PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Spreads are nearly meaningless


Status
Not open for further replies.
Bookies hate him. This one patsfan poster found a simple math trick to make trillions

I didn't mean to imply that it was easy. My point is that the spreads really don't matter much.

Let me put it another way. Booga bagga booga.
 
Spreads are just the gambling line, don't expect them to mean anything
 
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. ;)

Very interesting stats. So basically, one should consider the money line much more often when examining underdogs, then?
 
Spreads are just the gambling line, don't expect them to mean anything

I wouldn't have expected the favorite to win but not cover so infrequently. I knew it wasn't happening at a high rate, but the past 2 yrs suggest that it happens less than 10% of the time. To me, that's a bit surprising.

I would've assumed that favorites win but don't cover like 1/4 of the time or something. As a matter of fact, I would've thought that we'd have seen that happen with the Pats rather frequently, meaning at least 5-6 times a year. I guess not.
 
Very interesting stats. So basically, one should consider the money line much more often when examining underdogs, then?

I have no idea. I don't gamble. :)

Btw, I went back and checked my numbers for the pool I ran in 2013. These are the winning %'s for the 6 of us who played;
Bob .678
Frank .647
Hugh .643
JP .624
JR .588
Steve .545
 
I wouldn't have expected the favorite to win but not cover so infrequently. I knew it wasn't happening at a high rate, but the past 2 yrs suggest that it happens less than 10% of the time. To me, that's a bit surprising.

I would've assumed that favorites win but don't cover like 1/4 of the time or something. As a matter of fact, I would've thought that we'd have seen that happen with the Pats rather frequently, meaning at least 5-6 times a year. I guess not.
Did you see that Ohio state was favored by 50 something over n. illinois? some risky gamblers made themselves a lot of money
 
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.

I hear they have quite a spread after the game..and it means quite a bit to them.

(Just joking. :D)
 
I'm not a master gamblah, but over my lifetime between craps and football I'm ahead by a net of about 4k (but then my wife's slot playing has eroded probably half of that)

Maybe this was covered but the whole point of the spread, as far as I understand it, is balancing the money being wagered. The Hollywood stuff where you see the bookie watching a game and getting angry because one team is losing is exactly what spreads are there to avoid. If the money being wagered on a game is even on both sides then Vegas is guaranteed to make money because of the juice. You bet $100 on the Pats, someone else bets $100 on the Bills. The Pats covered so you win $95 or whatever along with your initial $100 and the casino keeps $5 of the Bills fan's money.

That's why lines move - they're trying to entice people to bet a certain way to limit risk. Vegas isn't trying to outsmart you they're trying to convince an even number of us to bet against each other and then they just skim some off the top.
 
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. ;)

I wouldn't have expected the favorite to win but not cover so infrequently. I knew it wasn't happening at a high rate, but the past 2 yrs suggest that it happens less than 10% of the time. To me, that's a bit surprising.

I would've assumed that favorites win but don't cover like 1/4 of the time or something. As a matter of fact, I would've thought that we'd have seen that happen with the Pats rather frequently, meaning at least 5-6 times a year. I guess not.

At first I too was surprised that the percentage of games that favorites win but don't cover is so low.

However, look at how many games have a line of three or fewer points. It is extremely rare for games to be decided by only one or two points, so all those other final scores are going to result in either the favorite winning and covering, or the underdog winning. To expand upon that, assuming I am correct about games being decided by one or two points being a rarity, even games with a line up to 3½ to 4½ points are by default almost always going to fall in to one of the two categories above, as there is so very little room for the game to end up being in the 'favorite wins but does not cover' category.

Perhaps we are looking too much at the tendency of the Patriots' games to fall into that 'win/not cover' category. Most other teams rarely play in a situation where they mathematically can win but not cover the spread.
 
Did you see that Ohio state was favored by 50 something over n. illinois? some risky gamblers made themselves a lot of money

That's one of the issues that I have with trying to select NCAA games, as a good portion of the top teams will be favored by big spreads. Imagine giving 42 points, and sweating it because your team was "only" up 48-7, yet had thoroughly dominated the entire game. It's an odd dynamic.
 
Perhaps we are looking too much at the tendency of the Patriots' games to fall into that 'win/not cover' category. Most other teams rarely play in a situation where they mathematically can win but not cover the spread.

Yes, sir. I am guessing that you're most likely spot on. The tendency for the Patriots to be favored in the high majority of their games has surely diluted the numbers.

I've often heard that the "magic numbers" for NFL outcomes are 3, 4, 7, and 10. There is supposedly a much higher percentage for those four options that any other numbers. Seeing as how the first two (3 and 4) are within a very small window, I'd guess that you're on to something for sure.
 
I wouldn't have expected the favorite to win but not cover so infrequently. I knew it wasn't happening at a high rate, but the past 2 yrs suggest that it happens less than 10% of the time. To me, that's a bit surprising.

I would've assumed that favorites win but don't cover like 1/4 of the time or something. As a matter of fact, I would've thought that we'd have seen that happen with the Pats rather frequently, meaning at least 5-6 times a year. I guess not.

Just an update to this line of thinking.

So far this season (48 games) the favorite has won and not covered only 3 times. Here's the complete breakdown;
Won and covered - 25
Won as underdog - 19
Won didn't cover - 3
Tie with spread - 1

Btw, on a semi-related topic. If I picked games solely by which team had the best power ranking (I use a combined total of three) I would have a record right now of 41-7. If I get rid of the lazies I'll compare those results vs the spread, but the odds are that I would still be up a decent amount if I put 100 on every game each week.
 
I've always been fascinated in betting odds and probabilities. One thing that is very interesting to me is that Vegas really doesn't believe in "matchups" when they make a spread. For example, let's say the Patriots have a power ranking of 27 and the Bills have a power ranking of 22, which is what they use. So, the Patriots are five point favorites on a neutral field, 2 point favorites at Buffalo, and eight point favorites at home (there's three points, sometimes four, for homefield.)

That is it; quite simple, but Vegas stakes their industry on that premise. Sure, you'll get slight swings one way or another based on the betting, but this isn't something where you are going to see a significant adjustment because "team X plays a 3-4 and team Y struggles when playing against elite running backs." That stuff is already built into the power rankings that are pre-assigned to each team. Their formula works; I am just always surprised by its simplicity. That is, after the power ranking has been determined, it's very simple addition and subtraction to make the spread.
 
Most other teams rarely play in a situation where they mathematically can win but not cover the spread.

I don't think that's true. I've never crunched the numbers on it but most games are not EVEN or a spread of -1, at least in the years of betting I've done.

Looking at http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/las-vegas/ for this week alone there's only a couple of games at a couple of books without the possibility for the favorite to win and not cover the spread.
 
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.

True story: when my daughter graduated college Jim Zorn was there because his daughter was graduating as well.
 
Your analysis is about the initial spread, almost irrelevant to bettors by the time they place their bets.

And just BTW, even this one conclusion is incorrect. If it were correct, all the initial lines would be the same. They are not. Some understand that there are teams that bettors are much more likely to bet one, and more the line accordingly.

I've always been fascinated in betting odds and probabilities. One thing that is very interesting to me is that Vegas really doesn't believe in "matchups" when they make a spread. For example, let's say the Patriots have a power ranking of 27 and the Bills have a power ranking of 22, which is what they use. So, the Patriots are five point favorites on a neutral field, 2 point favorites at Buffalo, and eight point favorites at home (there's three points, sometimes four, for homefield.)

That is it; quite simple, but Vegas stakes their industry on that premise. Sure, you'll get slight swings one way or another based on the betting, but this isn't something where you are going to see a significant adjustment because "team X plays a 3-4 and team Y struggles when playing against elite running backs." That stuff is already built into the power rankings that are pre-assigned to each team. Their formula works; I am just always surprised by its simplicity. That is, after the power ranking has been determined, it's very simple addition and subtraction to make the spread.
 
True story: when my daughter graduated college Jim Zorn was there because his daughter was graduating as well.

If I saw Zorn or Largent I'd thank him for helping me get away from betting, though I did do a little betting on Bill Fitch's Celtics. That guy never took his foot off the gas pedal in games.
 
I placed my last bet ever on a SD-Seattle game in the mid 80s

I placed my last bet on the Pats in the 1963 AFL Championship game, Lost my shirt taking lots of points. Was an ugly month or two paying off my bets.

On the other hand...

"The Chargers' championship win is noted for being the only major sports championship win for the city of San Diego as of 2013 (drought of 50 years). Because of this, the city of San Diego presently has the longest championship drought for a city that has at least two sports teams.[2][3] The Patriots on the other hand, would not win a league championship until 2001."
 
I don't bet. I spend money at books to add an extra wrinkle to the game-viewing experience and anything that happens after that is gravy. I also am on a betting budget that I don't allow myself to go over.

Being a disciplined gambler, in and of itself, is a weird joy for me.
 
Your analysis is about the initial spread, almost irrelevant to bettors by the time they place their bets.

And just BTW, even this one conclusion is incorrect. If it were correct, all the initial lines would be the same. They are not. Some understand that there are teams that bettors are much more likely to bet one, and more the line accordingly.

You are one of the many who don't understand how lines are made. You can find a list of the Vegas Power Rankings on a variety of websites, including ESPN Insider. Do me a favor...get the list, do the math, and tell me how many lines differ in any significant way from the expectations. You won't find any. Once again, the movement of a spread a point or two in one direction due to the pressures or expectations of the betting market does not disprove my point at all. I already said this in my initial post, that lines will be adjusted but only by fractions. You aren't going to find a seven point swing anywhere in there.

I'll simplify my point: let's suppose, theoretically, you have the New York Jets with a Vegas score of 23 and the Buffalo Bills with a Vegas score of 20. The Jets are playing at home, which presumes they should be -6, and there are no notable injuries. However, historically, the Buffalo Bills have beaten the Jets the last 9 times they've played by an average of 15 points each time. On top of that, though, the Jets are an objectively better team. Many would point to the Bills "matching up" well with the Jets, or having personnel that is specifically capable of beating the Jets, though not as good at beating other teams.

What do you think Vegas would do in this case? Do you think they would adjust the line to make the Bills favorites, since the public is going to put 80% of bets on the Bills, confident that their style matches up well with the Jets and that the Bills will win their 10th straight game?

If you think Vegas works like that, you are mistaken. Vegas does not do that, which is what 95% of sports fans do not understand. Vegas might adjust the lines by a point or two in one direction, and they they are holding their ground. When you say that "all the initial lines would be the same", they basically are, though as I've said, there may be a slight swing of a point or two based on the betting trends independent of probability, and actually, that's where good handicappers make their money, by exploiting an overreacting public who bases bets on indicators they think are important but are not. Vegas bookmakers typically view past performances as virtually irrelevant and focus on the overall strength of both teams (Jets 23, Bills 20) in their index scores. Nor would they add points for one team for having "more bulletin board material" or "extra motivation and emotion" nor would they drastically change a line due to "fewer days rest" or a west coast trip. All of these scenarios could slightly change the line but nothing dramatic in any way. That is how Vegas does things, using cold, hard reason based on nearly infinite data...the proof is just looking at any lines during any week and matching them up to their indexes. They always fit within a point or two unless there is some major injury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/25: News and Notes
Patriots Kraft ‘Involved’ In Decision Making?  Zolak Says That’s Not the Case
MORSE: Final First Round Patriots Mock Draft
Slow Starts: Stark Contrast as Patriots Ponder Which Top QB To Draft
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/24: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/23: News and Notes
MORSE: Final 7 Round Patriots Mock Draft, Matthew Slater News
Bruschi’s Proudest Moment: Former LB Speaks to MusketFire’s Marshall in Recent Interview
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/22: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-21, Kraft-Belichick, A.J. Brown Trade?
Back
Top