Sports betting chatter
I know the vig numbers on horseracing parlay bets. I never looked into the math of sports parlays. These are -110 both ways at BetRivers with no tie possible:Quote: unJon
House Edge % can be a finicky number. It’s much clearer to just compare $ EV loss to see if things are equivalent, or which way is better.
link to original post
Over 54.5 Total Points Toledo @ Central Michigan -110
DAL Mavericks -2.5 Point Spread DAL Mavericks @ LA Lakers -110
Wager 100.00 To win 264.81
Parlay (2 Picks)
But straight -110 bets pay off $191 for the first leg and then $191 * 1.91 = $364.81 for the second bet. There is no difference at this book if I do their parlay or roll my own. Their is more action (on average) if I make the two separate bets.
Good to know.Quote: SOOPOOJust an FYI…. BetRivers is good about not adding extra juice on such parlays. Others are not as ‘nice’.
link to original post
If I am running free bet money through or doing a play-through requirement on promo dollars, I would be credited with more action creating my own parlay. But I would have less variance by just flat betting uncorrelated bet with the house-minimum vigorish. I don't know why a square bettor like me would do parlays for play through.
Quote: MentalGood to know.Quote: SOOPOOJust an FYI…. BetRivers is good about not adding extra juice on such parlays. Others are not as ‘nice’.
link to original post
If I am running free bet money through or doing a play-through requirement on promo dollars, I would be credited with more action creating my own parlay. But I would have less variance by just flat betting uncorrelated bet with the house-minimum vigorish. I don't know why a square bettor like me would do parlays for play through.
link to original post
If you are trying for ‘loyalty points’ or ‘crowns’ or ‘rewards credits’ you get more for a parlay than a straight bet. After my initial sign up I haven’t had a thought about any required playthrough. The money I get has only needed a 1x playthrough which is just easily done with the multiple offers I get daily.
Quote: Mental
-snip-
I used to calculate measures of entropy to compare the win-pool line with the implied line for the second race in the daily double. If the DD pool has an implied probability of 10% for one combo, and the win pool has the horse in the first race at a 50%, then it is implicitly assigning a 20% probability to the horse in the second race. I used a measure of entropy to compare lines when I was doing this seriously. Damned if I remember what the formula was except that it involved logarithms of probabilities and the finishing position of every horse in the race. The win pool line had much less entropy (on average) than the implied win probabilities for the second leg of the DD or the third leg of a pick3. It was also much better than the morning line. From the point of information theory, the win pool was providing a better signal-to-noise ratio (less entropy).
link to original post
It sounds to me as if your 'entropy' calculation was based on something called Kullback–Leibler divergence which is a type of statistical distance: a measure of how much one multinomial probability distribution is different from a second probability distribution (for a multinomial of the same order.)
For discrete probability distributions P and Q defined on the same sample space with x possible outcome states, the relative entropy, D, from Q to P is defined to be:
In other words, it is the expectation of the logarithmic difference between the probabilities P and Q, where the expectation is taken using the probabilities P.
I happen to be studying the extension of binomial distribution analysis to multinomial distributions for possible application to analysis of other gambling problems and was surprised (and impressed) to see you have already apparently been using this in the past for horse race bets (and perhaps for sports parlays?)
This sounds interesting, but it doesn't map onto the problem I was trying to solve.Quote: gordonm888Quote: Mental
-snip-
I used to calculate measures of entropy to compare the win-pool line with the implied line for the second race in the daily double. If the DD pool has an implied probability of 10% for one combo, and the win pool has the horse in the first race at a 50%, then it is implicitly assigning a 20% probability to the horse in the second race. I used a measure of entropy to compare lines when I was doing this seriously. Damned if I remember what the formula was except that it involved logarithms of probabilities and the finishing position of every horse in the race. The win pool line had much less entropy (on average) than the implied win probabilities for the second leg of the DD or the third leg of a pick3. It was also much better than the morning line. From the point of information theory, the win pool was providing a better signal-to-noise ratio (less entropy).
link to original post
It sounds to me as if your 'entropy' calculation was based on something called Kullback–Leibler divergence which is a type of statistical distance: a measure of how much one multinomial probability distribution is different from a second probability distribution (for a multinomial of the same order.)
For discrete probability distributions P and Q defined on the same sample space with x possible outcome states, the relative entropy, D, from Q to P is defined to be:D(P||Q) = Σx P(x) log (P(x)/(Q(x))
In other words, it is the expectation of the logarithmic difference between the probabilities P and Q, where the expectation is taken using the probabilities P.
I happened to be studying the extension of binomial distribution analysis to multinomial distributions for possible application to analysis of other gambling problems and was surprised (and impressed) to see you have already apparently been using this in the past for horse race bets (and perhaps for sports parlays?)
link to original post
I had a large set of races where I had past performance figures for the horses, the morning line odds, and order of finish. I was trying various models to create a line. Now, I could back test the model to see how well it would have performed. One simple way to do this was to see how well the line would find win bets that would be +EV in back testing. However, this only uses the information about which horse finished first and makes no use of all the other data regarding order of finish. A good model should also predict which horse is going to finish last in a field of 12 horses. I realized I could get more feedback by making better use of the information in the results chart. My calculation was comparing Px from the line-making process with Ox, the complete order of finish.
I never directly compared one line with another line (comparing Px with Qx in your example). I typically compared one algorithm for creating a line to the order of finish over the whole dataset. I think I even tried comparing lines to lengths beaten to extract even more information from the charts.
for the parlay $110 bet returns $400.90, 290.90 in actual winnings, on a win, or $145.45 for each 55 bet, to look at it that way. Maybe this is what Unjon is talking about, this "way to look at it". You can win more money by parlaying for the same bet amount. Do it with $110 split up as a $55 single bet on each the most you can win is $100, this vs 290.90 on a parlay betting the $110.
"you can win more money" but I think everyone here knows it's not the whole story. If the house edge is what counts, as the Wizard always says, then it comes down to figuring the probability of a win times the amount to win, minus the probablity of a loss times the amount to lose. This EV that results, divided by the amount bet, tells us the Edge. I showed in the OP, with the assumption of 50-50 chance win or lose on a -110 bet, there to be an increasing house advantage in a parlay. Unless there is an error there, that's a fact.
Soopoo, I will still continue to parlay bets when the offer says to parlay, generally I have to believe they are +EV. I am adjusting my expectations, though, on the manipulated 3-leg single game parlay, 'no sweat', offers I'm getting now at DK ... and those 50% or more 'boosts' I might go for.
nobody can rightfully state that parlays cannot be a good bet when there is some sort of profit boost or free play
but it looks like generally the players are doing terribly with parlays
from the link:
"Sportsbooks have made a fortune off parlays for years. According the Nevada Gaming Control Board Gaming Revenue Reports, sportsbooks in Nevada boasted a nearly 30% hold on parlays between 1984 and 2015. In comparison every other sport (I believe referring to straight bets ats or on the moneyline) has a hold below 5%."
I would have guessed that parlay bettors would do worse than straight bettors but I would not have guessed the difference would be so huge
it's hard for me to understand this.
win 3 out of 4 on a 4 team parlay and the bet's a loser. same with winning 4 out 5 on a 5 team parlay._________________ouch___!!!
3/4 of the way down the page the link shows the hold for every major sport in 23 years for straight bets and parlays
https://www.sportsinsights.com/blog/why-sports-bettors-should-avoid-parlays/
.
Quote: odiousgambitcheck out that OP. $55 bet has an EV of about -$2.50, two such would be -$5 ... if you parlayed $110, the EV is almost -$10Quote: unJonQuote: odiousgambitI thought it showed that you are better off making separate bets, no matterQuote: unJon
This is not the right way to think about it. You are calculating the parlay house edge based on the $110. But a parlay is really making one straight bet at $110 and then a second straight bet at $210.
link to original post
the offers that a player gets may require you parlay, that's the only time I wouldn't argue. Or maybe I'm wrong , don't see it yet
link to original post
House Edge % can be a finicky number. It’s much clearer to just compare $ EV loss to see if things are equivalent, or which way is better.
link to original post
I'm concluding that if you parlayed two fair bets, you'd be the same in EV, but if there is a house edge, it gets amplified in a parlay
link to original post
That’s the wrong comparison again. Take $110 and make a straight bet. If you win, make a straight bet of $210.
What’s the EV of those two bets combined?
Quote: MentalThis sounds interesting, but it doesn't map onto the problem I was trying to solve.Quote: gordonm888Quote: Mental
-snip-
I used to calculate measures of entropy to compare the win-pool line with the implied line for the second race in the daily double. If the DD pool has an implied probability of 10% for one combo, and the win pool has the horse in the first race at a 50%, then it is implicitly assigning a 20% probability to the horse in the second race. I used a measure of entropy to compare lines when I was doing this seriously. Damned if I remember what the formula was except that it involved logarithms of probabilities and the finishing position of every horse in the race. The win pool line had much less entropy (on average) than the implied win probabilities for the second leg of the DD or the third leg of a pick3. It was also much better than the morning line. From the point of information theory, the win pool was providing a better signal-to-noise ratio (less entropy).
link to original post
It sounds to me as if your 'entropy' calculation was based on something called Kullback–Leibler divergence which is a type of statistical distance: a measure of how much one multinomial probability distribution is different from a second probability distribution (for a multinomial of the same order.)
For discrete probability distributions P and Q defined on the same sample space with x possible outcome states, the relative entropy, D, from Q to P is defined to be:D(P||Q) = Σx P(x) log (P(x)/(Q(x))
In other words, it is the expectation of the logarithmic difference between the probabilities P and Q, where the expectation is taken using the probabilities P.
I happened to be studying the extension of binomial distribution analysis to multinomial distributions for possible application to analysis of other gambling problems and was surprised (and impressed) to see you have already apparently been using this in the past for horse race bets (and perhaps for sports parlays?)
link to original post
I had a large set of races where I had past performance figures for the horses, the morning line odds, and order of finish. I was trying various models to create a line. Now, I could back test the model to see how well it would have performed. One simple way to do this was to see how well the line would find win bets that would be +EV in back testing. However, this only uses the information about which horse finished first and makes no use of all the other data regarding order of finish. A good model should also predict which horse is going to finish last in a field of 12 horses. I realized I could get more feedback by making better use of the information in the results chart. My calculation was comparing Px from the line-making process with Ox, the complete order of finish.
I never directly compared one line with another line (comparing Px with Qx in your example). I typically compared one algorithm for creating a line to the order of finish over the whole dataset. I think I even tried comparing lines to lengths beaten to extract even more information from the charts.
link to original post
so, you compared a multinomial probability distribution to a vector (the actual outcomes of the race?) I agree, that's different, although mathematically it may be sort of a limiting case of comparing two multinomial distributions.
anybody have any insight into why players have been losing so much more with parlays per my post #6273 at 4:54 a.m. today__________?_______thanks
per the link the Nevada sportsbooks hold on straight bets has been less than 5% but the hold on parlays has been close to 30% from 1984 to 2015
https://www.sportsinsights.com/blog/why-sports-bettors-should-avoid-parlays/
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
anybody have any insight into why players have been losing so much more with parlays per my post #6273 at 4:54 a.m. today__________?_______thanks
per the link the Nevada sportsbooks hold on straight bets has been less than 5% but the hold on parlays has been close to 30% from 1984 to 2015
https://www.sportsinsights.com/blog/why-sports-bettors-should-avoid-parlays/
.
link to original post
I think it’s a similar math quirk to what I was saying above. As in it’s a function of churn as a parlay is taking a bet and making it multiple times at ever increasing amounts. If the average parlay is a three legger, it means betting $100 then $190.90 then $364.45. The hold though is calculated using the $100 in the denominator though, where as if I just made three straight bets in those amounts the hold would be calculated with a higher denominator for the second two bets.
So use the rough 5% hold for the straight bet, the parlay hold for this three legger is 5%*(100+190.90+364.45) = $32.77. If you use $100 as the denominator that’s a 32.77% hold.
But really it’s totally identical to me making three straight bets in increasing amounts.
Quote: unJonQuote: lilredrooster.
anybody have any insight into why players have been losing so much more with parlays per my post #6273 at 4:54 a.m. today__________?_______thanks
per the link the Nevada sportsbooks hold on straight bets has been less than 5% but the hold on parlays has been close to 30% from 1984 to 2015
https://www.sportsinsights.com/blog/why-sports-bettors-should-avoid-parlays/
.
link to original post
I think it’s a similar math quirk to what I was saying above. As in it’s a function of churn as a parlay is taking a bet and making it multiple times at ever increasing amounts. If the average parlay is a three legger, it means betting $100 then $190.90 then $364.45. The hold though is calculated using the $100 in the denominator though, where as if I just made three straight bets in those amounts the hold would be calculated with a higher denominator for the second two bets.
So use the rough 5% hold for the straight bet, the parlay hold for this three legger is 5%*(100+190.90+364.45) = $32.77. If you use $100 as the denominator that’s a 32.77% hold.
But really it’s totally identical to me making three straight bets in increasing amounts.
link to original post
And also many of the sites do not give ‘fair’ odds on the parlays. And the average Joe doesn’t care/know that. Like if it ‘should’ be +264 the site might pay +240.
One possible insight into why players may be losing more with parlays could be the increased difficulty of predicting multiple outcomes correctly. Parlays involve combining bets on multiple games or events, and while the potential payout is higher, the probability of winning decreases with each added selection. This increased complexity and lower likelihood of success might contribute to higher losses for players engaging in parlays.
Additionally, sportsbooks often adjust the odds in their favor when offering parlays, which could contribute to the higher hold percentage. The allure of a larger payout may attract bettors to parlays, but the sportsbooks adjust the odds to ensure their profitability.
It's essential for bettors to be aware of the risks and potential rewards associated with different types of bets. If the hold on parlays has consistently been around 30%, it underscores the importance of careful consideration and perhaps focusing on more straightforward betting strategies for better long-term results.
We may never see a total this low again in our lifetime for a NCAA Power 5 game.
OK, I think I see what the confusion is now. You are talking about parlaying at a table game the way it's normally done, "let it ride" style, where you make one bet and if you win you bet it all again.Quote: unJon
That’s the wrong comparison again. Take $110 and make a straight bet. If you win, make a straight bet of $210.
At these online casinos, a parlay is a single bet that if two or more events all win the way you have it, then you win. If just one event loses, you lose the bet. You could do it the old fashioned way instead, but when someone who bets sports online is talking about parlays, he's going to mean what the casino offers as a bet.
so it isn't two bets combined in the old sense, but this other wayQuote:What’s the EV of those two bets combined?
link to original post
for single game parlays, SGPs, they manipulate the odds every time when they allow you to do it. The formula used is unknown. I have to believe that since they are allowed to do that, that they put the screws on the player pretty hard.Quote: SOOPOO
And also many of the sites do not give ‘fair’ odds on the parlays. And the average Joe doesn’t care/know that. Like if it ‘should’ be +264 the site might pay +240.
link to original post
The attitude at the site is often "no SGPs" ... but then all of a sudden for certain sports it changes to being allowed and encouraged, and offers will demand you use an SGP. What does that tell you?
Well the let it ride way is surely going to just be a matter of "the house edge is the house edge" for each bet, how could it change?
But for the online casino's parlay bet, if I can go by EV divided by amount bet, the house edge increases. Nobody has told me I did it wrong yet, link follows if you need it, link to original post
Unjon, you suspect I may be coming to a conclusion that is faulty logic, and you may be right. So far, I'm kind of taking it to the bank that I'm right ... just a matter of expectations being realistic when looking at an offer that says, to get the offer, you do a parlay bet
I've never seen the Wizard opine on this
* I'm not talking about the table game, but just parlaying on your own, do it yourself, by letting bets ride
If you take the parlay offered by the sports book, how do you know they are not making the parlay the old-fashioned way internally in their accounting systems and giving you credit for more action than your initial stake? Since you cannot know how the book is accounting for your action, you cannot know the house edge (meaning EV/action). UnJon is saying the only thing you can know for sure is the absolute EV per parlay. I agree with him.Quote: odiousgambitwhat about the question of combined house edge where you parlay the let it ride way* versus house edge in the online casino way?
Well the let it ride way is surely going to just be a matter of "the house edge is the house edge" for each bet, how could it change?
But for the online casino's parlay bet, if I can go by EV divided by amount bet, the house edge increases. Nobody has told me I did it wrong yet, link follows if you need it, link to original post
Unjon, you suspect I may be coming to a conclusion that is faulty logic, and you may be right. So far, I'm kind of taking it to the bank that I'm right ... just a matter of expectations being realistic when looking at an offer that says, to get the offer, you do a parlay bet
I've never seen the Wizard opine on this
* I'm not talking about the table game, but just parlaying on your own, do it yourself, by letting bets ride
link to original post
Note that the house edge in BJ is almost universally calculated as absolute EV per hand. If a BJ house edge is specified at 0.5%, then this is 0.5% of the initial BJ bet, not 0.5% of the average number of chips you put into the circle during the hands. BJ edges are never specified as EV/action, so why would you talk about EV/action for parlays? Just stick to EV per parlay no matter if you take the book's premade parlay or if you roll your own. Any other way of looking at it is going to give you different answers for the house edge depending on the number of legs, etc. What you should care about is the juice per parlay.
As an aside, it is annoying to me that the BJ edge is specified as 0.5% instead of 0.005 units. But I guess is is easier for a human to process the former.
if you bet a 3 game parlay - and you do it yourself with games going off at different times -
you can search all of the books for the best lines on each game - if you're betting the fave you might be able to get -3 whereas most books are offering -3.5
if you bet the book's 3 game parlay from just one book it would be unlikely that one book would have the best lines on all 3 games on the teams that you wanted to bet on
according to the linked spread to money line calculator a fave at -3 should be -164 on the money line in the NFL
and a fave at -3.5 should be -191 on the money line
so the gain by getting the better deal at -3 is pretty substantial
https://www.actionnetwork.com/betting-calculators/moneyline-converter
.
Quote: odiousgambitOK, I think I see what the confusion is now. You are talking about parlaying at a table game the way it's normally done, "let it ride" style, where you make one bet and if you win you bet it all again.Quote: unJon
That’s the wrong comparison again. Take $110 and make a straight bet. If you win, make a straight bet of $210.
At these online casinos, a parlay is a single bet that if two or more events all win the way you have it, then you win. If just one event loses, you lose the bet. You could do it the old fashioned way instead, but when someone who bets sports online is talking about parlays, he's going to mean what the casino offers as a bet.so it isn't two bets combined in the old sense, but this other wayQuote:What’s the EV of those two bets combined?
link to original post
link to original post
Ok I’ll try one more time then leave you alone.
I know what a parlay is.
You keep comparing one parlay for $110 to making two straight bets at $110. That’s a meaningless comparison. You cannot draw a conclusion from that comparison that parlays are “worse” than straight bets.
I keep explaining the right comparison of a single bet parlay to an old fashioned parlay of let it ride. And showing you how the math is equivalent.
Somehow what I am trying to explain to you isn’t working. I’m probably being unclear somehow.
Quote: lilredrooster.
if you bet a 3 game parlay - and you do it yourself with games going off at different times -
you can search all of the books for the best lines on each game - if you're betting the fave you might be able to get -3 whereas most books are offering -3.5
if you bet the book's 3 game parlay from just one book it would be unlikely that one book would have the best lines on all 3 games on the teams that you wanted to bet on
according to the linked spread to money line calculator a fave at -3 should be -164 on the money line in the NFL
and a fave at -3.5 should be -191 on the money line
so the gain by getting the better deal at -3 is pretty substantial
https://www.actionnetwork.com/betting-calculators/moneyline-converter
.
link to original post
Yes! Totally agree. This is one reason that parlays are a sucker bet.
Oh well…..
I’m the sucker who has included over 24.5 in that Iowa game in a bunch of my parlays. I’m hoping to cover with a 10-10 OT game that ends 17-10…..
I’m trying new approach. Combining under total in NBA games with ‘big man’ over for rebounds. Might be correlated?
I’m liking my pre season 49ers Super Bowl pick. I don’t know how they lost 3 straight. In the three recent games they’ve been the class of the league. (Dallas fans may argue).
well, I'll accept that you are right, that it is the same as 'let it ride' if you crunch it all out ... I might look at that laterQuote: unJonOk I’ll try one more time then leave you alone.
I know what a parlay is.
You keep comparing one parlay for $110 to making two straight bets at $110. That’s a meaningless comparison. You cannot draw a conclusion from that comparison that parlays are “worse” than straight bets.
I still decline to do parlays [when no offer is involved] for the reason you can just make separate bets and that is the action I want. I do not want to 'let it ride' one bet to the other!
Plus there is the matter of seeing an increase of HE *and* EV as it relates to the *initial amount bet.* The initial amount bet is all I have control over ... this makes it seem pertinent to me. OK maybe that is a failure in logic, but I'm having a hard time letting that go.
I have no real argument. The only reason I ever make a parlay is because it is required by the terms of a free bet or promoted with a big odds boost. A sharp bettor can sometimes get an edge by making correlated bets within a parlay. I see no reason for an AP to make uncorrelated parlays when the juice is the same or higher.Quote: odiousgambitwell, I'll accept that you are right, that it is the same as 'let it ride' if you crunch it all out ... I might look at that laterQuote: unJonOk I’ll try one more time then leave you alone.
I know what a parlay is.
You keep comparing one parlay for $110 to making two straight bets at $110. That’s a meaningless comparison. You cannot draw a conclusion from that comparison that parlays are “worse” than straight bets.
I still decline to do parlays [when no offer is involved] for the reason you can just make separate bets and that is the action I want. I do not want to 'let it ride' one bet to the other!
Plus there is the matter of seeing an increase of HE *and* EV as it relates to the *initial amount bet.* The initial amount bet is all I have control over ... this makes it seem pertinent to me. OK maybe that is a failure in logic, but I'm having a hard time letting that go.
link to original post
I also understand why degen gamblers like parlays. It is the dream of a big score. APs just care about the EV per betting opportunity, be it straight bet or parlay.
Quote: odiousgambitwell, I'll accept that you are right, that it is the same as 'let it ride' if you crunch it all out ... I might look at that laterQuote: unJonOk I’ll try one more time then leave you alone.
I know what a parlay is.
You keep comparing one parlay for $110 to making two straight bets at $110. That’s a meaningless comparison. You cannot draw a conclusion from that comparison that parlays are “worse” than straight bets.
I still decline to do parlays [when no offer is involved] for the reason you can just make separate bets and that is the action I want. I do not want to 'let it ride' one bet to the other!
Plus there is the matter of seeing an increase of HE *and* EV as it relates to the *initial amount bet.* The initial amount bet is all I have control over ... this makes it seem pertinent to me. OK maybe that is a failure in logic, but I'm having a hard time letting that go.
link to original post
Bold added. I agree this is another good reason to not like parlays. Parlay is just a let it ride (sometimes with worse odds). And if you don’t want to do a let it ride, then you shouldn’t want to do a parlay.
Quote: SOOPOO
I’m the sucker who has included over 24.5 in that Iowa game in a bunch of my parlays. I’m hoping to cover with a 10-10 OT game that ends 17-10…..
As one that has painfully watched every Iowa game I was tempted by the over also.
That long TD pass by Nebraska at the end of the half was a blessing for you. I thought it was going to be 10-0 at half. If I had bet the Over those two blocked Iowa field goals in the first half would have assured the under. Good luck and go Hawkeyes.
Quote: SOOPOO
I’m the sucker who has included over 24.5 in that Iowa game in a bunch of my parlays. I’m hoping to cover with a 10-10 OT game that ends 17-10…..
Just sayin….. it’s 10-10 with a few minutes to go. Unfortunately I’m smelling 13-10?
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: SOOPOO
I’m the sucker who has included over 24.5 in that Iowa game in a bunch of my parlays. I’m hoping to cover with a 10-10 OT game that ends 17-10…..
Just sayin….. it’s 10-10 with a few minutes to go. Unfortunately I’m smelling 13-10?
link to original post
You definitely want overtime.
I sometimes watch the show "Follow the Money" on the Masn network
their "experts" make sports picks and it shows their records
just about none of them have a winning record - I do give them credit for honesty in posting their losing records
if they happen to be slight winners ats such as 6/5 ats they seem to be losers such as 4-7 on the o/u
their picks seem to have no value at all
there's another so called "expert" from the Washington Post who I checked out - Neil Greenberg - he's also way down on his best bets
so very difficult to beat sports without bonus bucks or free play of some sort
however, the commentary of these "experts" is often right on the money - very insightful and intelligent
but it's just not enough to get ahead of the game
.
I've posted about some of this here before - but not about all of the very interesting findings
very useful for those who want to milk promos and bonuses on NFL betting
the Wiz's tracking of thousands of NFL games - he found that:
all away wins by a tiny % of 1.34%
all underdogs lose by a tiny % of 0.57%
the home fave loses a high % - 11.51%____________________makes total sense that the home fave is overbet
only 69 games tracked but the home pick lost 22.34%
and the away pick won 13.25%
the home underdog loses - 7.05%________________too many bettors think the home dog is a great bet
and the most interesting -
the away underdog wins by 2.57%______________he tracked over 2,000 games on this one
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/
.
.
I've kind of been ignoring this, but took a look nowQuote: lilredrooster.
I've posted about some of this here before - but not about all of the very interesting findings
very useful for those who want to milk promos and bonuses on NFL betting
the Wiz's tracking of thousands of NFL games - he found that:
all away wins by a tiny % of 1.34%
all underdogs lose by a tiny % of 0.57%
the home fave loses a high % - 11.51%____________________makes total sense that the home fave is overbet
only 69 games tracked but the home pick lost 22.34%
and the away pick won 13.25%
the home underdog loses - 7.05%________________too many bettors think the home dog is a great bet
and the most interesting -
the away underdog wins by 2.57%______________he tracked over 2,000 games on this one
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/
.
.
link to original post
Here is where I think you are getting the business of 2.57% away underdogs
from wizard page, on where you seem to be getting it, first table there
note N.S.D means: Number of standard deviations that the actual results differ from an expected win rate of 50%. This is a clue; why would 50% be expected? Because the bet is against the spread
also assumed: a -110 bet, which fact I glean from his definition of return. That definition seems to say that the return in this case shows a player edge of 2.57% .
Quote: (just added edit)Return: Ratio of money won (lost = negative) to money bet, assuming laying 11 to win 10.
If I am right then this does not mean "the away underdog wins by 2.57%" as you state and you can't make a moneyline bet with the underdog getting +120 or something and be cashing in like crazy because they win 2.57% more often than not [edit].
The actual meaning is interesting, though. Might test that with 10 cent bets
| WINS | LOSSES | PUSHES | WIN RATE | STD. DEV | N.S.D | RETURN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1125 | 968 | 36 | 53.75% | 1.55% | 2.43 | 2.57% |
Quote: odiousgambitI've kind of been ignoring this, but took a look nowQuote: lilredrooster.
I've posted about some of this here before - but not about all of the very interesting findings
very useful for those who want to milk promos and bonuses on NFL betting
the Wiz's tracking of thousands of NFL games - he found that:
all away wins by a tiny % of 1.34%
all underdogs lose by a tiny % of 0.57%
the home fave loses a high % - 11.51%____________________makes total sense that the home fave is overbet
only 69 games tracked but the home pick lost 22.34%
and the away pick won 13.25%
the home underdog loses - 7.05%________________too many bettors think the home dog is a great bet
and the most interesting -
the away underdog wins by 2.57%______________he tracked over 2,000 games on this one
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/
.
.
link to original post
Here is where I think you are getting the business of 2.57% away underdogs
from wizard page, on where you seem to be getting it, first table there
note N.S.D means: Number of standard deviations that the actual results differ from an expected win rate of 50%. This is a clue; why would 50% be expected? Because the bet is against the spread
also assumed: a -110 bet, which fact I glean from his definition of return. That definition seems to say that the return in this case shows a player edge of 2.57% .Quote: (just added edit)Return: Ratio of money won (lost = negative) to money bet, assuming laying 11 to win 10.
If I am right then this does not mean "the away underdog wins by 2.57%" as you state and you can't make a moneyline bet with the underdog getting +120 or something and be cashing in like crazy because they win 2.57% more often than not [edit].
The actual meaning is interesting, though. Might test that with 10 cent bets
link to original post
it's clearly stated in the link that it's point spread bets
I did not state it was ats bets in my post because I thought it was understood
it has nothing at all to do with money line bets and I never stated that it did - although it would seem that ats bets that did well would also do well on the money line
but that is not proven
as I've stated in a previous post I've already tested it with close to 400 bets tweaking all away underdogs to away underdogs who got 4 points or less
they've won at about 57.6% with about a 10% r.o.i.
.
glad you're cleaning upQuote: lilredrooster
it's clearly stated in the link that it's point spread bets
I did not state it was ats bets in my post because I thought it was understood
it has nothing at all to do with money line bets
as I've stated in a previous post I've already tested it with close to 400 bets tweaking all away underdogs to away underdogs who got 4 points or less
they've won at about 57.6% with about a 10% r.o.i.
link to original post
I did not understand it was against-the-spread betting till I finally looked at the link. Nor am I still sure that 2.57% means what I think, as you'd usually write that as 102.57% return ... I could be wrong there
per the above post -
the fact that the link shows the away underdogs winning at 53.75% ats is a clear indicator that the 2.57% return that is shown means a win of $2.57 for ever $100 bet over the more than 2,000 bets
the all away bets with about 50% more bets (more than 3,000 were tracked) than away underdogs and winning at 53.10% ats with a positive r.o.i. of 1.34% is also very impressive -
.
Quote: DRichThat was a great game and a good cover for Michigan -3.
link to original post
yes - it was a great game - very entertaining
Blake Corrum killed Ohio State
they just could not stop him
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: DRichThat was a great game and a good cover for Michigan -3.
link to original post
yes - it was a great game - very entertaining
Blake Corrum killed Ohio State
they just could not stop him
.
link to original post
Corum had only 88 yards on 22 carries. He was good, not great. Michigan was just better than OSU. But not by a lot.
FD boost today is Ok St/Bama/Arizona parlay at even money. All 3 are big enough faves to make it +EV.
Edit…. Both Ok St and Bama are trailing….
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: lilredroosterQuote: DRichThat was a great game and a good cover for Michigan -3.
link to original post
yes - it was a great game - very entertaining
Blake Corrum killed Ohio State
they just could not stop him
.
link to original post
Corum had only 88 yards on 22 carries. He was good, not great.
he also had 2 TDs - one on a 22 yard carry
how many TDs does he have to have for you to consider him to be great________?
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: SOOPOOQuote: lilredroosterQuote: DRichThat was a great game and a good cover for Michigan -3.
link to original post
yes - it was a great game - very entertaining
Blake Corrum killed Ohio State
they just could not stop him
.
link to original post
Corum had only 88 yards on 22 carries. He was good, not great.
he also had 2 TDs - one on a 22 yard carry
how many TDs does he have to have for you to consider him to be great________?
.
link to original post
I watched the game and it never entered my mind that it was a great performance by him. I didn't think either team ran very well in the first half but their running game in the second half was pretty good. The running back for Missouri had a pretty good game yesterday.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: SOOPOOQuote: lilredroosterQuote: DRichThat was a great game and a good cover for Michigan -3.
link to original post
yes - it was a great game - very entertaining
Blake Corrum killed Ohio State
they just could not stop him
.
link to original post
Corum had only 88 yards on 22 carries. He was good, not great.
he also had 2 TDs - one on a 22 yard carry
how many TDs does he have to have for you to consider him to be great________?
.
link to original post
You are kidding, right? He was good. Probably 25 RBs averaged more than 4 yards per carry this weekend. Watched a few plays of Mizzou game. RB had 200 or so at halftime. That was a great performance. Daniel’s for LSU ran for 120. That’s in addition to passing for 4TDs. That’s a great performance.
If you use the word ‘great’ for Corum’s performance, there will be a hundred or so great performances every Saturday. Other than the one 22 yard carry he averaged 3 yards on the other 21 carries. He had a good game. Most importantly, he helped his team win. But to say he was ‘unstoppable’ just means you didn’t watch the game.
Quote: SOOPOOOk St tied in OT. If they win parlay wins….. Alabama miracle kept me alive.
link to original post
really - because earlier you posted this
Quote: SOOPOO
I’m the sucker who has included over 24.5 in that Iowa game in a bunch of my parlays.
I guess your parlay on the Alabama miracle was much larger than all of your other parlays
yeah, that's the ticket
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: SOOPOOOk St tied in OT. If they win parlay wins….. Alabama miracle kept me alive.
link to original post
really - because earlier you posted thisQuote: SOOPOO
I’m the sucker who has included over 24.5 in that Iowa game in a bunch of my parlays.
I guess your parlay on the Alabama miracle was much larger than all of your other parlays
yeah, that's the ticket
.
link to original post
Lilred…. I tend to report on the bets I find most interesting. Yes, this was the biggest $ bet…. but only because FD allows me $50 while for most of the others I’m limited to $5, $10, or $25. I have also mentioned that since after the beginning huge offers I only average $30 -$50 a day. It’s definitely been better recently. I don’t think I’m weaving a tale of riches here…..I just counted them up. Have 36 separate bets today. So far 11 wins. 20 losses. But that’s up good $$ because most of the bets are parlays.
You really need to lighten up.
Quote: SOOPOOSo far 11 wins. 20 losses. But that’s up good $$ because most of the bets are parlays.
link to original post
wow_____!!!!
you're winning a lot of parlays - and I guess many of them are 3 game parlays that pay a lot
really impressive
.
Quote: billryanI disliked Woody Hayes so much that it will be at least fifty more years before I can root for OSU.
I'm rooting for two Alabama-Georgia games and need Michigan to lose today and win next week.
Maryland is sticking around. 23-16 with a PAT to come.
link to original post
Did people see that (maybe apocryphal) Hayes’ quote they flashed during the game?
When asked why he went for a 2 point conversion up 50-14 vs Michigan, he responded “Because I couldn’t go for 3.”
