LarryJom

In those 2 examples, charlotte is beyond horrible.

A very good example I think would be teams who are very small favorites or small underdogs.  I think this applies to them the most.

How often do you see a favorite that is just -1 or -2.  Then they are up by 14 points at halftime.  2nd half line would be them getting at least 3 points usually.  I mean, more times then not, it seems like this team who is only a small favorite for the game usually lose control of the lead.  I mean when you take a team -2 or +2 for the game and they are up by 14 points, its very hard for them to win by at least 10 because the game is suppose to be close.  Contrast this with games where one team is suppose to win by a lot.  Anyones thoughts on this part?

anyone else?

anyone?

Anyone?

vegas-angle.... are you just estimating its 60% in college hoops?  Or do you actually have numbers to prove it?  I mean, i say taking a huge favorite down a lot at 1st half seems very good but i know truth is, its probably damn close to 50%.  I can't imagine it being anywhere near to 60% in ncaab b/c if it was, then everyone would do it this way and make money.

Anyone here actually have this in a spreadsheet to prove it?

Does anyone here do this?  For example, say for a game there is a team that is favored by 10 points for the game.  And at the end of the first half, they are down by some ridiculous number of points, say like 15 points. 

Obviously 2nd half, they will be giving a lot of points.  Lets say its 9.5.  So basically the full game is now the under laying 5.5 for the game as oppose to getting 10 points which is like a 15.5 point differential.  You can use another example like a team is laying 7 points for the game and is down 8 points at end of first half.  Then the 2nd half line is that team -8 or 9, basically making the game pickem for the full game.

Is it me, or does it seem like taking a team that is heavily favored in the 2nd half b/c they are down a lot of points at end of 1st half a good idea?  I mean, rarely will that team just not make some sort of comeback and make it respectable.  And if you do take that team is up say 15 points at end of 1st half and getting say 9.5 in the 2nd half, you are hoping this 10 point underdog for the full game covers 5.5.

What i notice is rarely do teams just lay down if they are heavily favored.  I mean, once the game goes to a tie game in the 4th quarter, its just really hard for that underdog for the full game to even WIN THE GAME... let alone cover 5.5 points if you get what i mean.

Does anyone have stats on this for the 2nd half?  I also seen stuff like a team laying 7 points and then have some ridiculous halftime lead, like 22 points.  Then for 2nd half, the other team might be -2 or so, so name full game is now that favorite -20 instead of -7.  Is it me, or is taking that team +2 for 2nd half really ridiciouls because you are hoping that team covers 20 points.  I mean, many times teams give up leads and they could not even cover for the full game!

Thoughts on this strategy?  There are 2 ones here of course.  The big favorite laying a lot of points but down a lot at the half and of course a team that is favored by has a HUGE lead at the half.  Like -2 for the game but up 20 points at the half.  So situations like this, 2nd half would be losing team - points but they would be at least +14 for the full game usually.

Thoughts?

Yes i know its the ncaab forum but it still applies as well though i feel like some teams in the ncaab can easily get blown out.  Nba to me though is much less likely.

Anyone have numbers on this?

Actually i thought about this a while ago.  However, i never tracked the win/loss record of it for 2nd half.

Wanted to know if anyone has the W/L record of it.

Yes portland lost.  They were -8.5 so it made them +5.5 for the full game.  They had it tied at one point and if i took houston +8.5, my 2nd half bet would not make me feel good at all.... does that make sense?

The thing is so many times, the team who is favored makes some kind of comeback.  Rarely do they act disinterested and lose the game by a lot.  For example, portland down 14 at half but what was the chance they get beat by 20+?  Its very little.  At least if you take portland, you know it will be somewhat respectable near the end.  Sure they lost but they failed to cover by 1.5 points.  Consider the other times they tie game before end of 3rd quarter and even cover the full game spread.  I seen this so much.

Sal-Tessio.  I wouldn't dare take Phoenix +9 for the 2nd half whether i bet this game or not.  My reasoning is this.  Phoenix is up 17 points.  So 2nd half they are getting 9 points which is a lot.  However, that means you are betting Phoenix -8 for the game.  To me, this is basically hoping Milwaukee doesn't make a comeback at home when down by 17 at the half.

Now, Bucks are favored by 8 for the game so anyone that bet phoenix for game got them +8 but now if you bet them +9 2nd half, you are getting phoenix -8.  To be honest, I would never bet that because if milwaukee makes any kind of run and gets it close and even tie it, your phoenix -8 bet is going to be no good.

I mean, as disinterested as bucks looked... it would be very hard for phoenix to blow the bucks out by 30+ points, you knwo what i mean?  So its going to be at least somewhat respectable. 

Now if you take bucks -9 2nd half... you are getting them +8 for the game.  That compared if you bet them pregame and got them -8.  I mean, to me, chances of phoenix winning by at least 9 is very hard and doesn't feel like its 50/50 to me.  I feel like the Bucks -9 2nd half should be an autobet.  However, if they are down by 9 and giving 9, then it doesn't feel that great.  But the fact they were down by SOOOO MUCH, makes them getting +8 so good if you get what i mean.

Thoughts?

Does anyone have the w/l record of any kind of example i mentioned?  LIke what would be the w/l record if you always take the 2nd half team where it would get a better line for the full game?  Of course, they are down points which is the reason.

Like if a team is favored by 1 point and is up by 12 at the half.  Then the other team is -2 for 2nd half, which makes it the favored -1 team to be -10 for the full game... which is a 9 point differential from the full game line. 

I seen games where a team maybe favored by 12 points but could be up 25 at the half.  Then 2nd half, they are favored by 1 point so now its -26 for the full game which is a 14 point differential from the full game line. 

Does anyone have the w/l record of taking the team in the 2nd half where they would get a better line for the full game?  Really curuious about this.  I would assume its pretty close to 50 percent since if you bet the strategy i mentioned and it kept winning, then books would lose but obviously they don't. 

I seen games where a team might be -5 for the game and be up by 3 at the half.  And then favored by exactly 2 which makes them -5 for full game which means you can bet on any of the 2 team and basically have the same betting ticket as the person who bet before the game.  That wouldn't count though since it would be same bet as pregame.  And of cousre you have examples like a team being favored by 10 points and up say 7 points at 1st half.  Then be -4.5 for 2nd half and full game would be -11.5 which isn't that far off from 10.  However, if you take the +4.5, you are getting +11.5 for the game as oppose to the person who bet that losing team +10 for game.

Anyone have stats on this?

I assume its damn close near 50%?

Anyone?

Does anyone here do this?  For example, say for a game there is a team that is favored by 10 points for the game.  And at the end of the first half, they are down by some ridiculous number of points, say like 15 points. 

Obviously 2nd half, they will be giving a lot of points.  Lets say its 9.5.  So basically the full game is now the under laying 5.5 for the game as oppose to getting 10 points which is like a 15.5 point differential.  You can use another example like a team is laying 7 points for the game and is down 8 points at end of first half.  Then the 2nd half line is that team -8 or 9, basically making the game pickem for the full game.

Is it me, or does it seem like taking a team that is heavily favored in the 2nd half b/c they are down a lot of points at end of 1st half a good idea?  I mean, rarely will that team just not make some sort of comeback and make it respectable.  And if you do take that team is up say 15 points at end of 1st half and getting say 9.5 in the 2nd half, you are hoping this 10 point underdog for the full game covers 5.5.

What i notice is rarely do teams just lay down if they are heavily favored.  I mean, once the game goes to a tie game in the 4th quarter, its just really hard for that underdog for the full game to even WIN THE GAME... let alone cover 5.5 points if you get what i mean.

Does anyone have stats on this for the 2nd half?  I also seen stuff like a team laying 7 points and then have some ridiculous halftime lead, like 22 points.  Then for 2nd half, the other team might be -2 or so, so name full game is now that favorite -20 instead of -7.  Is it me, or is taking that team +2 for 2nd half really ridiciouls because you are hoping that team covers 20 points.  I mean, many times teams give up leads and they could not even cover for the full game!

Thoughts on this strategy?  There are 2 ones here of course.  The big favorite laying a lot of points but down a lot at the half and of course a team that is favored by has a HUGE lead at the half.  Like -2 for the game but up 20 points at the half.  So situations like this, 2nd half would be losing team - points but they would be at least +14 for the full game usually.

Thoughts?