10 point automatic win.
How often does a team go up by 10 and then lose?
Is it better to pick an underdog or favorite or irrelevant?
Remembering that I’m probably paying a 5% or so vig I ‘think’ this has got to be +EV.
Any thoughts? I can do this on EVERY game week one.
Sounds slightly positive EV to me.
Quote: Ace2Have to look at the NFL stats. If the handicapped loser was beating the spread by >9.5 points at any time…with a frequency of more than 1 in 42 games, then it’s positive EV
Sounds slightly positive EV to me.
link to original post
Maybe I wasn’t clear. Not a pointspread bet. You make a money line bet at the posted odds. Like -130/ +110 as an example. Any time your team is up by 10 points the bet is over and declared a win for you.
For whatever it is worth, I won one of these on the NBA last season when my team was up by 10 then lost the game.
Quote: SOOPOOIs this +EV? Make a money line bet on any NFL game, and if at any point your team is up 10 points you win the bet regardless of whether your team wins the game.
How often does a team go up by 10 and then lose?
Is it better to pick an underdog or favorite or irrelevant?
Remembering that I’m probably paying a 5% or so vig I ‘think’ this has got to be +EV.
Any thoughts? I can do this on EVERY game week one.
link to original post
I think it’s more valuable in NBA.
I think you’re +ev if you throw it on the favorite or slight underdog in every game.
To calculate the EV exactly, take the O/U line for each team (it's usually safe to assume that team goal scoring rates are independent), divide this by the expected number of played minutes, and treat it as a random walk with three end states:
1. Team wins.
2. Team loses, but was at some point up by 10 points.
3. Team loses and was never up by 10 points.
It shouldn't be difficult at all to do a Monte Carlo simulation of this. Off the top of my head, it feels like the biggest EV would be in very even matches with high expected scores for both sides.
I'd try to simulate the payout if you Dutched it, and seeing if the amount of bets where both the hedge bet and your bet wins. (However, keep in mind that surebets have a non-efficient leg and this lowers the EV, albeit at better levels of risk.)
JUST A GUESS. I’ll guess it happened 14 times last year. Seems like should happen once a week or so.
***: They were lead by "x or more points" promos, so not exactly the same as the one in this thread, right?
I'm guessing it's a promotion by a casino.
What you're really betting on is at some point your picked team will be ahead by 10 even if they don't win the game.
What a crapshoot!!
Quote: AlanMendelsonVery interesting bet.
I'm guessing it's a promotion by a casino.
What you're really betting on is at some point your picked team will be ahead by 10 even if they don't win the game.
What a crapshoot!!
link to original post
It’s DraftKings. They are allowing you to do it for every NFL game the first week. 16 games. If the event happens twice, you would on average by random picking win 9/16. That’s enough to beat the vig. No guarantee of course, but certainly +EV.
They even sweetened it for the Bills-Rams game. You only need to be ahead by 7 at any point to lock in the win. I bet on Bills. I think it was $50 to win $40 as the Bills are slight favorites.
I haven’t done the other 15 games yet.
I’m wondering if it makes more sense to bet on the underdogs. In these 8% of games where you win on both teams you clearly would want to have bet on the underdog getting a larger payout. I’m leaning on betting on all 15 dogs on the money line. Any thoughts?
Quote: SOOPOOI found an old article that says from around 2006 to 2013 it happened in about 8% of the games. That means 4% of the time my loss turns into a win. So that gives me a 54-46 edge, which will slightly beat the vig. My guess is that with the increase in offense over the past decade it might be higher than 8% now.
I’m wondering if it makes more sense to bet on the underdogs. In these 8% of games where you win on both teams you clearly would want to have bet on the underdog getting a larger payout. I’m leaning on betting on all 15 dogs on the money line. Any thoughts?
link to original post
Would the underdog be the team that would show a 10 point lead?
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: SOOPOOI found an old article that says from around 2006 to 2013 it happened in about 8% of the games. That means 4% of the time my loss turns into a win. So that gives me a 54-46 edge, which will slightly beat the vig. My guess is that with the increase in offense over the past decade it might be higher than 8% now.
I’m wondering if it makes more sense to bet on the underdogs. In these 8% of games where you win on both teams you clearly would want to have bet on the underdog getting a larger payout. I’m leaning on betting on all 15 dogs on the money line. Any thoughts?
link to original post
Would the underdog be the team that would show a 10 point lead?
link to original post
I think it is more likely that an underdog loses a 10 point lead than a favorite. But more likely that a favorite will initially have that 10 point lead. So maybe evens out? I think the Wiz has access to a lot of NFL data. Maybe when he returns he can weigh in.
Quote: FinsRuleI just think it makes more sense to pick slight underdogs (3 or 4 or less) and bigger favorites. Or skip anything -250 or worse.
link to original post
Probably sound advice. I will post what I do before Sunday. That advice would have definitely led me to take the Rams at slightly + odds instead of the Bills, but that bet is already in.
Yes, betting dogs might be the higher EV play, but it depends on how you bet.Quote: SOOPOOI found an old article that says from around 2006 to 2013 it happened in about 8% of the games. That means 4% of the time my loss turns into a win. So that gives me a 54-46 edge, which will slightly beat the vig. My guess is that with the increase in offense over the past decade it might be higher than 8% now.
I’m wondering if it makes more sense to bet on the underdogs. In these 8% of games where you win on both teams you clearly would want to have bet on the underdog getting a larger payout. I’m leaning on betting on all 15 dogs on the money line. Any thoughts?
link to original post
Just eyeballing NFL odds, it looks like the average moneyline would be around +200/-250. If you bet the same amount on dogs/faves then a "10 point conversion" is worth much more for a dog since it pays +200 vs -250. But I would think that a $100 bettor, for example, would bet $100 on the dog to win $200 and lay $250 on the fave to win $100. Then again, you'd think it would be less likely for a +200 dog to ever be up 10 points. Hard to analyze
You're probably better off betting road dogs against the point spread. The Wizard's analysis of over 3,000 games shows they have an EV of +2.57%
But it’s possible the data does not bear that strategy out.
Quote: unJonMaybe I’m thinking about this wrong, but I see it slightly differently. I think we want to identify the games, not the teams, where this is most likely to occur: one side up 10+ and loses. The games where it happens are “can’t lose” as whichever side you bet pays as a winner. So I would think best to take the underdog in the game types where this is most frequent.
But it’s possible the data does not bear that strategy out.
link to original post
How often is the underdog in a game leading buy 10 points or more? I would assume the favorite is ahead by 10 a lot more than the underdog.
Quote: DRichQuote: unJonMaybe I’m thinking about this wrong, but I see it slightly differently. I think we want to identify the games, not the teams, where this is most likely to occur: one side up 10+ and loses. The games where it happens are “can’t lose” as whichever side you bet pays as a winner. So I would think best to take the underdog in the game types where this is most frequent.
But it’s possible the data does not bear that strategy out.
link to original post
How often is the underdog in a game leading buy 10 points or more? I would assume the favorite is ahead by 10 a lot more than the underdog.
link to original post
I know very little about sports betting but I agree with DRich on this. You're hoping for a blowout.
Quote: DRichQuote: unJonMaybe I’m thinking about this wrong, but I see it slightly differently. I think we want to identify the games, not the teams, where this is most likely to occur: one side up 10+ and loses. The games where it happens are “can’t lose” as whichever side you bet pays as a winner. So I would think best to take the underdog in the game types where this is most frequent.
But it’s possible the data does not bear that strategy out.
link to original post
How often is the underdog in a game leading buy 10 points or more? I would assume the favorite is ahead by 10 a lot more than the underdog.
link to original post
Not quite the question. How often is a favorite up by at least 10 and then lose. Versus how often is a dog up by at least 10 and then lose.
Quote: unJonQuote: DRichQuote: unJonMaybe I’m thinking about this wrong, but I see it slightly differently. I think we want to identify the games, not the teams, where this is most likely to occur: one side up 10+ and loses. The games where it happens are “can’t lose” as whichever side you bet pays as a winner. So I would think best to take the underdog in the game types where this is most frequent.
But it’s possible the data does not bear that strategy out.
link to original post
How often is the underdog in a game leading buy 10 points or more? I would assume the favorite is ahead by 10 a lot more than the underdog.
link to original post
Not quite the question. How often is a favorite up by at least 10 and then lose. Versus how often is a dog up by at least 10 and then lose.
link to original post
Whoa this is a totally different question.
This special bet is only about identifying a team that at some point will be ten points ahead.
Let's skip the secondary discussions.
So... don't you think it more likely that the favorite will be ten points ahead at some point?
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: unJonQuote: DRichQuote: unJonMaybe I’m thinking about this wrong, but I see it slightly differently. I think we want to identify the games, not the teams, where this is most likely to occur: one side up 10+ and loses. The games where it happens are “can’t lose” as whichever side you bet pays as a winner. So I would think best to take the underdog in the game types where this is most frequent.
But it’s possible the data does not bear that strategy out.
link to original post
How often is the underdog in a game leading buy 10 points or more? I would assume the favorite is ahead by 10 a lot more than the underdog.
link to original post
Not quite the question. How often is a favorite up by at least 10 and then lose. Versus how often is a dog up by at least 10 and then lose.
link to original post
Whoa this is a totally different question.
This special bet is only about identifying a team that at some point will be ten points ahead.
Let's skip the secondary discussions.
So... don't you think it more likely that the favorite will be ten points ahead at some point?
link to original post
Yes. Totally different question and the relevant one. Why would I hijack thread with a discussion of the question you want to discuss.
The value of the promo is calculated by the chance a team is up 10+ and loses multipled by the money line payout it saves you.
Quote: SOOPOOIs this +EV? Make a money line bet on any NFL game, and if at any point your team is up 10 points you win the bet regardless of whether your team wins the game.
How often does a team go up by 10 and then lose?
Is it better to pick an underdog or favorite or irrelevant?
Remembering that I’m probably paying a 5% or so vig I ‘think’ this has got to be +EV.
Any thoughts? I can do this on EVERY game week one.
link to original post
Pardon me if you’ve answered this already, but are you able to make this bet for both teams in a single game? If I understand this correctly, you win this bet if (1) your team wins OR (2) your team is up by at least 10 points at any time regardless of the final outcome. If this is true, then it’s possible to win both bets simultaneously!
Let’s assume that you are not allowed to bet both… Looking at overall stats to determine whether to bet fav’s or dog’s and/or whether home or away, etc, may be a good start. However, with your “normal” sports bets, don’t you look at each pairing individually? Things like the lines or spread for each team, each teams individual record and their joint record when playing each other, which players are/aren’t playing, etc. You’ve been at this for a while, and you’ve been doing well over and above the bonuses you get, right? Have faith in your current process, and pick your bets case by case as you always do!
If they do allow you to bet both sides, then you’d still want to look at each game case by case to determine whether to bet one, the other, or both.
If you have a ‘pick’em’ game at -110 for both sides, betting $50 on both teams results in a $4.50 loss under normal circumstances. But if the team you bet on DK goes up 10 then loses, you would win $91.
If I do this I’m pretty sure I won’t be hedging, except when I get a different +EV offer from the second site. I already have a very + EV bet on the Panthers over the Browns, so I’d likely use the DK offer to bet on the Browns.
2 accounts .Quote: FinsRuleYou can only bet on one side
link to original post
Quote: AxelWolf2 accounts .Quote: FinsRuleYou can only bet on one side
link to original post
link to original post
It’s unclear to me betting both sides is the best play.
ETA: my first guess would be to bet the dogs in the games with the highest totals.
I'm not sure either way. I was just saying... if one had good reason to do so.Quote: unJonQuote: AxelWolf2 accounts .Quote: FinsRuleYou can only bet on one side
link to original post
link to original post
It’s unclear to me betting both sides is the best play.
ETA: my first guess would be to bet the dogs in the games with the highest totals.
link to original post
Quote: SOOPOOIs this +EV? Make a money line bet on any NFL game, and if at any point your team is up 10 points you win the bet regardless of whether your team wins the game.
How often does a team go up by 10 and then lose?
Is it better to pick an underdog or favorite or irrelevant?
Remembering that I’m probably paying a 5% or so vig I ‘think’ this has got to be +EV.
Any thoughts? I can do this on EVERY game week one.
link to original post
I originally interpreted it as, if at any point your team is up exactly^^^ 10 points and then loses", you still win the bet.
^^^: Possibly a "silly way" to read it , but that is what I inferred from the first post, and the post's on the first page.
Again, I did if for "similar promotions*** " in the past and I found these to be "true^*^ ":
. If you bet on the favorite, then the value of the promo would not overcome the house edge at around -400 (or shorter).
. The "sweet spot" was usually between +200 to +400 (so always the 'dog).
***: The promos that I can remember were along the lines of: leading at half time... , up 7 points or more..., and leading at the end of any quarter... and go on to lose, then the bet is still graded as a winner.
^*^: True in terms of using "1-5 years of historical data" (since it took a long time to do, I would use more data for the promotions that I estimated to be "weaker/worse").
----
Update (~1635, Pac Time):
Here are the sites I would use, if I thought it was worth the time to work it out for this promo.
https://www.oddsshark.com/nfl/scores
(Gives a spread/line, so you can work out "fav vs dog stats")
https://www.espn.com/nfl/scoreboard
(Gives a "scoring play by scoring play" break-down, so you can work out if a team was up by the required points before they lost).
Note: A lot of games are pretty obvious, so only go by the "play by play" break-down, if there is a chance that a team was up by 10 (or more) and then loses.
Games "leading by at least 10 points, and go on to NOT win^^^": 288***
Games counted: 2064*** : 2064
% of Games: ~13.95%
^^^: Includes games that ended in a tie in overtime.
***: Manually counted once only, so figures could be out slightly(?).
Quote: ksdjdjI found the following info for the last 2000+ regular season games (for seasons starting 2014 to 2021):
Games "leading by at least 10 points, and go on to NOT win^^^": 288***
Games counted: 2064*** : 2064
% of Games: ~13.95%
^^^: Includes games that ended in a tie in overtime.
***: Manually counted once only, so figures could be out slightly(?).
link to original post
THANK YOU!!!! I now know I’ll be betting every game. I WON the Bills game on the first drive. (It was a special only need to be up by 7 promo).
***:one example is, if a team is down by 1 point , then they are still statistically favoured to win, more than half the time.
Also, I had a ML bet on the bills , but I want them to win by 2-3 pts (rams by exactly 3 pts is ok, too).
Sent by phone
Wife picked mostly favorites. $50 on money line on these….
Ravens, Colts, bengals, Eagles, 49ers, Saints, Dolphins, Browns, Jaguars, Titans, Chiefs, Raiders, Packers, Bucs, Broncos. With the odds I’m laying I’ll need to win 11 or so to break even.
2017 SEASON PERTINENT BREAKDOWN:
Okay, we have 32 teams who all played 16 games, but of course, they played all of these against one of the other teams, so we have 16 * 16 = 256 total games played that regular season. Let’s see what we can determine:
Total Games: 256
Total Number Lead by 10+ and Lose: 24
Frequency (Games): 0.09375 or 9.375%
Total Number of Favorites: 256*
Total Number of Dogs: 256*
*This does not account for Pick ‘Ems, but I don’t have the patience to try to find that out, even if I could.
Frequency, Favorites: 8/256 = 0.03125 or 3.125%
Frequency Dogs: 16/256 = 0.0625 or 6.25%
ANALYSIS:
We will have to do more work to make any absolute determinations, so we still have time to be surprised, but it would appear this happens more often for underdogs than it does for favorites. It’s honestly not much of a surprise because the Favorites are Favorites because they are good teams and good teams:
DO: Come back from a significant deficit sometimes.
DON’T: Give up double digits leads very often.
We can find a chart on Wizard of Odds here that shows the percentage of losses just blindly picking every favorite or every underdog. This data is based on 3,220 games and would see blindly betting favorites on the MoneyLine to lose 6.24% of all monies bet.
With that in mind, let’s take a look at how much we would lose, based on those assumptions, to just bet 256 ML favorites at $250 each with that promotion:
256 * 250 * .0624 = $3993.6
With that, we would expect to lose almost $4,000 betting this way. Keep in mind that this is just putting $250 on every favorite blindly.
Keep in mind that we are swinging losses to wins with this promotion. For the 2017 season, for example, we save the $250 all eight of these games, which equates to total savings of $2,000. We will also get any winnings from these games, which based on this sample equates to:
ALL BETS ARE $250:
-366 = $68.31
-128 = $195.31
-319 = $78.38
-306 = $81.70
-142 = $176.06
-819 = $30.53
-142 = $176.06
-191 = $130.89
We will now sum these up and add to the $2,000 in bets that we didn’t lose:
68.31 + 195.31 + 78.38 + 81.70 + 176.06 + 30.53 + 176.06 + 130.89 + 2000 = $2937.24
Therefore, based on the average amount lost per $250 ML Favorite bet normally, what we find is that we would still lose an expected $3993.60 - $2937.24 or $1,056.36 even if we could make every $250 bet with this stipulation. Ultimately, all that does is reduce our loss rate to:
1056.36/(250*256) = 0.016505625 or about a 1.651% loss on all dollars bet.
Once again, this is based on a limited sample size and it could be that eight favorites only to lead by ten and lose is lower than normal, so that’s something that we are just going to have to figure out.
In the meantime, we are going to find that this promotion combined with underdogs is just winning. Once again, we are assuming bets of $250 on every team, and the historical loss percentage of 3.91%, so all else equal, we lose:
(250 * 256) * .0391 = $2502.40
Of course, we had sixteen games that have become WINS instead, so that’s an immediate $4,000 that we have saved right off the bat without even accounting for the fact that we also profited money on those games. Let’s go ahead and account for that now:
+249 = $622.50
+188 = $470.00
+114 = $285.00
+361 = $902.53
+249 = $622.50
+135 = $337.50
+400 = $1000.00
+144 = $360.00
+327 = $817.50
+151 = $377.50
+249 = $622.50
+187 = $467.50
+120 = $300.00
+195 = $487.50
+135 = $337.50
+268 = $670.00
The first thing that we should note is that you would be ahead $4000.00 - $2502.40 (if percentages hold otherwise) $1,497.60 just on NOT LOSING if your team goes up by ten points, or more, and still loses on these underdog picks. However, your bet is actually graded as win, so what you end up with here is:
1497.60 + 622.50 + 470.00 + 285 + 902.53 + 622.50 + 337.50 + 1000 + 360 + 817.50 + 377.50 + 622.50 + 467.50 + 300 + 487.50 + 337.50 + 670 = $10,177.63
Okay, so you are making 250 * 256 = $64000 in total bets for a return of $74,177.63, which reflects 74177.63/64000 = 1.15902546875 or gains of 15.903% if you could have this promotion on every single game of that season, again, assuming that the historical loss percentage generally holds.
I will also be going through 2018-2021 and doing final totals for the last five years if every single bet could be made with this promotion. We will also be looking at the potential for offsetting bets, even though they are going to be worse than underdogs for at least the 2017 season, but still profitable. It's really just subtracting the gain on all ML underdogs from the loss on all ML favorites for that season.
If anyone has any nasty PM's for me for publishing this article, please save your breath.
Hopefully, this will have at least some people looking forward to the full publication.
Quote: Mission146I'm presently writing an article that takes a deep dive on this, so here is a little sample of the 2017 Season results:
Welcome back!! You have been missed.
Quote: Mission146(snip)
2017 SEASON PERTINENT BREAKDOWN:
Okay, we have 32 teams who all played 16 games, but of course, they played all of these against one of the other teams, so we have 16 * 16 = 256 total games played that regular season. Let’s see what we can determine:
Total Games: 256
Total Number Lead by 10+ and Lose: 24
Frequency (Games): 0.09375 or 9.375%
(snip)
link to original post
Great post Mission.
***FYI, for that season, I got 25 games for the "lead by 10 or more...", but I only counted it once so I could be wrong, or there may have been a game that season that ended in a tie after overtime ?
For reference, here are the totals I got for all eight seasons starting 2014 to 2021 (in order):
43, 34, 37, 25***, 35, 36, 43, and 35.
Note: I didn't keep track of the exact figure, but if I remember correctly, there were between 5-10 relevant games that ended in a tie after overtime, over those 8 seasons.
Quote: ksdjdjQuote: Mission146(snip)
2017 SEASON PERTINENT BREAKDOWN:
Okay, we have 32 teams who all played 16 games, but of course, they played all of these against one of the other teams, so we have 16 * 16 = 256 total games played that regular season. Let’s see what we can determine:
Total Games: 256
Total Number Lead by 10+ and Lose: 24
Frequency (Games): 0.09375 or 9.375%
(snip)
link to original post
Great post Mission.
***FYI, for that season, I got 25 games for the "lead by 10 or more...", but I only counted it once so I could be wrong, or there may have been a game that season that ended in a tie after overtime ?
For reference, here are the totals I got for all eight seasons starting 2014 to 2021 (in order):
43, 34, 37, 25***, 35, 36, 43, and 35.
Note: I didn't keep track of the exact figure, but if I remember correctly, there were between 5-10 relevant games that ended in a tie after overtime, over those 8 seasons.
link to original post
Thank you for the tip! I might go back and double check the results, but that looks like it's going to be the lightest season for that anyway. I'm presently at Week 4 of 2018 in my work and already have ten total such games.
It's such an absolute blowout in terms of advantage, at this point, that I'd almost be inclined to call missing one game a minor thing. The actual games that I find will all be listed, so it will be...relatively easy (?) if someone has already done this and listed them to see what I am missing. I'd also have to change all of my numbers, which I'd prefer not to do. I might just let it stand either way.
Thanks for the compliment! This full article will most likely be WoO, I think? It's pretty exhaustive and detailed, so deserves to reach a wide audience, imo.
EDIT TO ASK: Did your analysis include playoffs? Mine doesn't.
Quote: DRichQuote: Mission146I'm presently writing an article that takes a deep dive on this, so here is a little sample of the 2017 Season results:
Welcome back!! You have been missed.
link to original post
Thank you very much!
Seems like my EV is around zero (3 dogs, 12 faves) but I do get credit for betting the $750. The more I bet the better offers and free bets I get.
THANK YOU MISSION!!!!
Quote: Mission146Quote: ksdjdjQuote: Mission146(snip)
2017 SEASON PERTINENT BREAKDOWN:
Okay, we have 32 teams who all played 16 games, but of course, they played all of these against one of the other teams, so we have 16 * 16 = 256 total games played that regular season. Let’s see what we can determine:
Total Games: 256
Total Number Lead by 10+ and Lose: 24
Frequency (Games): 0.09375 or 9.375%
(snip)
link to original post
Great post Mission.
***FYI, for that season, I got 25 games for the "lead by 10 or more...", but I only counted it once so I could be wrong, or there may have been a game that season that ended in a tie after overtime ?
For reference, here are the totals I got for all eight seasons starting 2014 to 2021 (in order):
43, 34, 37, 25***, 35, 36, 43, and 35.
Note: I didn't keep track of the exact figure, but if I remember correctly, there were between 5-10 relevant games that ended in a tie after overtime, over those 8 seasons.
link to original post
Thank you for the tip! I might go back and double check the results, but that looks like it's going to be the lightest season for that anyway. I'm presently at Week 4 of 2018 in my work and already have ten total such games.
It's such an absolute blowout in terms of advantage, at this point, that I'd almost be inclined to call missing one game a minor thing. The actual games that I find will all be listed, so it will be...relatively easy (?) if someone has already done this and listed them to see what I am missing. I'd also have to change all of my numbers, which I'd prefer not to do. I might just let it stand either way.
Thanks for the compliment! This full article will most likely be WoO, I think? It's pretty exhaustive and detailed, so deserves to reach a wide audience, imo.
EDIT TO ASK: Did your analysis include playoffs? Mine doesn't.
link to original post
I agree, that it is such a good advantage that I don't think it matters much either way (the 24 or 25 figure, that we get for 2017).
Also, I only did it for the regular season.
Quote: ksdjdj
I agree, that it is such a good advantage that I don't think it matters much either way (the 24 or 25 figure, that we get for 2017).
Also, I only did it for the regular season.
link to original post
(Quote clipped to clip out previous quotes)
I also only got 34 for the 2018 season, so I'm one short again. If you or anyone else has done this and have the games listed somewhere, then it should be easy to find what I'm missing. I have the games individually listed by week and identify the situation at which the losing team was up 10+ in the full article.
Quote: TinManI got this offer as well. My intuition (which seems like was wrong based on this discussion) was to bet favorites when DK had the best money line among all sports books in NY or had the second best line but it was within 5 cents (eg, I bet a -140 favorite when the range of options went from -137 to -165 or so). In total, that amounted to 8 games. So I can still look into the remaining lines based on the discussion here.
link to original post
I've just done the 2018 Season, and that combined with 2017 (absent some great insight that you might have into a NOT HUGE favorite) would incline me to think that you should absolutely be all underdogs, all the time. Absolutely. 100%. It is not even close.
1.) In addition to the fact that you don't lose the original bet (which saves you $250 either way) you have to look at the amount that you stand to profit. The larger the favorite, the less that you stand to profit. I haven't yet determined what the ideal underdog line is for this, and quite frankly, there probably simply won't be enough data to make such a determination, but, if you could only do one or the other, it's underdog in a landslide.
2.) For 2017, betting nothing but favorites still resulted in an expected loss, even with this promotion. In 2018, blanket favorites for the season, even assuming you could get this promotion on every single bet, resulted in gains of less than 1% relative to total amount bet. Favorites, by themselves, simply aren't that good. That said, if you must bet favorites, small favorites are better than big ones.
2a.) The reason small favorites are better than big ones is, remember, it's the same $250 you save either way if your favorite loses but leads by 10+, but:
2a.i.) If a big favorite loss turns into a win as a result of this promotion, then you don't actually see very much in profits.
2a.ii.) While the data is inconclusive so far, we would expect that small favorites are more likely to lead by ten and lose than are huge favorites. The reason data is so limited is because I have only done two seasons and this event happened for 3.125% of all favorites and 4.296875% of all favorites, respectively.
3.) In contrast, underdogs ALSO save you the $250 that you would have otherwise lost, but the potential profits are much larger and this event has happened for 6.25% and 8.984375% of all underdogs, respectively, for 2017 and 2018.
Although, 2019 looks like the percentages of who this helps will be much closer; Week 13 was particularly weird. Of course, there are still a few weeks left for that to change.
Quote: Mission146(snip)
I also only got 34 for the 2018 season, so I'm one short again. If you or anyone else has done this and have the games listed somewhere, then it should be easy to find what I'm missing. I have the games individually listed by week and identify the situation at which the losing team was up 10+ in the full article.
link to original post
| Week | Lead by 10+ .... |
|---|---|
| 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 4 | 4 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 6 | 1 |
| 7 | 2 |
| 8 | 0 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 10 | 3 |
| 11 | 5 |
| 12 | 2 |
| 13 | 2 |
| 14 | 1 |
| 15 | 1 |
| 16 | 2 |
| 17 | 2 |
Reminder: As stated/implied in other posts I didn't double-check my figures.
Quote: Mission146Another thing that I notice with this is that both sides of the bet win, right? No matter the result, however, the underdog makes more in profits than does the favorite (by definition). The underdog is also more likely than the favorite to win BECAUSE OF this stipulation---though still less likely to win overall. Point being, this could happen an equal amount of the time and it still helps underdog bets more... (snip)
link to original post
Below is a modified version of a table that I used to use in the past to work out how often "X" needs to happen, to make a bet using a promotion like this "neutral EV" ,
| American Odds | Decimal Odds^^^ | X*** |
|---|---|---|
| -500 | $1.20 | 4.167% |
| -450 | $1.22 | 4.091% |
| -400 | $1.25 | 4.000% |
| -350 | $1.29 | 3.889% |
| -300 | $1.33 | 3.750% |
| -250 | $1.40 | 3.571% |
| -200 | $1.50 | 3.333% |
| -150 | $1.67 | 3.000% |
| +100 | $2.00 | 2.500% |
| +150 | $2.50 | 2.000% |
| +200 | $3.00 | 1.667% |
| +250 | $3.50 | 1.429% |
| +300 | $4.00 | 1.250% |
| +350 | $4.50 | 1.111% |
| +400 | $5.00 | 1.000% |
| +450 | $5.50 | 0.909% |
| +500 | $6.00 | 0.833% |
Note / Important: To simplify the calculations, I used - 5% as the EV for both the favorite and the 'dog (in other words it assumes there is no fav/ 'dog bias in the prices).
^^^: Some odds are rounded to the nearest 2 decimal places.
***: In general terms, "X" can be any promotion that would normally turn a losing bet into a winning bet. But in relation to this thread, "X" means "lead by 10 (or more) points and go on to lose" .
Quote: ksdjdjQuote: Mission146Another thing that I notice with this is that both sides of the bet win, right? No matter the result, however, the underdog makes more in profits than does the favorite (by definition). The underdog is also more likely than the favorite to win BECAUSE OF this stipulation---though still less likely to win overall. Point being, this could happen an equal amount of the time and it still helps underdog bets more... (snip)
link to original post
Below is a modified version of a table that I used to use in the past to work out how often X*** needs to happen, to make a bet using a promotion like this "neutral EV" ,
American Odds Decimal Odds^^^ X*** -500 $1.20 4.167% -450 $1.22 4.091% -400 $1.25 4.000% -350 $1.29 3.889% -300 $1.33 3.750% -250 $1.40 3.571% -200 $1.50 3.333% -150 $1.67 3.000% +100 $2.00 2.500% +150 $2.50 2.000% +200 $3.00 1.667% +250 $3.50 1.429% +300 $4.00 1.250% +350 $4.50 1.111% +400 $5.00 1.000% +450 $5.50 0.909% +500 $6.00 0.833%
Note / Important: To simplify the calculations, I used - 5% as the EV for both the favorite and the 'dog (in other words it assumes there is no fav/ 'dog bias in the prices).
^^^: Some odds are rounded to the nearest 2 decimal places.
***: In general terms, "X" can be any promotion that would normally turn a losing bet into a winning bet. But in relation to this thread, "X" means "lead by 10 (or more) points and go on to lose" .
link to original post
Thank you very much! This looks very consistent with my results so far, of course, the lines vary on both sides with the biggest variance (having to do with advantage or no advantage) being on the side of the favorites. This bet with underdogs is pretty much going to be made at an advantage regardless.
Unfortunately, the sample size is not going to be anywhere near large enough to apply a frequency to a specific line, but it would be cool if it was!
