Betting Lines are Meaningless (2016 version)

[1960Pats]

After 3 weeks and one game the results are in.

A - 20 games had the winner win and cover
B - 20 games had the underdog win outright.
C - 6 games had the winner win but not cover.
D - 3 games tied.

This means that if you just picked the winners and ignored the lines, there have only been two games per week where the line mattered. That's about the average for every season.

For the sake of a discussion, let's say that you had bet $100 on every game played so far this year and picked outright winners on only 55-60% of your picks. You would still make money, unless you were unlucky enough to have the wrong pick in all of the 6 "win but not cover" games. The odds are that you'll probably split those 6 games.

 

[jmt57]

Sounds simple enough, but it is still easier said than done. The tricky part is to know which games underdogs will win outright. If a person simply bet on the favorite - the team expected to win straight up - they would be 20-26-3 thus far. With a hypothetical wager of $100 per game this person would be down $890. You are actually better off picking the team expected to lose (up $370)!


Half of Sunday's NFL games have a betting line of three or less, so of course it stands to reason that the percentage of games that a team covers but loses is small. The number of NFL games decided by one or two points is minute.


I would think that the results for larger spreads (for example, seven points or more) are not as simple as just picking the team you believe will win (in nearly all cases the favorite). Presumably the percentage of teams winning but not covering in this scenario is much higher.

 

[RayClay]

You obviously need to know which teams the corruptioner wants to win, discount all pats games and vote that way. It's like betting on fixed horse races.

 

[meatface]

Predictions are always meaningless

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[fightingirish595]

After 3 weeks and one game the results are in.

A - 20 games had the winner win and cover
B - 20 games had the underdog win outright.
C - 6 games had the winner win but not cover.
D - 3 games tied.

This means that if you just picked the winners and ignored the lines, there have only been two games per week where the line mattered. That's about the average for every season.

For the sake of a discussion, let's say that you had bet $100 on every game played so far this year and picked outright winners on only 55-60% of your picks. You would still make money, unless you were unlucky enough to have the wrong pick in all of the 6 "win but not cover" games. The odds are that you'll probably split those 6 games.

Your going to make way more money if your hitting your spread picks at 55-60 percent. For instance, I believe Houston closed at -200 on the moneyline yesterday, so a 200 dollar bet only wins you 100, where as if you laid the points and made that same 200 dollar bet, you would make almost twice as much. Same goes for Cincinatti.

It goes both ways though. If you can hit a dog straight up that is giving 7 or more points, you are going to make a nice profit. But that is obviously always risky; if they lose and cover your going to be very disappointing.

Another example is the Vikings Giants game tonight. The Vikings are -205 straight up. You will win more money if you can cover the spread. Not sure 55-60 percent outright winners would make money because I think thats the minimum you need to win on spreads, but I could be wrong.

 

[fightingirish595]

You obviously need to know which teams the corruptioner wants to win, discount all pats games and vote that way. It's like betting on fixed horse races.

Pats are 3-1 against the spread

 

[varjao]

I prefer to bet on under/over lines since both teams kind of "work together" to achieve that line. In the case of an over (or both teams generally stick to a low scoring game helping to keep it under), spread lines are always changing throughout a game and is never safe unless it is a game like this last Sunday night. An over when it hits already on the 3rd quarter is money in the pocket, but I confess this year has been tough so far. I'm making more money on college football; only one bad week so far, all the others I made a profit.

I'm reading a book called Bookie Buster. It's interesting, you can find the pdf easily on the internet. It's a compilation of a lot of systems using some mathematical series, of course some are BS.

 

[1960Pats]

Your going to make way more money if your hitting your spread picks at 55-60 percent. For instance, I believe Houston closed at -200 on the moneyline yesterday, so a 200 dollar bet only wins you 100, where as if you laid the points and made that same 200 dollar bet, you would make almost twice as much. Same goes for Cincinatti.

It goes both ways though. If you can hit a dog straight up that is giving 7 or more points, you are going to make a nice profit. But that is obviously always risky; if they lose and cover your going to be very disappointing.

Another example is the Vikings Giants game tonight. The Vikings are -205 straight up. You will win more money if you can cover the spread. Not sure 55-60 percent outright winners would make money because I think thats the minimum you need to win on spreads, but I could be wrong.

This week was a great example of what I'm talking about. There were 15 games played and not a single one had the favorite win but not cover. There were 8 games where the favorite won and covered and 7 games where the underdog won outright. If you had bet 100 on every game and only went 8-7 you would have won 30. A 9-6 record would have made you 240. A 10-5 record 450 and an 11-4 record 660. The spreads didn't matter.

 

[fightingirish595]

This week was a great example of what I'm talking about. There were 15 games played and not a single one had the favorite win but not cover. There were 8 games where the favorite won and covered and 7 games where the underdog won outright. If you had bet 100 on every game and only went 8-7 you would have won 30. A 9-6 record would have made you 240. A 10-5 record 450 and an 11-4 record 660. The spreads didn't matter.

You couldnt be anymore wrong. Do you understand that you do not win as much on a favorite if you take them straight up? Your last statement is ridiculous too, Because the profit would vary depending on what teams you bet right


The patriots are -468 on the moneyline right now. a 100 dollar bet wins you 21 dollars. -106 at the spread, a 100 dollar bet wins you 94.

 

[supafly]

You couldnt be anymore wrong. Do you understand that you do not win as much on a favorite if you take them straight up? Your last statement is ridiculous too, Because the profit would vary depending on what teams you bet right


The patriots are -468 on the moneyline right now. a 100 dollar bet wins you 21 dollars. -106 at the spread, a 100 dollar bet wins you 94.

He understands. He's a retired former gambler. His point isn't that you should bet the money line to pick straight up winners. It's to remind us that the winners/losers aren't affected by the spread nearly as much as one may think.

I'm not claiming that he's right or wrong, only attempting to clarify his message.

 

[1960Pats]

You couldnt be anymore wrong. Do you understand that you do not win as much on a favorite if you take them straight up? Your last statement is ridiculous too, Because the profit would vary depending on what teams you bet right


The patriots are -468 on the moneyline right now. a 100 dollar bet wins you 21 dollars. -106 at the spread, a 100 dollar bet wins you 94.

My imaginary bets are against the spread (which is still basically meaningless in most games played, just like it has been for most seasons) and I'm using a 10% vig, which is what my friend the bookie uses on bets with the line. In his world it takes 110 to make 100.

Using the lines that Vegas put out this season these are the totals so far;
28 games were won and covered by the favorite.
27 games were won by the underdog.
6 games were won by a favorite that didn't cover.
3 games were tied with the line.
Using those numbers, all you had to do was pick the winner. There were also only 6 games where the team that won didn't cover, and you have a chance to have the winner in those games too. There were 3 ties with the line.

 

[1960Pats]

He understands. He's a retired former gambler. His point isn't that you should bet the money line to pick straight up winners. It's to remind us that the winners/losers aren't affected by the spread nearly as much as one may think.

I'm not claiming that he's right or wrong, only attempting to clarify his message.

Thanks for the help @supafly.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Thanks for the help @supafly.

My question is, and I mean this in all sincerity, if you are a (successful) gambler why would you ever retire? Can't you just bet less?

 

[1960Pats]

My question is, and I mean this in all sincerity, if you are a (successful) gambler why would you ever retire? Can't you just bet less?

Is there such a thing as a successful NFL gambler? I don't think there is.

I think I'm being branded as a gambler and I'm not. I retired from work at the age of 58 years 9 months for two reasons;
1) I started working at age 16 and at 19 landed in a dangerous but lucrative occupation with a great pension plan.
2) I was not a regular gambler.

I still have my two most memorable NFL bets etched in my mind though. The first was a bet on the Cowboys in 1975 giving up 5.5 points vs the St Louis Cardinals (no, not the cheating baseball team) and the game went into OT. Roger Staubach hit Drew Pearson with a long pass to inside the 5 yard line and the 'Boys immediately line up on 1st or 2nd down for the winning FG. Instead they fake it and win 37-31 to cover my bet. I became a Landry/Cowboys fan.

The other bet, and my last, was in 1980 when Air Coryell and the SD Chargers were 11.5 point favorites vs a putrid Seattle team late in the season. I took SD and they were marching up and down the field for most of the game. But they were only winning 21-7 with 4 seconds left and the Seahawks with the ball around midfield.

The game was over right? No. Jim Zorn goes back to pass and the rush is so strong that he turns around and runs the other way, turns a little to his right (the wrong way for a lefty) and heaves the ball as far as he can to about the SD 20, where the ball is knocked down. Now it's over right? Wrong again. There's a penalty on the play and Seattle gets one more play with no time left on the clock. Zorn drops back and throws a pass to the left, front corner of the endzone, where Steve Largent is sitting on his ass after slipping and falling. He catches the ball in a sitting position for the TD to make it 21-14, and I lose.

I never bet another football game again.

 

[XLIX]

After 3 weeks and one game the results are in.

A - 20 games had the winner win and cover
B - 20 games had the underdog win outright.
C - 6 games had the winner win but not cover.
D - 3 games tied.

This means that if you just picked the winners and ignored the lines, there have only been two games per week where the line mattered. That's about the average for every season.

For the sake of a discussion, let's say that you had bet $100 on every game played so far this year and picked outright winners on only 55-60% of your picks. You would still make money, unless you were unlucky enough to have the wrong pick in all of the 6 "win but not cover" games. The odds are that you'll probably split those 6 games.

That sounds great in theory, it just doesn't work so well in practice. According to your own stats, underdogs are 26-20 against the spread.

So if you told someone "ignore the line, just pick winners" then there is a good chance that would be picking more favorites than underdogs, in which case they would be down. Just look at how many people can't even make it out of September in their "survivor" pools.

 

[XLIX]

You couldnt be anymore wrong. Do you understand that you do not win as much on a favorite if you take them straight up? Your last statement is ridiculous too, Because the profit would vary depending on what teams you bet right

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.

 

[1960Pats]

That sounds great in theory, it just doesn't work so well in practice. According to your own stats, underdogs are 26-20 against the spread.

So if you told someone "ignore the line, just pick winners" then there is a good chance that would be picking more favorites than underdogs, in which case they would be down. Just look at how many people can't even make it out of September in their "survivor" pools.

Survivor pools? That's one game with a different pick each week and is a whole new animal.

Whether you pick favorites or underdogs it's all about picking the winner. No matter which games you picked last week, if you went better than 500 you won money. The line didn't matter to any of the winning or losing games last week. That's the same for the one game so far this week. If you picked the Cards over the 49ers then you won vs the bookies too. I think everyone would have picked them if they ignored the spread.

I'm going to pick the rest of the games just for fun. I'll go with Bal. NE, Phi, Ind, Ten, Min, Pit, Den, Cin, LA, Oak, GB, Car. Those games in red are games I might consider taking the other team for the points if I was paying attention to them. We'll see how it goes either way.

 

[XLIX]

Survivor pools? That's one game with a different pick each week and is a whole new animal.

Not really, because your whole point is throw out the point spread and just pick winners. A survivor pool ignores the point spread and says "just pick one single winner." And yet so many people can't do that for any prolonged period of time.

Whether you pick favorites or underdogs it's all about picking the winner. No matter which games you picked last week, if you went better than 500 you won money. The line didn't matter to any of the winning or losing games last week. That's the same for the one game so far this week. If you picked the Cards over the 49ers then you won vs the bookies too. I think everyone would have picked them if they ignored the spread.

Yes, I understand the point you are making, I am just saying that it is not as easy as it sounds. Last week was a good week for the favorites, no doubt. 9 favorites won and they all covered. But they didn't build all those palaces in the desert because of how easy gambling is.

I'm going to pick the rest of the games just for fun. I'll go with Bal. NE, Phi, Ind, Ten, Min, Pit, Den, Cin, LA, Oak, GB, Car. Those games in red are games I might consider taking the other team for the points if I was paying attention to them. We'll see how it goes either way.

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

 

[1960Pats]

Not really, because your whole point is throw out the point spread and just pick winners. A survivor pool ignores the point spread and says "just pick one single winner." And yet so many people can't do that for any prolonged period of time.
Yes, I understand the point you are making, I am just saying that it is not as easy as it sounds. Last week was a good week for the favorites, no doubt. 9 favorites won and they all covered. But they didn't build all those palaces in the desert because of how easy gambling is.
13 games and you picked 12 favorites. Some weeks that strategy will work for you. Other weeks it won't.

Just to clarify, I never said it was easy and I don't gamble. I merely wanted to point out that the spreads don't come into play as often as people think.

 

[XLIX]

Just to clarify, I never said it was easy and I don't gamble. I merely wanted to point out that the spreads don't come into play as often as people think.

OK I apologize for misunderstanding. I have had similar conversations before and whenever I see someone say something along the lines of "all you have to do is pick winners and ignore the spread," some people don't realize just how hard that is.