Ok, it's time for me to school everybody here... Even the posters with winning records... Listen up....

Stop posting +1, +1.5 +2 and +2.5 picks.... 8 out of the 91 games this season have been settled by 2 points or less..  this is only a 1 in every 11.4 or whatever......... games this happens...

a +2.5 play with 1.854 odds is not worth it when the same pick at -2.5 pays 2.36

$100 bet pays $85.40 on +2.5 odds... same bet pays $136 at -2.5....  Only a 8. something percent chance you will lose the game by 2 points or less.. You always want to pick the team that is winning the game.... that is worth risking $85.40 to win $50.60 for only a 8. something percent chance you will lose every single effing time... Do you guys want to be long term winners or not???

Dafuq 

What math are you using? Last time I checked -110 pays the same both ways as far spread bets go which is what most lines are. Seems like your using ML math but talking about spread betting.

Naw he's right, a little off on some math but the premise is correct.

$100 flat on -110 returns $90.91 

I'm talking about the odds I am seeing specifically for the san fran and new England game.. san fran +2.5 is paying 1.854 and -2.5 pays 2.36...With the amount of games resulting in 2 points or less being 8. something percent.. You're burning money not picking san fran -2.5 compared to +2.5

I got you you're talking about selling points I've done it a couple of time you're correct then sir.

+1 spread = -104 ML

+1.5 = +101

+2 = +105

+2.5 = +110

+3 = +134

It's rare to lose by 1 or 2 points in the NFL. So you are doing yourself a disservice by paying -110(or more) for +1, +1.5, +2, or +2.5

But it can happen, like River Boat Ron going for 2 down by one. In a division game where 6 or 7 wins will win the division...

We get it if you are retired and flat betting on a  bankroll and following a long term plan. But....who the fuck actually does that? Never met anyone in my life stick to a flat bet system with the discipline to do it long term. What’s even the percentage of actual betters that follow this flat bet 1 year bankroll plan? Like 10% because 90% are degenerates who go up one week then lose it the next. Then you have these flat better season pros who say play with discipline and only flat bet because it’s a marathon not a sprint...yea ok....here’s a REAL situation....Monday night I’m down 500 bucks need to win it back and I’m getting Texans +2 and titans comeback and win by 1 on final drive...Titans win 28-27 final and I can finally relax because I got my 500 back thanks to the +2. That’s real shit you know what real gamblers go through...not marathon flat betters who start with a bankroll plan that Relies on a 401k betting plan...

everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face...well I got punched in the face I need that 500 back on Monday night to break even so I don’t have to pay the man...that’s reality...

Yes, exactly.  I took the cardinals -6.5 against Dallas at +245.

If you can get the side right, I am a huge fan of alternative lines for positive equity.  Just don't get too bold.

My friend, as long as you are not spewing nonsense stuff I can try to help. Just as I did with your multi 500 dollar max bet on the lakers hehe. 

What you mention does not have much relevance, because, even when it seems as a lot because you probably are new to this, 91 games is a very small sample size. If I follow that logic of yours I can try to go and find a scoring differential this season that beats the odds generally given by bookmakers, and I could say that there is a profitable bet on betting that blindly. E.g., maybe this season we have had 15 games ending by 3 points, and the bookies offer you 10-1 if the final score is that one (this is an example not based on the season´s facts). One could conclude that there is a profitable bet there, but your reasoning would be flawed, and short-term results oriented. It does not work that way. 

Even with your numbers, this season 8.5% of games have ended by a 2.5 margin. And the difference between the +2.5 and -2.5 lines, reflects an 11% change more or less. So, it actually is not that huge of a difference. 

I´ve always thought that if you find value on a given team, the EV difference between betting such team´s spread or ML is not that much. There are scenarios where it matters, for example, betting OKC Thunder ML this season, since in close games they came up on top always. But generally speaking, it won´t make much of a difference because the odds for each point on the spread are mathematically estimated once that the book sets up their main line. You will hear a lot of people criticizing "buying points", but in the long run, it does not make that much of a difference. 

The only way you can actually show relevance to this is to analyze the games that have +1 or +2 pt spreads. That 91 games would shrink drastically and the % of losses most likely increases since conventional wisdom would say that games that are close to even tend to be closer. It’s pointless to include the results of a Ravens game where they’re 14 point favorites in your sample.

I disagree completely, as I can remember several times in the last 2 seasons were I won bets on SU losers that I had bet at +2 or 2.5.

With the PAT being moved and teams going for 2 late in games for wins more often in both college and pro, there are enough situations where teams win by less than 3 to make it worth it.

While it's easy to say it was only 8 out of 91 games or whatever, that doesn't matter if the games I bet on are in that 8 I want that winner. If I'm 3-3 on the day or week and that last pick scrapes a win at +2 that would be a loss at SU, it's the difference between a profitable day or week.

To me, the small difference in payout on the wins is less appealing than taking any loss as the loss is for the whole unit or 2 units or whatever you put on, the extra winnings is nowhere near a unit.

And when I like the favorite at those numbers I take the moneyline every time. People think, oh it's less than a FG, well there's always gamewinning FGs kicked week in week out and it's not always to break a tie.

If you are a parlay bettor I definitely suggest taking the small plus spreads and doing moneyline on the less than FG favs. Last week I had one with the Titans-, Eagles+, Detroit-, TB+, Miami- on the spread and the Giants who were -2.5 so I took moneyline. If you had the spread you got a brutal backdoor with a last minute TD and Rivera gambling to go for 2 and failing. Would have really left a sour taste if that was the lone loser in a 6 teamer, don't you think?

Likewise if you had Washington +2.5. once they decided to go for 2, your bet was a winner regardless of the outcome of the play. If you had the moneyline you needed them to get the conversion to get it, which, they didn't. So you lost.

And saying to yourself, 'well, long term it's better' is cold comfort when you could have the cash in your wallet instead of a bum ticket.

AFN...............If you are betting a nickle on MNF to get back your $500 loss on Sunday, it sounds like you are chasing. Poor money management, unless you have a large bank roll and feel the MNF bet is worth 6% ($500) of your bankroll. 6% is my MAX! Rare play. Most plays are 3%.....................

Thanks jelly! I am going to try this out for a week or two on a few games and follow the trend. Maybe 1-2% bankroll bets to stay safe. But, thanks for your work. This is what the forum is for. NOT bashing and trashing!

That is exactly his point...95% of covers posters are chasing that game to “get back to even” for the week.  They aren’t grinding out winning weeks mixed in with losing weeks over the long run for profit.  No patience for money management.  They want the instant gratification and won’t accept a losing weekend is the thought process.  

Got it....

Jelly is right, though.  Follow The Money had a guy on recently who discussed teasers, which I saved as an episode.  I need to watch again and absorb the numbers.  What I can tell you from memory is they mentioned 7% of games are decided by 1 or 2 points.  That did not surprise me.  The points are largely used by the oddsmakers as a psychological tool.  The team that wins the game covers the spread roughly 80% of the time since 1989.  I'm sure it could have swung a few percentage points but I highly doubt it would be more than that based on the aggregate.  

So what Jelly is telling you to do makes sense.  You should be betting the alternative line and making the team you want to win -2.5.  I'm taking strictly when the lines are between +2.5 and -2.5.  You can do it with other lines but his point is you're paying juice for a lower payout.  Why the hell do you want to do that when you're not getting a huge statistical advantage that you benefit from?  You want a better payout for an expected outcome that is still very likely.

In tonight's case Jelly is not appreciating the possibility that Eagles win by 3 or 4 that a teaser would cover.

@sicknesscity

Like I said above the 7% number is meaningless for a conversation on +2.5 to +1 spreads. There's a reason they give you + money for an alternate bet. Guarantee if you did an in depth study on those spreads, there would be a meaningless difference between taking the +2.5 at -110 or -2.5 at + money. 

Unbelievable. I hope that in 10 years when I am able to open a sportsbook you guys are still around