Betting Lines are Meaningless (2016 version)

[Darrone]

I think there is some critical misunderstanding of how betting lines work, and how Vegas sets them. Vegas does not care who the teams are, whether or not they are good, or who is going to win. They want only one thing: to get 50% of the action on one side of the bet and 50% on the other. That's the purpose of the line. 50% of people bet the Pats at -110 against the spread, and 50% bet the Bengals with -110 with the spread. They will adjust the lines and payouts throughout the week as money rolls in to even out the betting. Thus, regardless of final score, they take ~10% of the overall betting total.

This is where the NFL gambler has an advantage. His job is to identify games where the gambling public is overconfident or overly negative on a team. If you are able to identify teams that are statistically better than their reputation on a regular basis, you can find ROI in betting on those teams.

 

[fightingirish595]

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.

I was going crazy when the Giants got called for that bogus PI. Im 54-35 3 pushes so far, Not sure how much I would be up if could have put 110 on every game. You mentioned the seahawks and Titans winning but not covering, I actually handicapped that. Had them agains the spread but in my office pickem pool (which i won this week) I had their opponets

 

[fightingirish595]

I think there is some critical misunderstanding of how betting lines work, and how Vegas sets them. Vegas does not care who the teams are, whether or not they are good, or who is going to win. They want only one thing: to get 50% of the action on one side of the bet and 50% on the other. That's the purpose of the line. 50% of people bet the Pats at -110 against the spread, and 50% bet the Bengals with -110 with the spread. They will adjust the lines and payouts throughout the week as money rolls in to even out the betting. Thus, regardless of final score, they take ~10% of the overall betting total.

This is where the NFL gambler has an advantage. His job is to identify games where the gambling public is overconfident or overly negative on a team. If you are able to identify teams that are statistically better than their reputation on a regular basis, you can find ROI in betting on those teams.

Im not sure if the vig in vegas changes but sites do have a vig change. I already see lines this week that look like easy money. Do you bet? You see anything that stands out this week? And why do you think their is misunderstanding

 

[fnordcircle]

If a person bet 100 on every game so far and went 46-40 or better in those games, they'd be up.

Math isn't my forte. Also, not every book gives you your full $ back on a push. Mine does. so let's assume that, but I just want to point out that not everyone has access to a book that doesn't keep the juice on a push.

Let's assume you bet $100 on all 86 games with your typical -110. So your stake was $8600. Those 46 games you won $90.90 on. So you won 7817.40 + 4600 (money wagered that you got back) - 4000 (lost money wagered) = $8417.40.

So unless I'm dumb, overall you're down $182.60 because you don't seem to be factoring in the juice which is really key in figuring this stuff out.

 

[fightingirish595]

Math isn't my forte. Also, not every book gives you your full $ back on a push. Mine does. so let's assume that, but I just want to point out that not everyone has access to a book that doesn't keep the juice on a push.

Let's assume you bet $100 on all 86 games with your typical -110. So your stake was $8600. Those 46 games you won $90.90 on. So you won 7817.40 + 4600 (money wagered that you got back) - 4000 (lost money wagered) = $8417.40.

So unless I'm dumb, overall you're down $182.60 because you don't seem to be factoring in the juice which is really key in figuring this stuff out.

Pretty sure this is wrong. Im pretty sure his profit would be 90.90 times 46 which is 4181.4-4000 which is a profit of 181.4.

 

[Ring 6]

I was going crazy when the Giants got called for that bogus PI. Im 54-35 3 pushes so far, Not sure how much I would be up if could have put 110 on every game. You mentioned the seahawks and Titans winning but not covering, I actually handicapped that. Had them agains the spread but in my office pickem pool (which i won this week) I had their opponets

You would have bet a total so far of 10,120 or about 1700 per week, and be up 1550.
So you would still not have enough winnings to cover what you need to lay for this weeks bets.
In other words, you would love your picks so far but still have double what your weekly bet.
That's why Vegas always wins.

 

[Ring 6]

Math isn't my forte. Also, not every book gives you your full $ back on a push. Mine does. so let's assume that, but I just want to point out that not everyone has access to a book that doesn't keep the juice on a push.

Let's assume you bet $100 on all 86 games with your typical -110. So your stake was $8600. Those 46 games you won $90.90 on. So you won 7817.40 + 4600 (money wagered that you got back) - 4000 (lost money wagered) = $8417.40.

So unless I'm dumb, overall you're down $182.60 because you don't seem to be factoring in the juice which is really key in figuring this stuff out.

Do it a different way. Bet 110 to win 100.
35 losses equals 3850 lost. 54 wins equals 5400 won. Up 1550.


Your math is off because you did
He doesn't win 7817.40 on 54 wins (you paid him for every bet)
and you took the losses away then also included them in his stake.

Your way should be
STAKE 8600
Lost 3500
LEFT FROM STAKE 5100
Won 4908.60 (90.90 x54)
CASH AT END 10000.60
Winnings 1400.60

 

[fightingirish595]

You would have bet a total so far of 10,120 or about 1700 per week, and be up 1550.
So you would still not have enough winnings to cover what you need to lay for this weeks bets.
In other words, you would love your picks so far but still have double what your weekly bet.
That's why Vegas always wins.

But if I went 8-6 this week I would profit again

 

[fightingirish595]

Do it a different way. Bet 110 to win 100.
35 losses equals 3850 lost. 54 wins equals 5400 won. Up 1550.


Your math is off because you did
He doesn't win 7817.40 on 54 wins (you paid him for every bet)
and you took the losses away then also included them in his stake.

Your way should be
STAKE 8600
Lost 3500
LEFT FROM STAKE 5100
Won 4908.60 (90.90 x54)
CASH AT END 10000.60
Winnings 1400.60

You are right but he is referring to Pats1960 saying 46-40 would be up. You used my record

 

[Ring 6]

But if I went 8-6 this week I would profit again

Right. But what I am saying is you would have had to (I'm assuming you are counting every game) put out $1760 week 1, and every week thereafter. So you are still at a point where the amount you need to bet each week is more than what you have won.
My point being you are really happy with your results, but not extremely far ahead. If you quit today, you would not yet have doubled your money in a month and a half.
Had you bet the whole 1760 on 1 game and won, you would be further ahead that these bets would have put you, which seems counter-intuitive with a 54-35 record.

On top of that you would have had to hand over 1760 week 1. You won, but not enough that a bad week wouldn't put you in the hole. It would take a lot of discipline to keep risking that much for the reward you are getting. don't you think?
Also, if you were betting for real its doubtful you would bet on every game, and bet equal amounts.
Just saying the bookies always win in the long run.

 

[Ring 6]

You are right but he is referring to Pats1960 saying 46-40 would be up. You used my record

Gotcha

 

[fightingirish595]

Right. But what I am saying is you would have had to (I'm assuming you are counting every game) put out $1760 week 1, and every week thereafter. So you are still at a point where the amount you need to bet each week is more than what you have won.
My point being you are really happy with your results, but not extremely far ahead. If you quit today, you would not yet have doubled your money in a month and a half.
Had you bet the whole 1760 on 1 game and won, you would be further ahead that these bets would have put you, which seems counter-intuitive with a 54-35 record.

On top of that you would have had to hand over 1760 week 1. You won, but not enough that a bad week wouldn't put you in the hole. It would take a lot of discipline to keep risking that much for the reward you are getting. don't you think?
Also, if you were betting for real its doubtful you would bet on every game, and bet equal amounts.
Just saying the bookies always win in the long run.

I see what your saying, I definitely do not bet every game. And i only usually put about 50 on a game. As you said, betting on every game probably isnt a smart proposition. Its like betting to many tracks and races when betting horses, taking time and finding something you like is the best way to make a profit. Everyone goes bad at some point

 

[fnordcircle]

Wait so was my math wrong there? I actually tried.

 

[Ring 6]

Wait so was my math wrong there? I actually tried.

I was using the 54-35 record not 46-40. So here is 46-40:

Your way should be
STAKE 8600
Lost 4000
LEFT FROM STAKE 4600
Won 4181.80(90.90 x46)
CASH AT END 8781.40
Winnings 181.80

Basically the vig makes 46-40 then same as 46-44 straight up, so he won 90.90 twice.

In other words 44-40 means (using bet 110 to win 100 because the math is easier) you won 4400 (100x40) and lost 4400 (110x40) so if you bet 84 games and win 44 you break even. In his case he was 2 'above .500' after the vig.

 

[fnordcircle]

Thanks...not at all sure where I got 7817.40 from.

In my defense, I'm dumb.

 

[jmt57]

In regards to lines being meaningless, I would agree to some extent. As mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread very few games are decided by only one or two points. While a three or four point difference in the final score is not uncommon, the margin for error to win but not cover in most games is very slim. That's a game being decided by a field goal in 3½, 4, 4½ point spreads; in those scenarios there is a mere ½, 1 or 1½ point opportunity for a favorite to win but not cover.

Obviously that is not going to happen often. It stands to reason that 'lines are meaningless' in games where the line is relatively low.

I would be more interested in seeing statistics in how often the favorite wins but does not cover when the spread is larger. There has to be a tipping point somewhere, when simply picking the team you think will win is not good enough. Is it at five points? Six and a half? Seven? Ten and a half?

I am not convinced it is as 'easy' as picking the team that you think will win.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

Yes, I also noticed that picking the underdog every week would have been the winning strategy given these numbers - but the strategy being advocated was more about picking favorites (winners are typically the favorites).

If you're just saying that picking the winning bet is the winning strategy, that's obvious - and hard.

Ignoring the lines works about 85% of the time - and pulls you back to about 50% the rest of the time. Statistically true but non-obvious. (If it wasn't, Vegas wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are.)

Bottom line is the recommended strategy gets you nothing.

BTW, I've had a very successful gambling life of never in my life placing a bet. But I do watch poker on ESPN (I love Norman Chad; the best commentator in any sport/game.)

 

[1960Pats]

Yes, I also noticed that picking the underdog every week would have been the winning strategy given these numbers - but the strategy being advocated was more about picking favorites (winners are typically the favorites).

If you're just saying that picking the winning bet is the winning strategy, that's obvious - and hard.

Ignoring the lines works about 85% of the time - and pulls you back to about 50% the rest of the time. Statistically true but non-obvious. (If it wasn't, Vegas wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are.)

Bottom line is the recommended strategy gets you nothing.

BTW, I've had a very successful gambling life of never in my life placing a bet. But I do watch poker on ESPN (I love Norman Chad; the best commentator in any sport/game.)

Norman Chad is indeed the man.

Of the 93 games played so far the favorite won and covered 38 times. The underdog won outright 40 times. Of the remaining 15 games 9 were won by the favorite without covering and 6 were ties. That tells me that if I had picked all of the underdogs so far this year, my record would be 49-38-6 and I'd be up 720.

One issue that has come this year that doesn't normally when I pick games is the fact that I'm not following the other teams like I have in the past. That makes it a lot more difficult.

Now that I have my excuse handy, let me make my picks for this week; GB (they already won but I did have them written down so I'm counting that one as a win), NYG, Cincy, Wash, Oakland, KC, Buf, Bal, Minny, Ten, Atl, TB, NE, Sea, Denver.

As you mentioned, I did pick mostly favorites (11-4) and hopefully this will be the week that the current trend ends. I also picked only 6 home teams. We'll see what happens. Hopefully I can add to my $10 winnings from the previous 3 weeks.

 

[Ring 6]

Norman Chad is indeed the man.

Of the 93 games played so far the favorite won and covered 38 times. The underdog won outright 40 times. Of the remaining 15 games 9 were won by the favorite without covering and 6 were ties. That tells me that if I had picked all of the underdogs so far this year, my record would be 49-38-6 and I'd be up 720.

One issue that has come this year that doesn't normally when I pick games is the fact that I'm not following the other teams like I have in the past. That makes it a lot more difficult.

Now that I have my excuse handy, let me make my picks for this week; GB (they already won but I did have them written down so I'm counting that one as a win), NYG, Cincy, Wash, Oakland, KC, Buf, Bal, Minny, Ten, Atl, TB, NE, Sea, Denver.

As you mentioned, I did pick mostly favorites (11-4) and hopefully this will be the week that the current trend ends. I also picked only 6 home teams. We'll see what happens. Hopefully I can add to my $10 winnings from the previous 3 weeks.

The problem is 49-38 sounds like good picking but you would have bet 10230 to be up just 720 and would be placing about 1540 in bets this week (about because I assume there are 2 byes but didn't look).
To do a great job choosing games for 6 weeks and still not be ahead by half of the weekly stake doesn't sound worth the risk to me.

 

[1960Pats]

The problem is 49-38 sounds like good picking but you would have bet 10230 to be up just 720 and would be placing about 1540 in bets this week (about because I assume there are 2 byes but didn't look).
To do a great job choosing games for 6 weeks and still not be ahead by half of the weekly stake doesn't sound worth the risk to me.

It is definitely not worth the risk, but easy to do without using money.

Although there was the usual one game where a team won but didn't cover, this week was a kind of strange one. A game ended in a tie both with and without the spread. I picked 11 favorites in 15 games, and with the Sea at Ariz tie I ended up with a straight up record of 8-6-1.

And because of the tie by the spread in the NO at KC game and my picking Seattle at Arizona, I ended up with the same record against the spread, 8-6-1.

That leaves my 4 weeks so far at;
4) 8-7 +30
5) 5-7-2 -270
6) 8-5-2 +250
7) 8-6-1 +140
Total of 29-25-5 +150. Now my decent glass of wine has turned into a decent couple of wines and a decent meal, maybe for a couple.



And I'm picking the Titans for Thursday.