All Forums | General Discussion

A message to all rookies and "sharp" wanna-bes...

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 4732
Posts: 100
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 6442
Posted: #51
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

So if you expect this trend to continue, and want to put your money where your mouth is, do the following:
 
1.  Bet on the favorite minus the spread
2.  Also bet on the dog on the ML
 
The problem with this thread, and with this concept in general, is that you are taking a limited sample size (this season) and making a very generalized statement to "just bother picking winners and forget about the spread".
 
Unfortunately, a larger sample size makes this theory obsolete.  You can always find trends in data that would make for patterns in the short term (10 reds in a row on a roulette table), but longterm there is ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE to the theory you suggest.
 
Sorry to burst your bubble, and the many responses that really think you are on to something here - but this is a classic case of being fooled by randomness.
 


You see Vanzack, your argument is flawed to begin with and here is why:

betting on the favorite ATS and on the dog ML makes no sense to me.

You assume that the favorite is the team who should win the game, and that assumption is utterly wrong.

I don't base my analysis on the lines bookmakers come up with.

I base my analysis solely on my own opinion.  If I am good enough to read certain matchups corrently, I don't bother about the spread.  I am being serious.

Yesterday I wagered on 4 games:

Ravens ML, Bills ML, Falcons ATS and Patriots ATS.  Not taking the points in the Ravens game costed me 1 unit, but the Bills ML made up for it plus a lot more.

I don't care about the spread to the point that I never take the points when I bet an underdog.  I MUST BELIEVE IN THE DOG TO WIN STRAIGHT UP; If I don't believe the dog is going to win straight up and take the points, I am simply betting that team A won't lose by more than X points vs team B.  No thank you, I am not interested in that with the NFL.  Maybe it works better in the NBA, but even with bball I prefer to take dogs ML.

Anyways, thanks for the heads up about the "randomness".  I will keep that in mind at the end of the season when the sample size will be larger than it is now.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 6442
Posted: #52
Here is a summary of the 2009-2010 season so far:

Week 1: 12-4

Week 2: 15-1

Week 3: 15-1

Week 4: 12-2

Week 5: 11-3

Week 6: 10-3 with MNF pending

The 2009-2010 season total is 75-14 or 84.2%.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #53

Quote Originally Posted by ItalianSharp:



You see Vanzack, your argument is flawed to begin with and here is why:

betting on the favorite ATS and on the dog ML makes no sense to me.

You assume that the favorite is the team who should win the game, and that assumption is utterly wrong.

I don't base my analysis on the lines bookmakers come up with.

I base my analysis solely on my own opinion.  If I am good enough to read certain matchups corrently, I don't bother about the spread.  I am being serious.

Yesterday I wagered on 4 games:

Ravens ML, Bills ML, Falcons ATS and Patriots ATS.  Not taking the points in the Ravens game costed me 1 unit, but the Bills ML made up for it plus a lot more.

I don't care about the spread to the point that I never take the points when I bet an underdog.  I MUST BELIEVE IN THE DOG TO WIN STRAIGHT UP; If I don't believe the dog is going to win straight up and take the points, I am simply betting that team A won't lose by more than X points vs team B.  No thank you, I am not interested in that with the NFL.  Maybe it works better in the NBA, but even with bball I prefer to take dogs ML.

Anyways, thanks for the heads up about the "randomness".  I will keep that in mind at the end of the season when the sample size will be larger than it is now.

Sorry - but your argument is that the spread is only material in a small amount of games.

If that is the case, then if you bet the fav on the spread, and the dog on the ML - THE ONLY WAY YOU LOSE IS IF THE SPREAD COMES IN TO PLAY.

If your theory holds up, and if all you need to do is "pick the winner" - then you win.

I dont assume that the fav should win.  That wager is designed to capture your theory in total, it is the most perfect way to bet your theory, and if your theory holds up you will make money.

I think you totally misunderstand what I posted and should think about it.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #54
Anyway, the main point is that you have not uncovered some flaw in the differential of real lines between ML's and spread lines.....
 
You have uncovered a random pattern in a very small sample size that will even out over time.
 
But if you believe it wont even out over time, and you want to make money, you should bet:
 
EVERY SINGLE GAME WITH THE FAV ON THE SPREAD AND THE DOG ON THE ML.
 
Tell me how this works out for you, I will be watching this system closely.
 
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 6442
Posted: #55
Vanzack

Here are the stats for the 2008-2009 season so that we can have a larger sample size to evaluate this.

Week 1:  15-1

Week 2:  11-2

Week 3:  13-3

Week 4:  11-2

Week 5:  12-2

Week 6:  12-2

Week 7:  11-3

Week 8:  11-3

Week 9:  10-4

Week 10:  10-4

Week 11:  11-4

Week 12:  15-0

Week 13:  13-2

Week 14:  13-3

Week 15:  10-5


2008-2009 regular season total:  178-40 or 81.65%


The above stats combined with this year's stats seem to confirm evidence that if you pick the straight up winner, the spread doesn't come into play over 80% of the times.

Obviously, underdogs who win straight up ALWAYS cover the spread.

While I was examining last year's scores, I noticed something very interesting:  the few games where the SU winner doesn't cover the spread are very CLOSE games in which the UNDERDOG had a big chance at winning SU.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 6442
Posted: #56
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

Anyway, the main point is that you have not uncovered some flaw in the differential of real lines between ML's and spread lines.....
 
You have uncovered a random pattern in a very small sample size that will even out over time.
 
But if you believe it wont even out over time, and you want to make money, you should bet:
 
EVERY SINGLE GAME WITH THE FAV ON THE SPREAD AND THE DOG ON THE ML.
 
Tell me how this works out for you, I will be watching this system closely.
 


What you are suggesting here is a form of HEDGING and it may be the way to go for professional bettors who can afford to place large wagers and exploit the differential between ATS fav and ML dog.

The purpose of this thread is not to provide a betting system, but rather to provide evidence that if you nail the winner you will make money over the long haul without having to worry about public % or trap games or reverse traps or fixed games or whatever.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 6442
Posted: #57
Why was this thread moved to GENERAL DISCUSSION?

It was posted in the NFL forum for a reason.  It's not GENERAL DISCUSSION for god's sake.

Please moderators re-place this topic to where it belongs.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #58
Quote Originally Posted by ItalianSharp:

Vanzack

Here are the stats for the 2008-2009 season so that we can have a larger sample size to evaluate this.

Week 1:  15-1

Week 2:  11-2

Week 3:  13-3

Week 4:  11-2

Week 5:  12-2

Week 6:  12-2

Week 7:  11-3

Week 8:  11-3

Week 9:  10-4

Week 10:  10-4

Week 11:  11-4

Week 12:  15-0

Week 13:  13-2

Week 14:  13-3

Week 15:  10-5


2008-2009 regular season total:  178-40 or 81.65%


The above stats combined with this year's stats seem to confirm evidence that if you pick the straight up winner, the spread doesn't come into play over 80% of the times.

Obviously, underdogs who win straight up ALWAYS cover the spread.

While I was examining last year's scores, I noticed something very interesting:  the few games where the SU winner doesn't cover the spread are very CLOSE games in which the UNDERDOG had a big chance at winning SU.

OK great.

80% of the time, the spread doesnt matter.

Now, go back and attach a weighted value to the 20% that do matter.  In other words, if you bet that the spread wouldnt matter in every one of those games, would you have been profitable?

Your stat without an expected value attached is worthless.

Its kind of like saying that betting on a roulette wheel - anything except green is going to win about 94% of the time.  That is a true statement.  Now attach values to that, and it turns out that betting against green has a NEGATIVE expected value because of the payouts.

I look forward to seeing your conclusions.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #59

Quote Originally Posted by ItalianSharp:



What you are suggesting here is a form of HEDGING and it may be the way to go for professional bettors who can afford to place large wagers and exploit the differential between ATS fav and ML dog.

The purpose of this thread is not to provide a betting system, but rather to provide evidence that if you nail the winner you will make money over the long haul without having to worry about public % or trap games or reverse traps or fixed games or whatever.

What I am suggesting is not a hedge.

If you want to bet EXACTLY what you are saying, that is the PERFECT way to bet it.

Period.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 6442
Posted: #60
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:

What I am suggesting is not a hedge.

If you want to bet EXACTLY what you are saying, that is the PERFECT way to bet it.

Period.



Not really.

If you know that the spread doesn't come into play over 80% of the times, then it comes down to your skills of picking winners.

Betting on the ATS fav and ML underdog at the same time takes away that skill.  I am not interested in betting both teams in a single game;  I am only interested in betting who I believe it's going to win SU.

This way, if you are good at picking winners and reading football matchups, you will be rewarded by fav ATS and ML dogs.

Perhaps you missed my last post where I clearly stated this thread is not meant to provide a betting strategy.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2001
Posts: 59968
Posted: #61

Quote Originally Posted by ItalianSharp:



Not really.

If you know that the spread doesn't come into play over 80% of the times, then it comes down to your skills of picking winners.

Betting on the ATS fav and ML underdog at the same time takes away that skill.  I am not interested in betting both teams in a single game;  I am only interested in betting who I believe it's going to win SU.

This way, if you are good at picking winners and reading football matchups, you will be rewarded by fav ATS and ML dogs.

Perhaps you missed my last post where I clearly stated this thread is not meant to provide a betting strategy.

Well then - Im not really sure (other than pointing out the obvious) what you are telling us.....

50% of the time a favorite will win and cover the spread.

20% of the time a dog will lose and cover the spread.

30% of the time a dog will win outright.

Is that what you are saying in this thread?  80% of the above means that the spread is not involved.  But once again, that information does not exist in a vacuum - there are prices attached to it.

Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2009
Posts: 11137
Posted: #62
I have seen too many of these arguments over my days lurking at covers. What I have learned is that Vanzack never loses these debates. When I read the first page of this thread I was actually kind of dumbfounded by all of the "wow amazing post" comments. I knew Vanzack would set this theory straight
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 467
Posted: #63
It's not nearly as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.  Sure the numbers don't lie.  The team that wins will cover the spread most of the time.

The dog that wins out right will cover the spread, of course.  But you have to get in a little deeper than that.  6 of the 11 games yesterday had a spread of 4 points or less.  In those cases the team that is the 4 point dog has a very good chance of winning out right. 

What you're leaving out of the argument is the teams that are more than a 7 point dog.  How many of those teams actually win the game out right?  Furthermore, how many people are crazy enough to think that a 7 point dog is going to win the game straight up?

You look at yesterday's games and honestly tell me you would have bet on these teams...

St Louis +12
Buffalo +9.5
Cleveland +14
Kansas City +6.5
Oakland +14
Tennessee +9.5

How many of the above six games would you actually have chosen that team to win the game straight up?  Maybe Kansas City, but that's about it.

So if you're someone with any kind of football knowledge, according to how you play you would have bet on the opposite of all of those teams taking the favorite.  You would have won 1 out of the 6.  Even if you won every other game on the card (which is unlikely) you went 7-5.  Not the 12-2 like numbers you're putting up.

Look over any past stats that you want to.  Everyone covers at a 50% mark.  Whether it be home dog, road favorite, whatever. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 6442
Posted: #64
you guys are missing the core and simple point of this thread.  Please read the thread title again and read my first post again, maybe that will refresh your mind a little.

I am not offering a THEORY or a BETTING STRATEGY.  Hope this is clear by now.

I am trying to address all those who make their betting decisions based on weak arguments such as public %, casinos getting killed, Vegas making a killing, sharp plays vs square plays, line moves, trap games, reverse trap games, etc.

If you guys are immune to the above risks then good for you and move to another thread.  This thread clearly doesn't provide any sort of help to you.

On the other hand, if you like to spend your time in this thread just to bash my alleged theories or annihilate my special discoveries, then you are even more pathetic because my goal is to only provide evidence that if you are a good capper and can pick winners, the spread doesnt come into play over 80% of the times.

Can you pick winners in the NFL?  If yes, then dont worry about the spread.  Very simple concept, isn't it?

Example:  if you liked New England yesterday then you should have wagered on patriots ATS without worrying about laying 9pts.  Conversely, if you liked Oakland or the Bills in those spots, you'd have been better off betting them straight up at very very good odds.

I am not sure if I have been clear enough.  Many posters appreciated this thread and if you don't, move on somewhere else.  This thread is very simple, don't make it more complicated than necessary.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 6442
Posted: #65
Quote Originally Posted by TwistedMath:

It's not nearly as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.  Sure the numbers don't lie.  The team that wins will cover the spread most of the time.


Yep, numbers never lie.


Quote Originally Posted by TwistedMath:

The dog that wins out right will cover the spread, of course.  But you have to get in a little deeper than that.  6 of the 11 games yesterday had a spread of 4 points or less.  In those cases the team that is the 4 point dog has a very good chance of winning out right.


Are you saying that because of the spread?  Let me get this straight: if the spread is around 3 pts, then the game is a toss up whereas when it's 7-10 pts then the favorite SHOULD WIN?  I don't base my analysis on the lines posted by bookmakers.  In fact, I don't even look at the lines earlier than Thursday.  I focus on picking winners for those games I can analyze clearly.  Whenever I have any doubt, I pass.

Quote Originally Posted by TwistedMath:

What you're leaving out of the argument is the teams that are more than a 7 point dog.  How many of those teams actually win the game out right?  Furthermore, how many people are crazy enough to think that a 7 point dog is going to win the game straight up?


I didn't know that 7pt dogs weren't allowed to win in the NFL or that only crazy degenerate gamblers bet those dogs on the ML.  I got to be one of those out-of-whack guys.

Quote Originally Posted by TwistedMath:

You look at yesterday's games and honestly tell me you would have bet on these teams...

St Louis +12
Buffalo +9.5
Cleveland +14
Kansas City +6.5
Oakland +14
Tennessee +9.5

How many of the above six games would you actually have chosen that team to win the game straight up?  Maybe Kansas City, but that's about it.


Yesterday I bet on 2 dogs and 2 favs.  I had Ravens and Bills ML and Patriots and Falcons ATS.  The spread came into play on the Baltimore game and I lost my wager.  Mind you, Baltimore missed a FG with 5secs left on the clock and had a big chance to win ST.  Anyways, the Bills ML play more than made up for it.

You don't have to pick winners for each game;  just focus on those games you understand, focus on those teams you know better than others.  It's a skill to pick winners.  If you believe in your skills, you'll have no problems betting a 14pt-dog SU.  Try it for yourself and after a couple of big ML wins, you'll start to enjoy the feeling.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 5105
Posted: #66
very nice
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2003
Posts: 8346
Posted: #67
Quote Originally Posted by supadame:

Best post I've read in a while. Pretty much sums up what I've been feeling over the last two weeks, but too lazy to type.
 
Another perfect example of this was on the college side last Thursday. Mizzou and Nebraska, game was played in horrible conditions. Game screaming under. Over was basically sitting on our faces.
 
1/2 the board went with the over because:
A. Too many people on the under
B. They wanted to be cute and "fade the public".
 
There was one genius that even said weather doesn't affect totals.
 
Game easily and predictably went under because of the bad conditions.
 

That Mizzou / Nebraska game went under because it was awful football, period. Nothing to do about the weather. Nebraska's team total was set at 27 and they hit that in one quarter basically, when they decided to get their head out of their asses. I assume that the New England / Tenn game was affected by the weather? Shit, NE could have hung 80+ in a blizzard that game. Bad weather helps offenses and hampers defenses, which normally means more scoring in bad weather.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 6442
Posted: #68
Yep, numbers never lie.


[Quote: Originally Posted by TwistedMath]The dog that wins out right will cover the spread, of course.  But you have to get in a little deeper than that.  6 of the 11 games yesterday had a spread of 4 points or less.  In those cases the team that is the 4 point dog has a very good chance of winning out right.


Are you saying that because of the spread?  Let me get this straight: if the spread is around 3 pts, then the game is a toss up whereas when it's 7-10 pts then the favorite SHOULD WIN?  I don't base my analysis on the lines posted by bookmakers.  In fact, I don't even look at the lines earlier than Thursday.  I focus on picking winners for those games I can analyze clearly.  Whenever I have any doubt, I pass.

Quote Originally Posted by TwistedMath:

What you're leaving out of the argument is the teams that are more than a 7 point dog.  How many of those teams actually win the game out right?  Furthermore, how many people are crazy enough to think that a 7 point dog is going to win the game straight up?


I didn't know that 7pt dogs weren't allowed to win in the NFL or that only crazy degenerate gamblers bet those dogs on the ML.  I got to be one of those out-of-whack guys.

Quote Originally Posted by TwistedMath:

You look at yesterday's games and honestly tell me you would have bet on these teams...

St Louis +12
Buffalo +9.5
Cleveland +14
Kansas City +6.5
Oakland +14
Tennessee +9.5

How many of the above six games would you actually have chosen that team to win the game straight up?  Maybe Kansas City, but that's about it.


Yesterday I bet on 2 dogs and 2 favs.  I had Ravens and Bills ML and Patriots and Falcons ATS.  The spread came into play on the Baltimore game and I lost my wager.  Mind you, Baltimore missed a FG with 5secs left on the clock and had a big chance to win ST.  Anyways, the Bills ML play more than made up for it.

You don't have to pick winners for each game;  just focus on those games you understand, focus on those teams you know better than others.  It's a skill to pick winners.  If you believe in your skills, you'll have no problems betting a 14pt-dog SU.  Try it for yourself and after a couple of big ML wins, you'll start to enjoy the feeling.


Are you saying that because of the spread?  Let me get this straight: if the spread is around 3 pts, then the game is a toss up whereas when it's 7-10 pts then the favorite SHOULD WIN?  I don't base my analysis on the lines posted by bookmakers.  In fact, I don't even look at the lines earlier than Thursday.  I focus on picking winners for those games I can analyze clearly.  Whenever I have any doubt, I pass.

Quote Originally Posted by TwistedMath:

What you're leaving out of the argument is the teams that are more than a 7 point dog.  How many of those teams actually win the game out right?  Furthermore, how many people are crazy enough to think that a 7 point dog is going to win the game straight up?


I didn't know that 7pt dogs weren't allowed to win in the NFL or that only crazy degenerate gamblers bet those dogs on the ML.  I got to be one of those out-of-whack guys.

Quote Originally Posted by TwistedMath:

You look at yesterday's games and honestly tell me you would have bet on these teams...

St Louis +12
Buffalo +9.5
Cleveland +14
Kansas City +6.5
Oakland +14
Tennessee +9.5

How many of the above six games would you actually have chosen that team to win the game straight up?  Maybe Kansas City, but that's about it.


Yesterday I bet on 2 dogs and 2 favs.  I had Ravens and Bills ML and Patriots and Falcons ATS.  The spread came into play on the Baltimore game and I lost my wager.  Mind you, Baltimore missed a FG with 5secs left on the clock and had a big chance to win ST.  Anyways, the Bills ML play more than made up for it.

You don't have to pick winners for each game;  just focus on those games you understand, focus on those teams you know better than others.  It's a skill to pick winners.  If you believe in your skills, you'll have no problems betting a 14pt-dog SU.  Try it for yourself and after a couple of big ML wins, you'll start to enjoy the feeling.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 6442
Posted: #69
Yep, numbers never lie.


The dog that wins out right will cover the spread, of course.  But you have to get in a little deeper than that.  6 of the 11 games yesterday had a spread of 4 points or less.  In those cases the team that is the 4 point dog has a very good chance of winning out right.

Are you saying that because of the spread?  Let me get this straight: if the spread is around 3 pts, then the game is a toss up whereas when it's 7-10 pts then the favorite SHOULD WIN?  I don't base my analysis on the lines posted by bookmakers.  In fact, I don't even look at the lines earlier than Thursday.  I focus on picking winners for those games I can analyze clearly.  Whenever I have any doubt, I pass.

What you're leaving out of the argument is the teams that are more than a 7 point dog.  How many of those teams actually win the game out right?  Furthermore, how many people are crazy enough to think that a 7 point dog is going to win the game straight up?

I didn't know that 7pt dogs weren't allowed to win in the NFL or that only crazy degenerate gamblers bet those dogs on the ML.  I got to be one of those out-of-whack guys.

You look at yesterday's games and honestly tell me you would have bet on these teams...

St Louis +12
Buffalo +9.5
Cleveland +14
Kansas City +6.5
Oakland +14
Tennessee +9.5

How many of the above six games would you actually have chosen that team to win the game straight up?  Maybe Kansas City, but that's about it.

Yesterday I bet on 2 dogs and 2 favs.  I had Ravens and Bills ML and Patriots and Falcons ATS.  The spread came into play on the Baltimore game and I lost my wager.  Mind you, Baltimore missed a FG with 5secs left on the clock and had a big chance to win ST.  Anyways, the Bills ML play more than made up for it.

You don't have to pick winners for each game;  just focus on those games you understand, focus on those teams you know better than others.  It's a skill to pick winners.  If you believe in your skills, you'll have no problems betting a 14pt-dog SU.  Try it for yourself and after a couple of big ML wins, you'll start to enjoy the feeling.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2008
Posts: 3356
Posted: #70

Quote Originally Posted by ItalianSharp:

Vanzack

Here are the stats for the 2008-2009 season so that we can have a larger sample size to evaluate this.

Week 1:  15-1

Week 2:  11-2

Week 3:  13-3

Week 4:  11-2

Week 5:  12-2

Week 6:  12-2

Week 7:  11-3

Week 8:  11-3

Week 9:  10-4

Week 10:  10-4

Week 11:  11-4

Week 12:  15-0

Week 13:  13-2

Week 14:  13-3

Week 15:  10-5


2008-2009 regular season total:  178-40 or 81.65%

Looking back of course it's easy to say it hits at 81.65%. But if you applied this strategy in real time over the course of a season you would not hit anywhere close to 80%. I hate to be the one to break it to you but applying this mentality is no different than using public percentages etc which of course are 100% useless.

You are completely throwing out the aspect of actually having to pick the winner of a game. Correct me if I am wrong but all you did was you went back and looked at how often the SU winner covers the spread. You have managed to completely throw out the whole human element. The 81.65% assumes that the person can correctly pick the SU winner in EVERY SINGLE one of the 218 games used in the sample.

The 81.65% is 100% meaningless. For someone to hit at that percent they would have had to correctly select the SU winner of every single one of the games you mentioned. For every SU loser a person makes out of the 218 games the 81.65% will drop.

When you look back and compile stats like these you are completely removing the human element in gambling. The 81.65% is assuming someone can correctly select the SU winner 100% of the time.

I’m in a bit of a rush, not sure how well I articulated my point but I think you can understand where I am coming from.

 

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 467
Posted: #71
You're not respecting the line though.  If the Bills are a 9.5 point dog and you think they'll beat the Jets then you've done something wrong or missed a key aspect when you handicapped the game.

I didn't post in this thread to bash you.  I posted in this thread because you are clearly misguiding the people who are responding with "great post".

I'm saying this because you can't just pick the team that's going to win and expect to win money in the long run.

The general public bet big on 4 games yesterday...

Jacksonville -9.5
The Rams stink.  No one thought they had any chance to win this game.

NY Giants +3
You said yourself any game that is within a 3 point spread is a tossup.

Philadelphia -14
No one in their right mind thought the Raiders had a chance to win this game.  I'm a Raider fan so I follow them closely.  Even I thought Philly would cover the 14.

New England -9.5
Hard to bet on a team that is 0-5.

If you are part of the majority, and I'm not saying you are, these were obvious plays.  You said yourself you're trying to pick winners.  Can St Louis beat Jacksonville?  Probably not.  They didn't cover.  Can the Giants who are undefeated beat New Orleans?  Sure they can.  They didn't cover.  Can the Raiders beat the Eagles?  Anyone would any football knowledge would have said no.  Can New England beat a terrible winless Tennessee team?  Absolutely.

The general public did exactly what you just told them to do.  They picked winners and ignored the spread.  They went 1-3 in the games they liked the most.

The example you're using isn't even close to what you're trying to get across with this thread.  You're asking people to pick winners.  If they take that approach they'll surely lose money in the long run.  On any given Sunday if you just bet on teams without thinking about the spread you'll usually go 50%

And if you're argument is that the thread was directed at people that analyze things such as public plays and line moves I'll gladly argue that point til I'm blue in the face as well because you couldn't be more wrong.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2008
Posts: 3356
Posted: #72

Let’s use your 80% statistic for my example. (This is not a good idea because the sample is much too small. To do this properly you would need to compile the statistics over a much larger sample size. Definitely 1000+ games.)

So, 80% of the time the spread doesn’t come into play when you pick a SU winner. (I am very sceptical using this 80%, the sample size is way too small for it to be reliable)

Let’s assume all our spread wagers will be placed at -110. This requires us to win our bets 52% of the time to break even.

To break even using this strategy, assuming the 80% is the correct percentage which I am sceptical about.  We would need to correctly pick the SU winner of each NFL game 65% of the time.

65/100*4/5=52%

If you would like to seriously analyze your theory you need to come up with a % using a much larger sample size. I am almost certain that the percentage you will get using a larger sample size will be smaller than 80%.

As the 80% drops, you will be required to select a higher % of SU winners to break even. Go back and calculate the % it hits over a larger sample size and we can figure out what % you will have to pick the SU winner for this to be successful.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2008
Posts: 3356
Posted: #73
You also need to prove that there is meaningful correlation in the data.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 6442
Posted: #74
Quote Originally Posted by BigBaby11:

Looking back of course it's easy to say it hits at 81.65%. But if you applied this strategy in real time over the course of a season you would not hit anywhere close to 80%. I hate to be the one to break it to you but applying this mentality is no different than using public percentages etc which of course are 100% useless.

You are completely throwing out the aspect of actually having to pick the winner of a game. Correct me if I am wrong but all you did was you went back and looked at how often the SU winner covers the spread. You have managed to completely throw out the whole human element. The 81.65% assumes that the person can correctly pick the SU winner in EVERY SINGLE one of the 218 games used in the sample.

The 81.65% is 100% meaningless. For someone to hit at that percent they would have had to correctly select the SU winner of every single one of the games you mentioned. For every SU loser a person makes out of the 218 games the 81.65% will drop.

When you look back and compile stats like these you are completely removing the human element in gambling. The 81.65% is assuming someone can correctly select the SU winner 100% of the time.

I’m in a bit of a rush, not sure how well I articulated my point but I think you can understand where I am coming from.

 



Who said you need to pick EACH STRAIGHT UP WINNER for all games???  Hell, if I even had the presumption to do that I wouldn't be posting at this forum and I'd be millionaire and retired by now.

Read my prior posts please.

Whenever I look at the Sunday card, I'd say that more than half of the games are a heads up to me.  I always try to narrow my focus on those games I feel I have a good understanding about.

The 80%+ number is just mathematical evidence that the spread seems to not come into play in the NFL if you can nail winners consistently.

Can you?  That's the big question.  This thread is not meant to teach you how to pick winners, but rather to encourage bettors to focus on who's going to win the game SU.  The spread will then be taken care of.
 
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 13407
Posted: #75
Looks like a whole lot of trouble over nothing.  I don't get it...

Every dog that wins covers, so that makes up about 50% of your stats and about half of the time that the fav wins they cover, which takes it up near 75%.  Pretty close to the 80% that you are seeing so far this season.  This is shitty math but I'm not crunching the numbers for this.
All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2025 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.