Question/Theory Re: Setting The Point Spread ... Pats v. Jets & Dolphins
JackWESQ
Posts: 2,133 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I'm not even going to pretend to know what factors are taken into consideration in setting a point spread, but when the Pats play the Jets and Dolphins later this season, do you think there will be some kind of vendetta/animosity factored into the spread? In other words, will the Pats attempt to lay the proverbial hammer to the Jets for the whole Spygate incident and Shula's comments about the asterisk? My better conscience says no, but a part of me says its not inconceivable. Also, being that both games are at the Pats' home, could we see a 20 point spread? 20?! points. Crazy.
/s/ JackWESQ
/s/ JackWESQ
0
Comments
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I'm not even going to pretend to know what factors are taken into consideration in setting a point spread, but when the Pats play the Jets and Dolphins later this season, do you think there will be some kind of vendetta/animosity factored into the spread? In other words, will the Pats attempt to lay the proverbial hammer to the Jets for the whole Spygate incident and Shula's comments about the asterisk? My better conscience says no, but a part of me says its not inconceivable. Also, being that both games are at the Pats' home, could we see a 20 point spread? 20?! points. Crazy.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
There is one factor and one factor only involved in the bookies setting the spread - they attempt to get equal betting action on both teams so that regardless of who wins or loses, they get their 10% juice. I could make this a 10,000 word post but suffice to say that the bookies have been quite successful over the years at doing this and that success isn't going to change anytime soon.
A 20 point spread is rare in the pros, but I've seen it. However, over the long-run, it is basically guaranteed the favorite will win half the time and the dog half the time no matter what the spread...I've seen some long term documented studies about this.
-
I agree with that. Also, most handicappers seem to wind up right around .500 after enough games picking against the spread, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I remember Indy was a 21-pt favorite at home vs Houston a couple years back. I think the spread will be 20 when NE hosts the Jets later this season, too. >>
Wow that's a lot. The first number to jump into my head was 14 points.
<< <i>I think the spread in Super Bowl III was the Baltimore Colts were an 18 point favorite, and how the Baltimore Colts buried the Jets in that game. >>
If I'm remembering right, I think that Earl Morrell of the Colts threw 8 touchdown passes in that game, and scrambled for 2 more.
<< <i>There is one factor and one factor only involved in the bookies setting the spread - they attempt to get equal betting action on both teams so that regardless of who wins or loses, they get their 10% juice >>
Completely wrong. That is a major factor, but not the only one. Thousands of words have already been written explaining why the books would much rather more people bet on the loser than have balanced action, how they do it and how it works. The type of book, casion, online, (with as low as 4%), or local make a huge difference, as does the max bet up to $1 million on the Super Bowl, as low as $500 on a non-televised money line
General starting for point spread is point differential / 2, adjust for home field. Computer rankings that take into account schedule strength may or may not be more accurate.
As for the Patriots upcoming divisional games, up to 23.5 might be possibly, not because of extra incentive or motivation, only because they have been winning by that much, Foxboro in December is huge home home field advantage and the Dolphons and Jets are really bad teams. The line against the Bills is already up to 15.5 some places, on the road against a decent team. Of course these next few weeks, especially the Pittsburgh game will what ultimately sets the line
<< <i>
<< <i>There is one factor and one factor only involved in the bookies setting the spread - they attempt to get equal betting action on both teams so that regardless of who wins or loses, they get their 10% juice >>
Completely wrong. That is a major factor, but not the only one. Thousands of words have already been written explaining why the books would much rather more people bet on the loser than have balanced action, how they do it and how it works. The type of book, casion, online, (with as low as 4%), or local make a huge difference, as does the max bet up to $1 million on the Super Bowl, as low as $500 on a non-televised money line
General starting for point spread is point differential / 2, adjust for home field. Computer rankings that take into account schedule strength may or may not be more accurate.
As for the Patriots upcoming divisional games, up to 23.5 might be possibly, not because of extra incentive or motivation, only because they have been winning by that much, Foxboro in December is huge home home field advantage and the Dolphons and Jets are really bad teams. The line against the Bills is already up to 15.5 some places, on the road against a decent team. Of course these next few weeks, especially the Pittsburgh game will what ultimately sets the line >>
<<< Completely wrong. That is a major factor, but not the only one. >>>
No, you are incorrect - my answer was correct. Perhaps your answer was influenced by sports betting forums and "How to win at sports betting" books which both contain plethoras of misinformation.
I saw a study done a number of years back which documented five years of pro and college football spreads. The dog beat the spread 50.1 percent of the time and the favorite beat the spread 49.9 percent of the time. That's a fact and it's exactly what the bookies want. The amounts bet on each side could of course never be documented, but I would presume that the wagering amounts would probably be about 50/50 on the favorite and the dog in the long-run. But to quickly prove your comment incorrect...let's say every dime bet with every bookie was on the favorite, which of course it's not debatable that the favorites win the game more often than the dogs...it's still a coin flip either way against the spread with the 10% juice, the 4% juice, or even a 1% juice will annihilate a bankroll in the long-run.
Some of the stuff you wrote is urban legend nonsense. And you have to be careful about who said it because even a bookie may have said it. However, bookies are very clever at disseminating misleading information - for example...bookies "always" talk about how they are getting "killed" on certain games and how some bettors are beating the heck out of them. What a bunch of BS that is, because there has never been a single, not one, audited documented example of anyone beating the bookies in the long-run. The bookies usually don't mention the games they cleanup on, and the bettors whose lives they just ruined by taking every cent the gambler had.
Yes, some sports bettors can get hot for a few games or for awhile and start thinking they can beat the bookies...but then those "lucky breaks" they received in some games for a variety of reasons begin evening out the other way and they lose the money back. The breaks in the games tend to even out, but the juice doesn't even out - it levels every bankroll like a steamroller, everytime without exception.
Steve
-
<< <i>Completely wrong. >>
Actually, he's right, as described above.
Real books don't give a flying flip about the outcome, they just want their cut.
That's the difference between gambling and booking.
BTW, sports books want the money spread EXACTLY 50-50.
In hindsight, after the game is complete, of course they want more money bet on the loser.
But before the game, they can’t afford the risk. All risk needs to be assumed by the gambler. With money spread 50-50, they are guaranteed their juice, which pays the bills. It's a beautiful business model!
Dave
<< <i>
<< <i>Completely wrong. >>
Actually, he's right, as described above.
Real books don't give a flying flip about the outcome, they just want their cut.
That's the difference between gambling and booking. >>
Another important thing to remember and I think most gamblers miss this point, is that even if the basically remote, almost impossible chance existed that someone was smarter than the bookies, which basically isn't going to happen, but let's say it did...with the bookies margin of error (being the juice) the bookies would still win all the money in the long-run. But let's get real here for those who believe they might outsmart the bookies...with all the idiosyncrasies which occur in sporting events...fumbles, errors, etc...there really is no conceivable, possible way to be that much "smarter" than the bookies to overcome the accumulative effects of the juice.
-
The Odds
Smart Money
You are exactly right that books want balanced action. But they know that rarely happens so they try and hedge betters toward the loser. With 10% juice the house is at a huge advantage and virtually always wins against any better long term. But in a casino that's still so much less than most every thing else, especially considering an event that lasts three hours. And if the top guy in charge of the book doesn't turn enough of a profit for whatever reason he's liable to lose the job. It is a different sort of risk, but it is definitely real
In the study showing favorites with a 49.9 winning percentage, what was the winning percentage of the betting money? That would be the really interesting information
Yes! Especially a small book, say one guy working out of his house who isn't "connected" and doesn't have the means to layoff too much action on one game. Of course he could refuse to take the action but risk losing customers. I know a small book who foolishly took too much action one year on one side of a World Series and he told me that his house would have to be sold if his team lost. Fortunately for him his team won. But for a large book who knows that things will even out in the long-run as per the above examples and he'll win back any lost money, yes he really couldn't care less about the outcome of any particular game in general.
I've read those stories about some large Vegas books taking baths on particular games including some Super Bowls. Bookies always spread the BS thick, but I do believe some of those stories - but it's not as though you see sports books in Vegas closing down after taking a bad loss on a game. If they do close, they don't close because they aren't overall making good money, it's because the casino owners decide that the space and the payroll expense could be more profitable with say slot machines. Running a sports book is very labor intensive...a slot machine only costs a few bucks a month in electricity to operate.
-
<< <i>Here are some references, I don't know if they information is correct, but I trust them (the titles are obviously sensationalized):
The Odds
Smart Money
You are exactly right that books want balanced action. But they know that rarely happens so they try and hedge betters toward the loser. With 10% juice the house is at a huge advantage and virtually always wins against any better long term. But in a casino that's still so much less than most every thing else, especially considering an event that lasts three hours. And if the top guy in charge of the book doesn't turn enough of a profit for whatever reason he's liable to lose the job. It is a different sort of risk, but it is definitely real
In the study showing favorites with a 49.9 winning percentage, what was the winning percentage of the betting money? That would be the really interesting information >>
<<< In the study showing favorites with a 49.9 winning percentage, what was the winning percentage of the betting money? That would be the really interesting information >>
>>>
You would need to have access to many, if not every large bookies financial data to accurately know this - that just ain't gonna happen.
-
<< <i>it's because the casino owners decide that the space and the payroll expense could be more profitable with say slot machines >>
Exactly. With online gambling the casino sports books are now nothing more than loss leaders, similar to the $5.95 dinner buffet
<< <i>
<< <i>it's because the casino owners decide that the space and the payroll expense could be more profitable with say slot machines >>
Exactly. With online gambling the casino sports books are now nothing more than loss leaders, similar to the $5.95 dinner buffet >>
I think the really big sports bettors in the US for the most part don't trust the online books, even the so-called reputable online books. Online books can screw up an account, or confiscate a bettor's money for any trumped up reason.
Vegas books are under strict rules and government regulations and I've never heard of any sports bettor getting screwed out of their money from a Vegas book. I'm not saying a Vegas book couldn't screw up an account or a bet...I no longer gamble, but if I had a lot of money to place on a game, the last place I'd send it is through cyberspace to some online sports book, who despite any reputation they might have, could be out of business tomorrow and take my money with them.
-
<< <i>You are exactly right that books want balanced action. But they know that rarely happens so they try and hedge betters toward the loser. >>
But that's our point, it MOSTLY happens and rarely is not balanced. Again, real books aren't gamblers, they are in it for a business and take the guaranteed 10%.
Are you going to boast about being on the plus side year in and out or whine about how there was a ton of action on a winning team (while neglecting to mention a ton on the other side)?
Think of it this way. Depending on where you get information, an estimated +/-$5B is gambled every year... Casinos do not sink millions into renovating the sports book every other year to gamble.
If a gambler runs a book, he has to worry about losing everything.
If a pro is running a book, he never, ever worries. Not because he knows which team is going to win; it's because he's already won.
<< <i>But that's our point, it MOSTLY happens and rarely is not balanced >>
I already gave two well-researched references refuting exactly that
Steve, Casino sports books will always do well. It's simply a matter of how well they do in comparison to video poker. And remember, gamblers like to gamble. At 4% juice, a lot will gamble that the online book is safe
<< <i>
<< <i>But that's our point, it MOSTLY happens and rarely is not balanced >>
I already gave two well-researched references refuting exactly that
Steve, Casino sports books will always do well. It's simply a matter of how well they do in comparison to video poker. And remember, gamblers like to gamble. At 4% juice, a lot will gamble that the online book is safe >>
Every gambler here probably knows the story of what happened the past year with Neteller, online poker, and the rest, so it's no sense regurgitating that. However, lemme give you an example - Say a bigtime sports bettor got red hot, I mean red hot and hit a gigantic sports parlay or something like that and turned a few hundred thousand into 10 or 20 million...do you think even a big online sports book is gonna pay this guy? Do you think the owner of a big online sports book is gonna sell off his yacht and his cars and other things just to payoff some cyberspace gambler who got super lucky? Of course not! What's the winning gambler gonna do about it? Complain on some sports betting forum which contains nothing but liars anyway for the most part, so who's gonna believe him? Get a lawyer? Are you kidding...these online books probably own the judges in their small countries of origin...they can forge their computer records any which way and simply payoff the judges.
Let's not be naive about online bookies. They are the worst of the worst and have no real regard for the gambler because they are basically unregulated in their countries of origin. Sports bettors trying to beat bookies are suckers and trying to beat online bookies is a bigger sucker bet still.
The only posible way to beat a bookie would be through arbitrage type positions which Boopotts brought to the attention here in some posts awhile back. I thoroughly looked at this and came to the conclusion that the vig was too high, even at 4%, for the arbitrage type wagering to make money. I still keep an open mind about it though and am open to further viewpoints about it if anyone has any. Boopotts even implied that even if the arbitrage position did work, it would require a lot of capital and constantly viewing the computer screen for arbitrage opportunities just to even make small amounts of money. But again, I keep an open mind about the possibilities of this system working, but right now considering what I've seen, even if it could make money, one could make a better and easier living selling women's shoes like Al Bundy.
-
<< <i>to get equal betting action on both teams so that regardless of who wins or loses, they get their 10% juice. >>
And so to reach this objective, a line is set which takes into consideration a million factors, for example:
1. Where the game is being played, e.g., Pats are favored by 20 with the game at Gilette Stadium. Same teams, same day, but the game is at Pro Player Stadium. I would imagine the line would move down.
2. Injury report, e.g. Pats are favored by 20 over the Dolphins the Monday before the game; then Brady is involved in a car accident and can't play. I would imagine the line would move down.
So back to my original question and perhaps to clarify, in order to reach the objective of getting equal action on both teams, will the setting of the line take into consideration the possibility that the Pats will want to lay the hammer to the Jets and Dolphins because of Spygate and Shula's comments about the asterisk?
/s/ JackWESQ
P.S. To stevek ... I'm not a gambler, so I don't know what happened with Neteller. Could you provide a link? Also your comments remind me of a saying in the law. It's one thing to obtain a judgment. It's another thing to enforce a judgment.
<< <i>
<< <i>But that's our point, it MOSTLY happens and rarely is not balanced >>
I already gave two well-researched references refuting exactly that >>
How so?
The books are gamblers' stories, which I'm sure are a little stretched here and there, about making a lot of money in Vegas within a short period.
Don't get me wrong, people can and do make a lot of money betting on sports. However, that's not the point... The casino book isn't loosing any money, it's only being transfered from another bettor while they take their 10%.
Make sense?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>But that's our point, it MOSTLY happens and rarely is not balanced >>
I already gave two well-researched references refuting exactly that >>
How so?
The books are gamblers' stories, which I'm sure are a little stretched here and there, about making a lot of money in Vegas within a short period.
Don't get me wrong, people can and do make a lot of money betting on sports. However, that's not the point... The casino book isn't loosing any money, it's only being transfered from another bettor while they take their 10%.
Make sense? >>
<< <i>The books are gamblers' stories, which I'm sure are a little stretched here and there >>
Of course those stories are stretched, but the first one is mostly about losing money in Vegas. . . Key characters in those stories are bookies and the authors go into great detail about why the bookie ends up with a vested interest in every game because betting isn't balanced. Over the long run they win and they win big, but that doesn't mean equal action on both sides is common
To once again address the original question, Patriots will be heavy favorites, not because they have any revenge, but because they are simply a far superior team
<< <i>Bottom line is I am going HEAVY ($500+ )on the Pats versus the Bills and Fins. And I really dont care if I am laying 17+ points. >>
I would recommend NOT using joestalin's sports wagering service. They take bets but don't payoff.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bottom line is I am going HEAVY ($500+ )on the Pats versus the Bills and Fins. And I really dont care if I am laying 17+ points. >>
I would recommend NOT using joestalin's sports wagering service. They take bets but don't payoff. >>
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I might be talking symantics here, but from the perspective of the house, bookie, etc., isn't the the OBJECTIVE
<< <i>to get equal betting action on both teams so that regardless of who wins or loses, they get their 10% juice. >>
And so to reach this objective, a line is set which takes into consideration a million factors, for example:
1. Where the game is being played, e.g., Pats are favored by 20 with the game at Gilette Stadium. Same teams, same day, but the game is at Pro Player Stadium. I would imagine the line would move down.
2. Injury report, e.g. Pats are favored by 20 over the Dolphins the Monday before the game; then Brady is involved in a car accident and can't play. I would imagine the line would move down.
So back to my original question and perhaps to clarify, in order to reach the objective of getting equal action on both teams, will the setting of the line take into consideration the possibility that the Pats will want to lay the hammer to the Jets and Dolphins because of Spygate and Shula's comments about the asterisk?
/s/ JackWESQ
P.S. To stevek ... I'm not a gambler, so I don't know what happened with Neteller. Could you provide a link? Also your comments remind me of a saying in the law. It's one thing to obtain a judgment. It's another thing to enforce a judgment. >>
Well, in my view it's a given that the books would like to have every game fall right on the number, but they already know that is impossible. I don't know what the percentage of games is falling right on the number, but it doesn't happen often. It can sometimes be weeks before seeing a game fall right on the number.
Frankly, you'll just have to take my word on this, if you've been a sports bettor for awhile, it's really not that hard to get fairly close to what the bookie's lines will be after Sunday night. I could set Eagles lines within a few points either way and not miss a single one all season - and get right on the number or within 1 or 2 points many times. It would be hard for me not to know what team won't be a favorite or a dog in an upcoming NFL game. I might say on Sunday night a team will be say -1 and the books might make that game a pick or +1 or 2...something like that.....maybe a -2 or -3....again...it's not that difficult to do to get close to predicting what the number will be.
You're basically right - there's a whole host of factors involved with setting lines. This would be too long of a post to illustrate all these various factors, suffice to say that for sure, the bookies know all these factors. Say a line is set at 3...the books know in the long-run that they will get equal betting action at 3 on this particular game and these particular set of game circumstances. If a whale comes in and bets heavy on one side, the books may move the line but not always - it depends on a lot of circumstances. The illustration I earlier gave with the book I knew with the World Series situation - he didn't intend it to be that way - he took a lot of action early on the Series and figured he'd be taking other action on the other side later - but that other action didn't happen. I could name that series but I won't - suffice to say it was a series in which the opposing team took a 2 game lead and this guy was in a full state of panic...he was quite fortunate his team came back to win the series. That was foolish for a bookie to be in that situation but he was a small time book and just got caught up in it - he didn't want to refuse a bet...he was a gambler as well in high stakes card games and often playing the stock market.
But once the line is set and adjustments are made depending on the betting action - the books really don't care because again...even if they make a few mistakes in the line, in the long-run the vig grinds out everybody. Nobody and I do mean NOBODY beats the bookies...that's the way it is...you can believe me or anybody else but again...I have never seen a single documented piece of evidence to prove anyone ever beating the bookies - not one and I have asked many gamblers over the years claiming to be making money to show the evidence - they made the claims so show proof of the claims, right? No proof was ever given - I think that really says it all about the possibilities of beating bookies. The only way to really beat them would be to cheat IE: fix games such as Arnold Rothstein did in the Black Sox scandal.
As far as Neteller - you could Google "Neteller" "poker" and find many articles about this year's events.
Steve
1) Betting props. You can use Poisson distributions to find profitable proposition wagers.
2) Betting halftime lines and quarter lines. I won't get into a big discussion about this, except to say that if you construct a database that consists of the quarter and halftime scores for every game in a given major sport (NBA, for instance), and cross reference this data with the closing line and total for each game, you will find a good number of profitable bets. However, as with everything else you need to get the best line possible. There is a huge difference between betting, say, over 21 -105 on an NCAAF second half total, and betting over -21.5, and you need to know on average how often the second half will land on exactly 21 if you want to profit from these wages.
3) Teasers and correlated parlays. Anytime you can bet a two team 6 point teaser in the NFL at -110 when you can capture both the 3 and the 7 (i.e., teasing a -7.5 fave down to -1.5, or a 2.5 dog up to 8.5) you will enjoy a small but signficant edge on your wager. Similarly, when you can find a book that takes correlated parlays you can do quite well also. Examples of this would be taking the under and the dog +1.5 in an NHL game, or parlaying a huge favorite with the over in an NCAAF game.
4) Betting rogue numbers. Historical data tells us that an NFL team that is favored by 3 will win by exactly 3 roughly 10% of the time. Thus, if the 'market line' for a favorite is -3.5, and you can find a book that has the same game lined at -3 -110, then you have an edge of roughly 5% (assuming the current line is efficient, which is almost always a fair assumption).
Why is this? Assume the market line is efficient, and that the favorite and the dog have an equal chance of covering the 3.5. This means that favorite will cover 45% of the time, the dog 45% of the time, and the game will land on 3 (resulting in a push) 10% of the time. If you can take the favorite at -3 you will now win the wager 55% of the time, and lose it 45% of the time, which results in about a 5% edge. Finding 'bad numbers' is a huge part of the game for professional bettors; so huge, in fact, that many (if not most) professional bettors don't even handicap the games. They simply track down numbers that have deviated from the market line by a margin large enough to make a wager profitable.
The bottom line is that very few successful bettors handicap the games and then bet out at widely available numbers. If you assume a reasonable level of efficiency in the market lines-- and you would be a fool to assume otherwise-- then there isn't much need to handicap. Assume that the market number represents the best current estimate of what the final margin of the score will be, and take it from there.
So, why don't people win betting sports? A few reasons.
1) You have to be a quick and agile thinker, and you have to be a good mathemetician. Say you can get a team at either -10 -110, or -10.5 +100. Which bet is bettor? If you can't trouble yourself to construct a database to learn how much the 10 is 'worth' then you have no chance at all.
2) You have to be well capitalized. There is no point in betting sports unless you have a five figure bankroll.
3) You must be able to withstand prolonged losing streaks. Most gamblers are too emotionally invested in the outcome of their bets to handle consecutive months of losing.
4) You must spend many hours a day researching, calculating and (lastly) betting. I don't think someone can beat the markets on a part time basis.
With respect to the Pats, the kind of thinking that alllows one to 'bet the Pats, even if they are 17 point favorites or more' is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that buries the recreational bettor. Whatever line that comes out on the Pats is going to be close to efficient, and there will be a HUGE difference between taking the Pats at -16.5 and taking them at -17.5. Taking -17.5 when the market line is -17 because 'the 17 only lands about 3-4% of the time) is a pure donkey play. Getting the absolute best number matters, and it matters a lot. If the line comes out at -17, and you jump on it because 'you think the Pats will win by four touchdowns easy', then I can guarantee you that your number has far, far less predictive value then the market number. Underestimating the value of a half point, and believing that the market number is off by a significant margin, are the two great donkey mistakes that recreational bettors make. If a total square could get rid of only these two habits then he would become at least a break even bettor.
<< <i>If there's one thing Steve knows inside and out, with the possible exception of Mets trivia, it's how the bookies will steamroll any bettor given enough time and opportunities.
Come on now...I know that your CU name grote15 stands for #15 Jerry Grote who was an excellent pitcher for the New York Mets.
<< <i>Most professional bettors do not make their bread and butter by betting into widely available numbers; especially in efficient markets (like NFL sides, for instance). Instead, the money comes from the following types of wagers.
1) Betting props. You can use Poisson distributions to find profitable proposition wagers.
2) Betting halftime lines and quarter lines. I won't get into a big discussion about this, except to say that if you construct a database that consists of the quarter and halftime scores for every game in a given major sport (NBA, for instance), and cross reference this data with the closing line and total for each game, you will find a good number of profitable bets. However, as with everything else you need to get the best line possible. There is a huge difference between betting, say, over 21 -105 on an NCAAF second half total, and betting over -21.5, and you need to know on average how often the second half will land on exactly 21 if you want to profit from these wages.
3) Teasers and correlated parlays. Anytime you can bet a two team 6 point teaser in the NFL at -110 when you can capture both the 3 and the 7 (i.e., teasing a -7.5 fave down to -1.5, or a 2.5 dog up to 8.5) you will enjoy a small but signficant edge on your wager. Similarly, when you can find a book that takes correlated parlays you can do quite well also. Examples of this would be taking the under and the dog +1.5 in an NHL game, or parlaying a huge favorite with the over in an NCAAF game.
4) Betting rogue numbers. Historical data tells us that an NFL team that is favored by 3 will win by exactly 3 roughly 10% of the time. Thus, if the 'market line' for a favorite is -3.5, and you can find a book that has the same game lined at -3 -110, then you have an edge of roughly 5% (assuming the current line is efficient, which is almost always a fair assumption).
Why is this? Assume the market line is efficient, and that the favorite and the dog have an equal chance of covering the 3.5. This means that favorite will cover 45% of the time, the dog 45% of the time, and the game will land on 3 (resulting in a push) 10% of the time. If you can take the favorite at -3 you will now win the wager 55% of the time, and lose it 45% of the time, which results in about a 5% edge. Finding 'bad numbers' is a huge part of the game for professional bettors; so huge, in fact, that many (if not most) professional bettors don't even handicap the games. They simply track down numbers that have deviated from the market line by a margin large enough to make a wager profitable.
The bottom line is that very few successful bettors handicap the games and then bet out at widely available numbers. If you assume a reasonable level of efficiency in the market lines-- and you would be a fool to assume otherwise-- then there isn't much need to handicap. Assume that the market number represents the best current estimate of what the final margin of the score will be, and take it from there.
So, why don't people win betting sports? A few reasons.
1) You have to be a quick and agile thinker, and you have to be a good mathemetician. Say you can get a team at either -10 -110, or -10.5 +100. Which bet is bettor? If you can't trouble yourself to construct a database to learn how much the 10 is 'worth' then you have no chance at all.
2) You have to be well capitalized. There is no point in betting sports unless you have a five figure bankroll.
3) You must be able to withstand prolonged losing streaks. Most gamblers are too emotionally invested in the outcome of their bets to handle consecutive months of losing.
4) You must spend many hours a day researching, calculating and (lastly) betting. I don't think someone can beat the markets on a part time basis.
With respect to the Pats, the kind of thinking that alllows one to 'bet the Pats, even if they are 17 point favorites or more' is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that buries the recreational bettor. Whatever line that comes out on the Pats is going to be close to efficient, and there will be a HUGE difference between taking the Pats at -16.5 and taking them at -17.5. Taking -17.5 when the market line is -17 because 'the 17 only lands about 3-4% of the time) is a pure donkey play. Getting the absolute best number matters, and it matters a lot. If the line comes out at -17, and you jump on it because 'you think the Pats will win by four touchdowns easy', then I can guarantee you that your number has far, far less predictive value then the market number. Underestimating the value of a half point, and believing that the market number is off by a significant margin, are the two great donkey mistakes that recreational bettors make. If a total square could get rid of only these two habits then he would become at least a break even bettor. >>
Quite interesting. I read it and plan on reading it a number of times to absorb it.
Steve
-
Boo - you know I have the utmost respect for you. That being said...could you please provide a link to any info on this data...frankly, I find it almost impossible to believe that "an NFL team that is favored by 3 will win by exactly 3 roughly 10% of the time" - 10% just seems way too high especially since the two point conversion was introduced some years back which made scores even more unpredictable than before...I'm not saying the 10% figure couldn't possibly be correct, but I would just want to view this "historical data" if you can find it. If you can't easily find it...no big deal...don't go crazy looking for it. Thanks!
Steve
<< <i><<< Historical data tells us that an NFL team that is favored by 3 will win by exactly 3 roughly 10% of the time. >>>
Boo - you know I have the utmost respect for you. That being said...could you please provide a link to any info on this data...frankly, I find it almost impossible to believe that "an NFL team that is favored by 3 will win by exactly 3 roughly 10% of the time" - 10% just seems way too high especially since the two point conversion was introduced some years back which made scores even more unpredictable than before...I'm not saying the 10% figure couldn't possibly be correct, but I would just want to view this "historical data" if you can find it. If you can't easily find it...no big deal...don't go crazy looking for it. Thanks!
Steve >>
Note - I'll need to see data from an organized study - not some regurgitated hearsay crap from a sports betting forum, or comments from some handicapping tout. Thanks!
Steve
I quickly looked at the last four NFL weeks and number came out slightly above 12%.
Dave
<< <i>Hmmm.....I don't doubt the 10% either, but it 'feels' low to me. Teams pretty much manage games and final drives to kick last second FGs.
I quickly looked at the last four NFL weeks and number came out slightly above 12%.
Dave >>
<<< Teams pretty much manage games and final drives to kick last second FGs. >>>
Well yes, but let's look at this deeper. It's not often that teams are tied late in the game, it's not rare, but it's not often...and then...in order to hit what we're discussing, the given team that is favored by exactly 3 points has to kick a successful field goal. Of course this isn't the only scenario for a team favored by 3 points to win by 3 points, but still the figure of 10% just seems high to me. But I'll keep an open mind about it if a historical data study can be shown.
Of course there's a wide range of numbers a 3 point favorite can win by...1 point, 2 points, 4 points up to any reasonable number, and don't forget the favorite can lose the game as well. I know this may seem like nitpicking but before I explore this further, an exact number is needed because the difference between 10% and say even 8% or 9% could mean the difference in whether or not the system is viable.
Steve
I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate on whether or not this data is legitimate. If you feel it may not be you can always conduct your own study using data from a source that you trust. These numbers are in line with what I found when I constructed my own table on push frequencies, so I have no reason to think that these findings are in any way skewed.
Of course, you do have the problem with sample size. This is an issue which plagues all historical NFL data. However, if the error term in the estimates is unbiased then these are the best possible estimates we could have.
Are you serious?
Dave
<< <i> It's not often that teams are tied late in the game...
Are you serious?
Dave >>
Yes I am serious. I don't know what the exact percentages are but in the final drive of an NFL game, I would say that the teams are tied less than 10% of the time for sure...might even be less than 5%.
-
<< <i>NFL Push Frequencies
I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate on whether or not this data is legitimate. If you feel it may not be you can always conduct your own study using data from a source that you trust. These numbers are in line with what I found when I constructed my own table on push frequencies, so I have no reason to think that these findings are in any way skewed.
Of course, you do have the problem with sample size. This is an issue which plagues all historical NFL data. However, if the error term in the estimates is unbiased then these are the best possible estimates we could have. >>
I understand your comment about the study, but the study doesn't look all that bad. I would have rather seen a study from say a well respected sports magazine of some sort, but if this is all there is, then it may have to do for now. On his "point calculator" he's got the mentioned probability at 9.79%
The 50.1/49.9 dog/favorite win ratio, 5 year study, I mentioned was from a popular sports betting newspaper from around 1995, sold on newstands, but I can't remember the name of it.
I did some preliminary calculations and it does look interesting, although you're definitely right - if it worked, it would require a big bankroll for it to be worthwhile.
Some initial thoughts about possible problems even if it technically could work. Would the credit card transaction fees wipeout any mathematical advantage?
Also...you're gonna laugh at this but it's true - I once was barred from a decent size book because one season I was killing him in basketball...killing him...of course it was just a lucky hot streak but I bring that up because I wonder if online books might bar somebody consistently winning money from them if that were to happen. Bookies aren't in business to lose money, and even though bookies "know" they can't lose, they are still a superstitious type lot and if they see someone winning they would likely "bar him" and figure it out later whether or not to reinstate him, rather than continue to lose money to him...especially if they see him constantly betting only say the 3 point and 3 1/2 point lines - they'll figure he's developed some sort of mathematical system and they'll tell him to take his betting elsewhere. So all that work in detailing and developing a winning system, if a winning system could be developed, would be a total waste of time if it couldn't be used to take money from any bookie.
Steve
I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate on whether or not this data is legitimate. If you feel it may not be you can always conduct your own study using data from a source that you trust. These numbers are in line with what I found when I constructed my own table on push frequencies, so I have no reason to think that these findings are in any way skewed.
Of course, you do have the problem with sample size. This is an issue which plagues all historical NFL data. However, if the error term in the estimates is unbiased then these are the best possible estimates we could have. >>
I understand your comment about the study, but the study doesn't look all that bad. I would have rather seen a study from say a well respected sports magazine of some sort, but if this is all there is, then it may have to do for now. On his "point calculator" he's got the mentioned probability at 9.79%
The 50.1/49.9 dog/favorite win ratio, 5 year study, I mentioned was from a popular sports betting newspaper from around 1995, sold on newstands, but I can't remember the name of it.
I did some preliminary calculations and it does look interesting, although you're definitely right - if it worked, it would require a big bankroll for it to be worthwhile.
Some initial thoughts about possible problems even if it technically could work. Would the credit card transaction fees wipeout any mathematical advantage?
Also...you're gonna laugh at this but it's true - I once was barred from a decent size book because one season I was killing him in basketball...killing him...of course it was just a lucky hot streak but I bring that up because I wonder if online books might bar somebody consistently winning money from them if that were to happen. Bookies aren't in business to lose money, and even though bookies "know" they can't lose, they are still a superstitious type lot and if they see someone winning they would likely "bar him" and figure it out later whether or not to reinstate him, rather than continue to lose money to him...especially if they see him constantly betting only say the 3 point and 3 1/2 point lines - they'll figure he's developed some sort of mathematical system and they'll tell him to take his betting elsewhere. So all that work in detailing and developing a winning system, if a winning system could be developed, would be a total waste of time if it couldn't be used to take money from any bookie.
/////////////////////////
The problem you run into is that many of the more respected books out there (read: ones that pay when you win) have no qualms about cutting you off if all you do is pick off an occasional bad number or bet (and win) exclusively at props. Books like 5 Dimes , VIP, Sports Interaction and Bodog basically refuse to book winning action. A few of the bigger books will (Olympic, CRIS, WSEX), but many do not. For someone looking to bet sides and totals the best book BY FAR is, IMO, Matchbook (www.matchbook.com), which is an exchange-- not a sports book. Low juice, and no record of spotty payouts.
Outside of the predicable complications that can and do arise from making +EV bets at sportsbooks, there are any number of other obstacles that impede one's ability to make a living betting sports. As I said before, you have to be not only intelligent, but also a very quick thinker, because many opportunities only last for a few minutes before someone beats you to the number. This is one of the spots where I have always had trouble, because I don't think very fast. Also, you have to have plenty of money to put into play, and you have to be prepared to lose it. Since many people are naturally risk averse (including myself), getting over this hump can be much harder than it would initially appear.
All in all, I think almost everyone would be doing themselves a favor if they never bet on a single game. You can make a living at it, but it's very difficult and very stressful. In a way I compare it to the idea of being a full time sports card dealer. On the surface it seems like it would be the nuts, but when you really look into it it begins to lose most of its luster. Mix in the fact that online betting may or may not be illegal in the U.S., and the prospect of betting full time begins to look even less attractive.
BTW: Cubby=Cub Fan
<< <i>L=NFL Push Frequencies]http://forum.sbrforum.com/nfl-handicapping/18502-estimated-nfl-ats-over-under-push-frequencies.html[/L]
I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate on whether or not this data is legitimate. If you feel it may not be you can always conduct your own study using data from a source that you trust. These numbers are in line with what I found when I constructed my own table on push frequencies, so I have no reason to think that these findings are in any way skewed.
Of course, you do have the problem with sample size. This is an issue which plagues all historical NFL data. However, if the error term in the estimates is unbiased then these are the best possible estimates we could have. >>
I understand your comment about the study, but the study doesn't look all that bad. I would have rather seen a study from say a well respected sports magazine of some sort, but if this is all there is, then it may have to do for now. On his "point calculator" he's got the mentioned probability at 9.79%
The 50.1/49.9 dog/favorite win ratio, 5 year study, I mentioned was from a popular sports betting newspaper from around 1995, sold on newstands, but I can't remember the name of it.
I did some preliminary calculations and it does look interesting, although you're definitely right - if it worked, it would require a big bankroll for it to be worthwhile.
Some initial thoughts about possible problems even if it technically could work. Would the credit card transaction fees wipeout any mathematical advantage?
Also...you're gonna laugh at this but it's true - I once was barred from a decent size book because one season I was killing him in basketball...killing him...of course it was just a lucky hot streak but I bring that up because I wonder if online books might bar somebody consistently winning money from them if that were to happen. Bookies aren't in business to lose money, and even though bookies "know" they can't lose, they are still a superstitious type lot and if they see someone winning they would likely "bar him" and figure it out later whether or not to reinstate him, rather than continue to lose money to him...especially if they see him constantly betting only say the 3 point and 3 1/2 point lines - they'll figure he's developed some sort of mathematical system and they'll tell him to take his betting elsewhere. So all that work in detailing and developing a winning system, if a winning system could be developed, would be a total waste of time if it couldn't be used to take money from any bookie.
/////////////////////////
The problem you run into is that many of the more respected books out there (read: ones that pay when you win) have no qualms about cutting you off if all you do is pick off an occasional bad number or bet (and win) exclusively at props. Books like 5 Dimes , VIP, Sports Interaction and Bodog basically refuse to book winning action. A few of the bigger books will (Olympic, CRIS, WSEX), but many do not. For someone looking to bet sides and totals the best book BY FAR is, IMO, Matchbook (www.matchbook.com), which is an exchange-- not a sports book. Low juice, and no record of spotty payouts.
Outside of the predicable complications that can and do arise from making +EV bets at sportsbooks, there are any number of other obstacles that impede one's ability to make a living betting sports. As I said before, you have to be not only intelligent, but also a very quick thinker, because many opportunities only last for a few minutes before someone beats you to the number. This is one of the spots where I have always had trouble, because I don't think very fast. Also, you have to have plenty of money to put into play, and you have to be prepared to lose it. Since many people are naturally risk averse (including myself), getting over this hump can be much harder than it would initially appear.
All in all, I think almost everyone would be doing themselves a favor if they never bet on a single game. You can make a living at it, but it's very difficult and very stressful. In a way I compare it to the idea of being a full time sports card dealer. On the surface it seems like it would be the nuts, but when you really look into it it begins to lose most of its luster. Mix in the fact that online betting may or may not be illegal in the U.S., and the prospect of betting full time begins to look even less attractive. >>
That's good information Boo and I completely agree with your conclusion.
I've never made a sports bet on the internet so I wasn't sure about bookies cutting off certain players so this was a very interesting read for me.
I get tired of "debating" the following so I won't respond to any comments, but I am absolutely, thoroughly, completely conviced that there is no gambling industry offered game which can be beat by any player in the long-run and that includes online poker...I'll leave that comment as is. The only gambling game which I think and know will be beatable is if online poker is legalized in the US, which someday it could be, and huge corporations such as MGM offer it rake free, and just run their ads on the poker tables. For example you might see an ad for MGM's latest movie in the center of each online poker table - I don't think players would mind that. Player against player, truly rake free, would be a game of pure skilll in which the best players would make money and some would make a lot of money, in the same manner as players do now in private unraked cash games in homes and clubs. There is a rake free poker site now on the internet which in my opinion based on speaking to a number of players and reading many articles, is so fraudulent with house bots and rigging the RNG that it's not even funny. A company such as MGM would have no incentive whatsoever with rigging the RNG in any way, shape or form because they would not have any house bots winning money from the players. Companies such as Yahoo and others would surely jump in to this marketplace. Well, we'll see how it all plays out...however it does...it will be interesting.
Steve
ESPN Column Pats favored by 23.5 Spread
It seems like I wasn't too far off about what factors affect a point spread. Specifically, the column notes:
<< <i>"Nowadays, you don't see too many spreads over 16 or 17 points," said Sean Van Patten, an oddsmaker at Sports Consultants in Las Vegas. "That's because most teams take their starters out in the fourth quarter of a lopsided game. The Patriots don't. I call this phenomenon The [Bill] Belichick Factor." By continuing to pour it on the fourth quarter, Belichick is throwing Vegas out of whack. And making bookies run for cover. >>
Now I'm really curious as to what the spread will be when the Pats play the Jets and Dolphins. Crazy.
/s/ JackWESQ
<< <i>If the record is not set in this game, Van Patten said, don't be surprised if it is threatened in two of the Patriots' upcoming games -- against the New York Jets on Dec. 16 or the Dolphins on Dec. 23. "The Jets game is the one to watch," said Van Patten. "The perception, at least, is that Belichick is running up the score because he's angry over Spygate. And he was caught by the Jets back in the first week of the season. It's gonna be payback time." >>
So you have the spread, the animosity spread and the payback spread?
/s/ JackWESQ
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You must be a soothsayer. The Pats are in fact favored by 24 points!
/s/ JackWESQ
/s/ JackWESQ
Pats: 27 Point Favorites
/s/ JackWESQ
The writers at CNNSI need to get a better bookie... the line opened at -24 and remains there everyone.
I don't see how anyone could take the Jets.