'not a math guy' is the excuse he uses when he's asked about how much he lost on his porn token scam
This is golden.
This is golden.
I'm not saying buying points isn't something you shouldn't do, but I've never understood buying just to get a possible push. If you don't have enough faith in KC +2.5 to bet that or the ML @ +$ , then you might wanna think about why you like KC....why would you go with +3 -132 just to push....might as well keep going and buy to +3.5 in that case.....
I'm not saying buying points isn't something you shouldn't do, but I've never understood buying just to get a possible push. If you don't have enough faith in KC +2.5 to bet that or the ML @ +$ , then you might wanna think about why you like KC....why would you go with +3 -132 just to push....might as well keep going and buy to +3.5 in that case.....
For me , price is the most important part of being able to determine my WP
on a wager. I will buy points to get a wager at my threshold of a 72 % WP.
I agree with Train though, you might as well buy to + 3 ' and get the higher WP
in the process.
For me , price is the most important part of being able to determine my WP
on a wager. I will buy points to get a wager at my threshold of a 72 % WP.
I agree with Train though, you might as well buy to + 3 ' and get the higher WP
in the process.
This argument is all about implied odds.
At -110, to have an edge you must believe that your bet will win more than 52.38% of the time.
At -132, your bet must win more than 56.90% of the time (4.62% higher than -110).
As others have mentioned, when buying from 2.5 to 3, you are increasing your odds of pushing, NOT of winning. To me, this makes the benefit of buying from 2.5 to 3 about half as valuable as the implied odds difference would indicate.
Buying from 2.5 to 3 (with these odds) then only makes sense if you believe that KC will lose by exactly 3 more than ~9% of the time.
We know from vanzack's and other published data that NFL games land on 3 approximately 15% of the time. On an average NFL game, buying from 2.5 to 3 at the above odds is therefore a bad decision.
HOWEVER, when the total is lower or when teams are more "evenly matched" than the average 2.5 line (this is where handicapping individual games comes into play), it is very reasonable to believe that one team has a 9% chance of losing by exactly 3. To make the argument more nuanced, books offer vastly different prices to buy points. Most recreational books offer poor odds when buying points.
Differing opinions about this topic can (and will) be reasonably defended. I suggest everyone has an implied odds calculator like the one from actionnetwork bookmarked and readily accessible.
This argument is all about implied odds.
At -110, to have an edge you must believe that your bet will win more than 52.38% of the time.
At -132, your bet must win more than 56.90% of the time (4.62% higher than -110).
As others have mentioned, when buying from 2.5 to 3, you are increasing your odds of pushing, NOT of winning. To me, this makes the benefit of buying from 2.5 to 3 about half as valuable as the implied odds difference would indicate.
Buying from 2.5 to 3 (with these odds) then only makes sense if you believe that KC will lose by exactly 3 more than ~9% of the time.
We know from vanzack's and other published data that NFL games land on 3 approximately 15% of the time. On an average NFL game, buying from 2.5 to 3 at the above odds is therefore a bad decision.
HOWEVER, when the total is lower or when teams are more "evenly matched" than the average 2.5 line (this is where handicapping individual games comes into play), it is very reasonable to believe that one team has a 9% chance of losing by exactly 3. To make the argument more nuanced, books offer vastly different prices to buy points. Most recreational books offer poor odds when buying points.
Differing opinions about this topic can (and will) be reasonably defended. I suggest everyone has an implied odds calculator like the one from actionnetwork bookmarked and readily accessible.
Walters did say in the article that he is hitting at 57% this year, so there is that.
Walters did say in the article that he is hitting at 57% this year, so there is that.
Exactly! Perfect post. So if you say a game lands on 3 15% of the time, you have roughly 7.5% chance it lands of 9ers by 3. Divide by 2 since you only get a push, its only a 3.75% advantage while you have to win 4.62% more often. Like you siad you might be able to rationalize the 3.75 up to a 4.62% if you believe game will be close/ low scoring. Whether that rationalization is accurate or not determines if you have a +EV or -EV position.
Exactly! Perfect post. So if you say a game lands on 3 15% of the time, you have roughly 7.5% chance it lands of 9ers by 3. Divide by 2 since you only get a push, its only a 3.75% advantage while you have to win 4.62% more often. Like you siad you might be able to rationalize the 3.75 up to a 4.62% if you believe game will be close/ low scoring. Whether that rationalization is accurate or not determines if you have a +EV or -EV position.
If you know your true win probability ( not guessing or wishing and hoping )
it makes sense to buy up to your desired ( within reason ) WP.
You will overcome the extra costs involved over the long run if you
use a 70 % WP or better as your benchmark.
If you do not know how to validate your WP and are just guessing when
you make a wager it is better not to buy points as you will just be
digging a deeper hole for yourself.
If you know your true win probability ( not guessing or wishing and hoping )
it makes sense to buy up to your desired ( within reason ) WP.
You will overcome the extra costs involved over the long run if you
use a 70 % WP or better as your benchmark.
If you do not know how to validate your WP and are just guessing when
you make a wager it is better not to buy points as you will just be
digging a deeper hole for yourself.
Nothing wrong with laying 135 as long as you win 57.45% of your bets
Just like theres nothing wrong with laying….say -1250, as long as you win 92.6% of the time…good luck with that btw but if it is actually really a 95% chance of happening, you actually do have an edge when laying -1250 (see vanzacks post about the onside kick in the superbowl)
The analysis really just comes down to whether the extra 22cents you pay is worth the % of time that it actually matters. I feel like qualified handicappers could argue both sides fairly easily.
Nothing wrong with laying 135 as long as you win 57.45% of your bets
Just like theres nothing wrong with laying….say -1250, as long as you win 92.6% of the time…good luck with that btw but if it is actually really a 95% chance of happening, you actually do have an edge when laying -1250 (see vanzacks post about the onside kick in the superbowl)
The analysis really just comes down to whether the extra 22cents you pay is worth the % of time that it actually matters. I feel like qualified handicappers could argue both sides fairly easily.
You probably do this instinctually without realizing it..
Have you ever seen a bet where you saw the line at -160 and said, “nah thats too expensive. I would bet it at -135 though.”
What you are saying mathematically, whether you know it or not, is that “i dont think this bet wins 61.54% of the time, but if it only has to win 57.45% of the time i think i have an edge”
If you could see the future and knew for a fact this was a 60% outcome (which is basically what you are saying when you lay your money down), then this would be a negative bet at -160 but would be profitable at -135…
You probably do this instinctually without realizing it..
Have you ever seen a bet where you saw the line at -160 and said, “nah thats too expensive. I would bet it at -135 though.”
What you are saying mathematically, whether you know it or not, is that “i dont think this bet wins 61.54% of the time, but if it only has to win 57.45% of the time i think i have an edge”
If you could see the future and knew for a fact this was a 60% outcome (which is basically what you are saying when you lay your money down), then this would be a negative bet at -160 but would be profitable at -135…
You don't need to see the future , but you do need a capping method that
calculates the outcome of a contest with high resolution and accuracy, and
will do so on a consistent basis. Then you can determine probability.
You don't need to see the future , but you do need a capping method that
calculates the outcome of a contest with high resolution and accuracy, and
will do so on a consistent basis. Then you can determine probability.
Same thing!
Same thing!
@begginerboy
The sharps that are saying they never buy points are saying so because it affects the value of the bet obviously. If you don’t shop around for the best value on a bet or keep detailed statistics on every possible thing or make a living betting sports then buying points isn’t a bad move. Most of us don’t fall into that category where buying a half point or so matters.
@begginerboy
The sharps that are saying they never buy points are saying so because it affects the value of the bet obviously. If you don’t shop around for the best value on a bet or keep detailed statistics on every possible thing or make a living betting sports then buying points isn’t a bad move. Most of us don’t fall into that category where buying a half point or so matters.
Back in the late '80's when I decided to get serious about Sports Betting,
I committed to using Kelly as my MM strategy .The first thing learned is that
I had to know my true capability as a consistent capper because that's the
only way I would succeed using Kelly. Once I learned my limitations , the next
30 years I dedicated to trying to improve and sharpen my skills.
Using Kelly caused me to dig much deeper than I ever would otherwise.
Back in the late '80's when I decided to get serious about Sports Betting,
I committed to using Kelly as my MM strategy .The first thing learned is that
I had to know my true capability as a consistent capper because that's the
only way I would succeed using Kelly. Once I learned my limitations , the next
30 years I dedicated to trying to improve and sharpen my skills.
Using Kelly caused me to dig much deeper than I ever would otherwise.
I dont have any stats in front of me....but I'm willing to bet if you took every dog that closed at +2.5 this year and compared the end result (total $ won) ML vs +3 -132 , that buying that 1/2 point was essentially a waste of time & money....
I dont have any stats in front of me....but I'm willing to bet if you took every dog that closed at +2.5 this year and compared the end result (total $ won) ML vs +3 -132 , that buying that 1/2 point was essentially a waste of time & money....
Train, you know what is really funny? All these guys who buy points on every game, dont even realize the books let bettors buy points because its no disadvantage for them. If books were losing money cause bettors were buying points, that would be the end of buying points. Thats why books stopped letting bettors make correlated parlays cause bettors were beating them up on those things. Books love the bettors that want to lay 1.30 or 1.40 on their bets. I wont even argue with bettors about that anymore. if you really believe that you need to buy a point or 2 in order to win your bet, then that pick isnt really that strong and you should just pass.
Train, you know what is really funny? All these guys who buy points on every game, dont even realize the books let bettors buy points because its no disadvantage for them. If books were losing money cause bettors were buying points, that would be the end of buying points. Thats why books stopped letting bettors make correlated parlays cause bettors were beating them up on those things. Books love the bettors that want to lay 1.30 or 1.40 on their bets. I wont even argue with bettors about that anymore. if you really believe that you need to buy a point or 2 in order to win your bet, then that pick isnt really that strong and you should just pass.
Of course, it's like side bets at a casino. It's not offered because it's profitable.
Thst being said I think it's fine once in a while on key numbers. And yes I do understand the math.
Of course, it's like side bets at a casino. It's not offered because it's profitable.
Thst being said I think it's fine once in a while on key numbers. And yes I do understand the math.
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.