more than 2 times per week. Over the course of an entire season that's about 35 games out of 254.
That means that the magic number to win vs the spread is about 65%. As long as you bet every game every week and can pick that % of winners, you should be okay.

 

[pdangle]

Pack your bags, off to Vegas this system is a sure thing!

But I agree it's rare for a favorite to win but not cover.

 

[1960Pats]

Pack your bags, off to Vegas this system is a sure thing!

But I agree it's rare for a favorite to win but not cover.

I placed my last bet ever on a SD-Seattle game in the mid 80s

 

[jmt57]

Here's how I see it. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong.
Three things happen in games vs the spread.
1 - The underdog wins.
2 - The favorite wins and covers.
3 - The favorite wins and doesn't cover
On average, number 3 only happens a little more than 2 times per week. Over the course of an entire season that's about 35 games out of 254.
That means that the magic number to win vs the spread is about 65%. As long as you bet every game every week and can pick that % of winners, you should be okay.

Getting 65% of your picks correct would actually make you an excellent handicapper. The break even point is getting 52.4% of your picks right. Averaging in the 55-60% range makes it worthwhile; above that on a consistent basis is probably not realistic for all but a handful who are the very best at prognosticating games, and do so as a full-time job.

Sites that claim that they are right 90% or even 80% of the time are full of crap.

It's easy for them to 'guarantee' picks that they sell. If the picks they sell are right, they keep the money you paid them. If they're wrong and actually do refund your money then they simply broke even. More likely though the 'guarantee' means that they will just give you another pick the following week at no charge - i.e., they still profit from the fee they charged you, regardless of the outcome of the game.

 

[Ivan]

"Spreads are nearly meaningless"


That depends upon the spread....

 

[1960Pats]

Getting 65% of your picks correct would actually make you an excellent handicapper. The break even point is getting 52.4% of your picks right. Averaging in the 55-60% range makes it worthwhile; above that on a consistent basis is probably not realistic for all but a handful who are the very best at prognosticating games, and do so as a full-time job.

Sites that claim that they are right 90% or even 80% of the time are full of crap.

It's easy for them to 'guarantee' picks that they sell. If the picks they sell are right, they keep the money you paid them. If they're wrong and actually do refund your money then they simply broke even. More likely though the 'guarantee' means that they will just give you another pick the following week at no charge - i.e., they still profit from the fee they charged you, regardless of the outcome of the game.

I don't bet on anything other than SB squares these days. Jim Zorn and Steve Largent put an end to my betting back in the 80s.

If I were betting 100 on each game and I went 9-7 that would make me 130. But, if I only went 10-6 it would be 340, and I think 10-6 is an attainable average.

The problem I see with the bettors is that they try to cherry pick games and treat the line like it matters more than it does. All you really have to do is pick winners. The spread is usually a non factor.

 

[jmt57]

The problem I see with the bettors is that they try to cherry pick games and treat the line like it matters more than it does. All you really have to do is pick winners. The spread is usually a non factor.

Yes, but 'just picking winners' is still a whole lot easier said than done - even when you completely disregard the line. This week alone we have Bucs>Saints, Redskins>Rams, Jaguars>Dolphins and Raiders>Ravens. In addition, to a lesser degree there is the Browns>Titans, Vikings>Lions, Falcons>Giants - and depending on your point of view, Cowboys>Eagles and Broncos>Chiefs - and that's before we know of the outcome of Seattle at Green Bay and Jets at Colts.

If for example you just bet on the favorites, then you are destined to lose; you're actually better off selecting all the underdogs to cover. There are going to be about four or five upsets most weeks, plus those couple of games in which the underdog covers the spread but does not win.

I wish getting 65% of your picks correct on a consistent basis was easy, but unfortunately it is not. While some may indeed overthink the process, there is no simple easy way to get two-thirds of your picks against the spread correct.

 

[The NZ Patriots]

If you can consistently pick ATS at 60% over a sustained period of time you will be very well off. You likely have a model of some sort spitting out a number or giving you parameters through which you make your decision.

Eventually you will get limited and struggle to get money down.

There are very few who can do it over a significant period of time based solely on intuition and watching games.

 

[XLIX]

Interesting to note that the spread didn't matter in any game this weekend, but favorites were only 6-9 (please note the Patriots and Brown each opened as slight favorites, but shifted to slight underdogs by kickoff so they are each counted as an underdog who won in the above stat).

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Spreads mean something to me....they usually mean screwing me out of $$

 

[fnordcircle]

Bookies hate him. This one patsfan poster found a simple math trick to make trillions

 

[supafly]

Here's how I see it. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong.
Three things happen in games vs the spread.
1 - The underdog wins.
2 - The favorite wins and covers.
3 - The favorite wins and doesn't cover
On average, number 3 only happens a little more than 2 times per week. Over the course of an entire season that's about 35 games out of 254.
That means that the magic number to win vs the spread is about 65%. As long as you bet every game every week and can pick that % of winners, you should be okay.

There are actually plenty of times when favorites win the game, but don't cover. Hell, just look at your so-called "sure things" every week, which often consist of double digit favorites. I don't have the numbers handy, but it is that much different than underdogs winning straight up?

And I realize that you're primarily talking about the NFL, but look at how often it happens in college football. The #1 team in the country has failed to cover the spread in the past two weeks, yet outscored their opponents 58-13.

 

[supafly]

Getting 65% of your picks correct would actually make you an excellent handicapper. The break even point is getting 52.4% of your picks right. Averaging in the 55-60% range makes it worthwhile; above that on a consistent basis is probably not realistic for all but a handful who are the very best at prognosticating games, and do so as a full-time job.

Sites that claim that they are right 90% or even 80% of the time are full of crap.

It's easy for them to 'guarantee' picks that they sell. If the picks they sell are right, they keep the money you paid them. If they're wrong and actually do refund your money then they simply broke even. More likely though the 'guarantee' means that they will just give you another pick the following week at no charge - i.e., they still profit from the fee they charged you, regardless of the outcome of the game.

My dad lost tens of thousands using one of these "professional handicappers" from Vegas, who handle your daily selections and claim to take a good amount of the risk out of things. Unfortunately, they aren't quite as reliable as they state. As you said, they still make money either way.

 

[fnordcircle]

This post kinda reminds me of when some 18 year old will go "If the Bible is so smart how come gooba gabba gooba? Checkmate, Xtians"

As if the Bible isn't a topic that has been studied more critically than any other book ever but a half-assed reading of it will uncover the magic unicorn verse that will make all of Christendom go 'Oops, yeah I guess we're all dumb - on to atheism!'

Same thing here - Vegas spends *a lot* of time and resources to make money. Going "Just pick the winner 65% of the time" is like saying "just get the one thing right that literally billions of dollars rests on the fact that you won't be able to get right consistently."

Cause math.

 

[supafly]

I placed my last bet ever on a SD-Seattle game in the mid 80s

Ahh, the good old days of Dave Krieg, Curt Warner, and Steve Largent playing in the Kingdome. I'm guessing if that was your last bet, you didn't hit on that one.

 

[1960Pats]

Ahh, the good old days of Dave Krieg, Curt Warner, and Steve Largent playing in the Kingdome. I'm guessing if that was your last bet, you didn't hit on that one.

It wasn't the loss as much as the way they lost it. If you have time here's the story. I call it How Jim Zorn and Steve Largent Saved Me.

Back in my gambling days in 1980, I had placed a fairly large wager on Dan Fouts and the Chargers vs Jim Zorn and the Seahawks, in the next to last game of the year. The Chargers were 11.5 point favorites, which for that day was a big spread.

Anyway, the game went as expected, with SD taking a 21-0 lead after the first three times they got the ball. As the game went on they kept moving right through Seattle, but they kept making mistakes and didn't score another point in the half. They could have easily had two more TDs, but Seattle wasn't doing a thing. No need to worry.

Then in the second half, not much happened for either team. Later on, Seattle scored a TD, but that looked like all they would get. It was late and they still had to stop SD, which, of course they did. The next thing I know though, Seattle has the ball with only enough time for one play, and they're on the wrong side of the 50, sixty yards away from the endzone.

They won't even bother will they? They're down 14, at the end of a terrible 4-12 season and would have no reason to even try to score. For what purpose? I can't lose! Right?

Zorn drops back to pass and two Chargers are coming in untouched, straight for him. Zorn turns around and runs away as fast as he can. The clock has already gone to 0. Then Zorn starts to turn around to his right, and even though he's a left-hander, manages to toss an absolute HEAVE down the middle of the field. The ball is caught at about the 10 or 15, but who cares? The game is over and I hit it big baby!

Hey, what's that on the field? A flag. On who?

Penalty on the Chargers, and under the rules, Seattle has the ball at the 10 or 15 with one more play to come. Oh oh! I don't feel so good anymore.

Zorn drops back to pass again, again with no chance of victory, and I can't help but think that he's going to screw me big time. Sure SD can stop him, but will they is the real question. Anyway, Zorn looks to his left and throws, the camera zooms to the corner and there is his target, Steve Largent, sitting on his butt in the end zone. He has fallen and is literally sitting on his ass. Woosh, like Randy Moss on his greatest day, Largent darts those hands high and boing, TD, I lose, I lose big.

I leap up from my chair in anger. I can't help but yell ****! My darling wife is sitting next to me and wants to know why I care. It isn't the Patriots. So, in an outwardly calm voice, as good as I could muster, I said that I was going for a little walk. I needed to clam down.

I struggled with this for a couple of days, but then it dawned on me. What kind of a jerk would gamble a beautiful wife and family's security on a damn bet. What was I doing? This is crazy. Even though I never really bet a lot or very often, this one really caught my attention..

I had made some money before, so I considered, very briefly, of trying to catch up. Surely I could find a game that would get me back to even. Nah, the way Zorn pulled that off just made me sick, and I didn't want to ever feel that way again.

Well, that was the last bet that I ever placed on anything, except for buying squares once a year in the superbowl. Other than stopping smoking, it was the single best move that I've ever made.

I owe it all to Jim Zorn and Steve Largent. Thanks guys.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Here's how I see it. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong.
Three things happen in games vs the spread.
1 - The underdog wins.
2 - The favorite wins and covers.
3 - The favorite wins and doesn't cover
On average, number 3 only happens a little more than 2 times per week. Over the course of an entire season that's about 35 games out of 254.
That means that the magic number to win vs the spread is about 65%. As long as you bet every game every week and can pick that % of winners, you should be okay.

You say that like nailing 65% of straight-up picks is easy. In practice, most pros can't do that.

 

[supafly]

It wasn't the loss as much as the way they lost it. If you have time here's the story. I call it How Jim Zorn and Steve Largent Saved Me.

Back in my gambling days in 1980, I had placed a fairly large wager on Dan Fouts and the Chargers vs Jim Zorn and the Seahawks, in the next to last game of the year. The Chargers were 11.5 point favorites, which for that day was a big spread.

Anyway, the game went as expected, with SD taking a 21-0 lead after the first three times they got the ball. As the game went on they kept moving right through Seattle, but they kept making mistakes and didn't score another point in the half. They could have easily had two more TDs, but Seattle wasn't doing a thing. No need to worry.

Then in the second half, not much happened for either team. Later on, Seattle scored a TD, but that looked like all they would get. It was late and they still had to stop SD, which, of course they did. The next thing I know though, Seattle has the ball with only enough time for one play, and they're on the wrong side of the 50, sixty yards away from the endzone.

They won't even bother will they? They're down 14, at the end of a terrible 4-12 season and would have no reason to even try to score. For what purpose? I can't lose! Right?

Zorn drops back to pass and two Chargers are coming in untouched, straight for him. Zorn turns around and runs away as fast as he can. The clock has already gone to 0. Then Zorn starts to turn around to his right, and even though he's a left-hander, manages to toss an absolute HEAVE down the middle of the field. The ball is caught at about the 10 or 15, but who cares? The game is over and I hit it big baby!

Hey, what's that on the field? A flag. On who?

Penalty on the Chargers, and under the rules, Seattle has the ball at the 10 or 15 with one more play to come. Oh oh! I don't feel so good anymore.

Zorn drops back to pass again, again with no chance of victory, and I can't help but think that he's going to screw me big time. Sure SD can stop him, but will they is the real question. Anyway, Zorn looks to his left and throws, the camera zooms to the corner and there is his target, Steve Largent, sitting on his butt in the end zone. He has fallen and is literally sitting on his ass. Woosh, like Randy Moss on his greatest day, Largent darts those hands high and boing, TD, I lose, I lose big.

I leap up from my chair in anger. I can't help but yell ****! My darling wife is sitting next to me and wants to know why I care. It isn't the Patriots. So, in an outwardly calm voice, as good as I could muster, I said that I was going for a little walk. I needed to clam down.

I struggled with this for a couple of days, but then it dawned on me. What kind of a jerk would gamble a beautiful wife and family's security on a damn bet. What was I doing? This is crazy. Even though I never really bet a lot or very often, this one really caught my attention..

I had made some money before, so I considered, very briefly, of trying to catch up. Surely I could find a game that would get me back to even. Nah, the way Zorn pulled that off just made me sick, and I didn't want to ever feel that way again.

Well, that was the last bet that I ever placed on anything, except for buying squares once a year in the superbowl. Other than stopping smoking, it was the single best move that I've ever made.

I owe it all to Jim Zorn and Steve Largent. Thanks guys.

Awesome story. Good for you for recognizing your real priorities and making the proper choices for your life.

Anyone who has ever gambled has the most insane memories of the craziest ways in the world in which they lost. I certainly have some, and my dad shared many with me before his passing as well. It seems that we always remember the bad ones much more than the backdoor covers.

I'm a fairly conservative guy, so I don't like to risk much, but I'll put in a couple of hundred bucks at the beginning of the season (things are much easier with sportsbooks these days) and see where it takes me. At the end of the day it probably comes close to evening out one way or the other, but I like to have reason to follow the games more closely. What I don't need....is the stress over small(ish) amounts of money, so it probably amounts to a lose-lose situation no matter what

 

[supafly]

You say that like nailing 65% of straight-up picks is easy. In practice, most pros can't do that.

Yeah, there have been times where I've entered office pools and such thinking "this is easy without a point spread," but the reality is that it's harder than you'd initially think.

I would venture to guess that most of us could get 6/10 games correct, or something close to it (sans spread), but 2/3rds? Not this guy.

 

[1960Pats]

There are actually plenty of times when favorites win the game, but don't cover. Hell, just look at your so-called "sure things" every week, which often consist of double digit favorites. I don't have the numbers handy, but it is that much different than underdogs winning straight up?

And I realize that you're primarily talking about the NFL, but look at how often it happens in college football. The #1 team in the country has failed to cover the spread in the past two weeks, yet outscored their opponents 58-13.

I checked two full seasons, 2013-14, and out of the 508 regular season games played the favorite won but didn't cover only 66 times (37-29).

The difficult part is picking the upsets. Nobody could have predicted that TB would beat NO in NO this week.

And who could have imagined that the Pats would ever be able to go up to Buffalo and derail the Bills Express and the defensive genius of Wrecks Ryan.