I don't understand how anyone could bet UConn ML or UK -2.5

I'm seeing a ton of people taking either the UConn ML or Kentucky with the spread. With a game as much of a toss-up as this one, I can't begin to understand how anyone would take on that unnecessary additional risk....

Look at the last game for example, Wisconsin vs. Kentucky. I was debating ALL DAY whether to take Wisconsin +1.5 or Kentucky ML, to the point where I almost didn't even bet the game. I ended up taking Wisconsin +1.5, but really it didn't even matter which side I took because I would have won the bet either way...

Maybe I'm just a conservative gambler, but I've gotten to the point where I'll never take a basketball/football dog ML or a spread if it's -4.5 or below. I understand the logic if a moneyline is something like +260 and you're looking for a value play, but how much value is +125 when you have the option to take a +2.5 spread?

I'm pretty addied out right now so I'm probably rambling, but I'll close with this, for long-term success TAKE THE POINTS OR BET THE -140 MONEYLINE, DON'T BE GREEDY

UConn +2.5 for me tonight

First off the ML is -150 or worse for most people. Risking an extra 40 cents for an extra point in a half of comfort means

You must win 52.3% of the time to break even with a -110 line
You must win 60% of the time just to break even with a -150 line


Do you feel like you can win 8% more often buying down from  a 2.5 pt line?

i sure as hell dont

i would lay -145 ml, not worth the stress if it comes down to the last minute, which it has in the last few kent games.  you can always hedge it uconn +3 -120 to middle it or in game if kent builds a lead.

You bring up a good point, but I still think over the long-term it makes sense to risk that extra 40 cents...

Look at it this way:

Say you either bet;

$110 on Kentucky -2.5 to win $100, or
$150 on Kentucky -150 to win $100

If Kentucky wins by 3 or more, you win either bet and are +$100, everyone's happy

If Kentucky wins by less than 2, you're winning $100, INSTEAD of losing $110, thus +$210, considering you would have been -$110 had you taken the spread

If Kentucky loses the game, and you bet the moneyline, you lose $150, but you would have lost the $110 regardless for taking the spread bet, so really, you're only down $40 more than you would have been....

Maybe this only makes sense to me, but hopefully somebody else sees the logic here

Well, it is pretty simple actually.

If I can get +138 on the UConn ML, is the +2.5 points worth the 38 cents I will have to pay to get those points?

I don't know the answer - I am asking. And the answer to that is the answer to your original question.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but what I'm trying to say is

For a +138 moneyline bet, you could either win $138, or $100 if you take the points. Is the additional $38 really worth the possibility of losing you're entire bet if the team loses by a point or two? I think those who bet the Wisconsin ML on Saturday would say no...

The point I'm trying to make is, think about all the games where it's -2.5/-3 and the favorite ends up winning by 1 or 2 points. Countless number of games every year. If you approach those games with the approach of either taking the Favorite moneyline, or Dog +points, you will win 100% of those games when they fall within that margin

Childish how in he hell does it make sense over the long haul? That's where is really makes no sense whatsoever.

That extra 40 dollars you risked on that one game where you most likely would have lost anyway will be multiplied hundreds or thousands of times over someones betting career.

it's really that simple. Do you think taking a team to win by 1 or 2 points gives you an 8% better edge at winning your bet over the long haul.

I would bet you anything that the margin of victory is over 3 pts more than 92% of the time and THIS IS EVEN IF YOU PICKED THE RIGHT TEAM ON THE ML.


So think of yourself picking the correct team first and foremost (let's call it a 55-45 chance) AND it landed exactly on 1 or two points on that exact same team you picked....you feel as though you are gaining a better than 7.8% advantage over the long term with this strategy?

Think about it for a minute

I'm not sure where you're pulling all these numbers from, but you brought up a good point...

By risking the moneyline and losing your bet, you're losing that additional $40, and using this approach, that additional loss is multiplied hundreds of times over one's betting career...

HOWEVER

On the other side of that, when a team doesn't cover the spread but wins, you're not only winning the bet, but you're not losing the bet AS YOU WOULD HAVE taking the spread, a +$210 net effect in the example above...

Granted, the -$40 factor is going to occur MUCH MORE frequently, but the $210 (or however much you bet) will also have it's own multiplying factor over your entire betting career...

I see what you're saying, but I think you have to look at it from both angles

type in your moneylines here and they tell you a breakeven win %

https://www.covers.com/sportsbetting/money_lines.aspx

you are correct that there is a flip side to both positions but the side you are saying does not justify the actual 7.8% win benefit that is needed to cover the extra juice.

In order for your position to be correct you would have to win a -150 ML bet while the -2.5 spread is a losing bet( if you would have taken it instead )better than 1 in every 13 times you bet. I don't have archived data showing this can't happen better than once every 13 times you bet but with the experience I have wagering I would feel that is does not reach this number most years

Jesus Christ guys enough math for a second lol until someone experiences a bad beat on a spread that's 3 or less most likely they will continue to bet the spread until it happens to them .. and if it has to happen multiple times then that person is just an idiot.. I personally would much rather risk the extra couple bucks anything 3 or less im on the moneyline fcuk a bad beat its happened to me twice NEVER AGAIN THOUGH! just like with UK's last game I took them ML thank god!

 I have looked hard at both sides of this issue and have concluded that it really comes down to a case by case basis. The NBA in particular is notorious for keeping it close to the line at the end and winning but not covering, especially when there has been line movement involved. I don't think that it usually pays off in college where the end of games are handled so much differently. The tourney is a little different because of the frequency of buzzer beaters, for whatever reason.  Again , I think it's case by case and i used to believe never buy points, better to sell them if you can[ dog ML]. I think that's particularly true in Bowl season.

I think it really boils down to whether or not you think slightly better odds is worth the possibility of losing your entire bet if the team doesn't cover...

Saturday a ton of cappers were on Kentucky -1.5, compared to the moneyline which was only around -130... and in this case the spread lost while the moneyline won...

I know this is only one game, but this kind of game happens ALL THE TIME, especially in NBA...

The point is, by just being conservative and taking either Wisconsin +1.5 or Kentucky -130, or whatever game it is, you win 100% of the games that fall within that small range no matter which side you take vs. losing the "value" play of Wisconsin ML or Kentucky -1.5