lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 786
April 20th, 2016 at 4:47:02 AM permalink
Using the Wizard's money line house edge calculator I figured that if you bet on the money line you get a better deal than if you bet against the spread. It appears that the greater the no. of points that the favorite has to give up the lower the house edge on the money line. Here are some examples using betonline.ag lines. It looks like you gain up to around 2 percentage points since the house edge against the spread is 4.55% So, is it correct that the money line is a better deal, or am I missing something? And why are they doing this? Because they feel people won't bet a short price on the fave if they don't? Since everybody pretty much agrees that if you can beat sports it is only by a small percentage then this would seem pretty significant. Here are the examples and the link to the calculator:

Charlotte/Miami - spread 4.5 - money line: +170/-195 - house edge 3.04%

Atlanta/Boston - spread 3 - money line 140/-160 - house edge -3.11%

Portland/LA - spread 8.5 - money line +330/-400 - house edge - 3.15%

Golden State/Houston - spread 5.5 - money line -225/+195 - house edge - 3.03%

Detroit/Cleveland - spread 10 - money line +445/-550 - house edge - 2.88%



http://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/straight-bet-calculator/
everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 786
February 2nd, 2017 at 4:59:30 AM permalink
Using this linked money line to spread converter I found that the 3 extreme favorites in today's NBA games were posted by betonline.ag at much better deals than they should have been according to the converter. Betonline.ag gives a slightly better deal on the house edge than does the converter but this cannot account for this great of a difference. I believe it shows an effort by the books to draw more money to the favorite when the small payout makes it an unattractive bet to many. This is only 3 examples but I believe it is representative and I will continue to look at extreme favorites on the money line and I will post again if I am incorrect about it being this.

Wizards .... -11... -700 at betonline.ag .........converter - should be -2202

Rockets......-9........-460 at betonline.ag..........converter - should be -656

Warriors.....-8........-365 at betonline.ag.........converter - should be -458

BTW I'm not promoting betonline.ag. I just used it for convenience. I believe it's going to be similar everywhere. lasvegasinsider.com has the Spurs at -13.5 and -2000. The linked converter doesn't go as high as 13.5. But it has -11 at being -2202.


http://www.sportsbookreview.com/picks/tools/spread-ml-converter/
everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 786
Thanks for this post from:
DTRobers
February 28th, 2017 at 4:02:36 AM permalink
Just wanted to note that I have followed up on my above post by tracking many NBA games and there is a definite pattern that emerges. The pattern is this: The greater the number of points bettors of the favorite have to give up, considering when favorites are about -5 or greater, the better the deal tends to get on the favorite on the money line; an increasingly better deal as the # goes up, on the money line; compared to what it should be according to the link that I posted above. It seems like in trying to make this point my language was somewhat awkward and repetitive. I tried to be very clear. And my resume does show that I worked for many numerous years at The Department of Redundancy Department.
everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die
cyberbabble
cyberbabble
Joined: Mar 24, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 48
February 28th, 2017 at 8:33:05 AM permalink
The SBR calculators were done by a legendary math/stat guy, posting as Ganchrow. He was last heard from working for a sportsbook. I think his posts are still available in SBRFORUM THINKTANK archives. If so, they are very informative.

The calculations being done are based on tables of scores/moneylines and they have not been updated in 20 years or so. They may be outdated but they are probably reasonably close.

It's generally accepted that people don't like to risk a lot to win a little and so big moneyline favorites are frequently underbet.

I tried what you are doing last year. It didn't work out very well. The occasional loser would wipe out the frequent small profits.
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 786
February 28th, 2017 at 9:58:37 AM permalink
Quote: cyberbabble



I tried what you are doing last year. It didn't work out very well. The occasional loser would wipe out the frequent small profits.



I would never claim that just because a bet on the favorite on the money line looks like a good deal compared to what the link says that a fair money line should be would constitute any kind of winning system. But I think it could be very useful in concert with handicapping. I've never seen a purely mathematical system for sports betting that I believed could be a long term winner. There may be one out there but I don't know what it is. I believe handicapping is always essential.
everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 910
February 28th, 2017 at 10:09:25 AM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

I've never seen a purely mathematical system for sports betting that I believed could be a long term winner.



Wong teasers?

Parlay cards?
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 913
March 4th, 2017 at 12:20:46 PM permalink
Quote: Rigondeaux

Quote: lilredrooster

I've never seen a purely mathematical system for sports betting that I believed could be a long term winner.

Wong teasers?

Parlay cards?



Correlated parlays; scalping, middles, arbitrage; beat the consensus take back or no-vig price.

Some sort of "Purely mathematical system" will always be the fundamentals or foundation for every winning bettor. You can always add to it, but you can never win without one

  • Jump to: