Sports betting chatter
Quote: AxelWolf
What are the legalities of betting on something you believe might be fixed, however, you had nothing to do with the fixing, and you're not sure the match is being fixed, you are just using data that would indicate there might be some shenanigans going on.
link to original post
You’d have to give a specific example. Your question is too vague.
One easy example. ‘I feel the Chiefs Broncos playoff game is fixed because the NFL wants Mahomes to advance’. I can see no way your bet on the Chiefs is not legit.
You are standing on a line to place a bet and you recognize a Chief’s players father betting big $$ AGAINST the Chiefs. This might be murky if you tail him.
And if it’s you had someone actually TELL you the game is fixed and you believe it’s credible you are probably guilty somehow.
Give us one example you are thinking of.
You monitor sports monitoring services. When they indicate suspicious betting activity( possible fixed tennis match) on a particular bet, you use that information to bet along with those bets at multiple offshore sports books.Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AxelWolf
What are the legalities of betting on something you believe might be fixed, however, you had nothing to do with the fixing, and you're not sure the match is being fixed, you are just using data that would indicate there might be some shenanigans going on.
link to original post
You’d have to give a specific example. Your question is too vague.
One easy example. ‘I feel the Chiefs Broncos playoff game is fixed because the NFL wants Mahomes to advance’. I can see no way your bet on the Chiefs is not legit.
You are standing on a line to place a bet and you recognize a Chief’s players father betting big $$ AGAINST the Chiefs. This might be murky if you tail him.
And if it’s you had someone actually TELL you the game is fixed and you believe it’s credible you are probably guilty somehow.
Give us one example you are thinking of.
link to original post
Quote: AxelWolfYou monitor sports monitoring services. When they indicate suspicious betting activity( possible fixed tennis match) on a particular bet, you use that information to bet along with those bets at multiple offshore sports books.Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AxelWolf
What are the legalities of betting on something you believe might be fixed, however, you had nothing to do with the fixing, and you're not sure the match is being fixed, you are just using data that would indicate there might be some shenanigans going on.
link to original post
You’d have to give a specific example. Your question is too vague.
One easy example. ‘I feel the Chiefs Broncos playoff game is fixed because the NFL wants Mahomes to advance’. I can see no way your bet on the Chiefs is not legit.
You are standing on a line to place a bet and you recognize a Chief’s players father betting big $$ AGAINST the Chiefs. This might be murky if you tail him.
And if it’s you had someone actually TELL you the game is fixed and you believe it’s credible you are probably guilty somehow.
Give us one example you are thinking of.
link to original post
link to original post
IANAL, but I think you would still be OK. Once again, in this case, the word ‘suspicious’ is very nuanced.
I once had ‘inside information’ on the health of an NFL player. I was his anesthesiologist and watched his surgery. Let’s say I was a regular $50-$200 bettor. How much would I have needed to bet on his ‘under yards receiving’ to qualify as ‘suspicious’? (I of course made no bets on that game, and would have been wrong anyway!)
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AxelWolfYou monitor sports monitoring services. When they indicate suspicious betting activity( possible fixed tennis match) on a particular bet, you use that information to bet along with those bets at multiple offshore sports books.Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AxelWolf
What are the legalities of betting on something you believe might be fixed, however, you had nothing to do with the fixing, and you're not sure the match is being fixed, you are just using data that would indicate there might be some shenanigans going on.
link to original post
You’d have to give a specific example. Your question is too vague.
One easy example. ‘I feel the Chiefs Broncos playoff game is fixed because the NFL wants Mahomes to advance’. I can see no way your bet on the Chiefs is not legit.
You are standing on a line to place a bet and you recognize a Chief’s players father betting big $$ AGAINST the Chiefs. This might be murky if you tail him.
And if it’s you had someone actually TELL you the game is fixed and you believe it’s credible you are probably guilty somehow.
Give us one example you are thinking of.
link to original post
link to original post
IANAL, but I think you would still be OK. Once again, in this case, the word ‘suspicious’ is very nuanced.
I once had ‘inside information’ on the health of an NFL player. I was his anesthesiologist and watched his surgery. Let’s say I was a regular $50-$200 bettor. How much would I have needed to bet on his ‘under yards receiving’ to qualify as ‘suspicious’? (I of course made no bets on that game, and would have been wrong anyway!)
link to original post
The good doctor knows of what he speaks. Never make the bets yourself when you can pass the information to your New York friends with crooked noses and take a cut. Soopoo wouldn't do that but others might.
Quote: DRichQuote: SOOPOOQuote: AxelWolfYou monitor sports monitoring services. When they indicate suspicious betting activity( possible fixed tennis match) on a particular bet, you use that information to bet along with those bets at multiple offshore sports books.Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AxelWolf
What are the legalities of betting on something you believe might be fixed, however, you had nothing to do with the fixing, and you're not sure the match is being fixed, you are just using data that would indicate there might be some shenanigans going on.
link to original post
You’d have to give a specific example. Your question is too vague.
One easy example. ‘I feel the Chiefs Broncos playoff game is fixed because the NFL wants Mahomes to advance’. I can see no way your bet on the Chiefs is not legit.
You are standing on a line to place a bet and you recognize a Chief’s players father betting big $$ AGAINST the Chiefs. This might be murky if you tail him.
And if it’s you had someone actually TELL you the game is fixed and you believe it’s credible you are probably guilty somehow.
Give us one example you are thinking of.
link to original post
link to original post
IANAL, but I think you would still be OK. Once again, in this case, the word ‘suspicious’ is very nuanced.
I once had ‘inside information’ on the health of an NFL player. I was his anesthesiologist and watched his surgery. Let’s say I was a regular $50-$200 bettor. How much would I have needed to bet on his ‘under yards receiving’ to qualify as ‘suspicious’? (I of course made no bets on that game, and would have been wrong anyway!)
link to original post
The good doctor knows of what he speaks. Never make the bets yourself when you can pass the information to your New York friends with crooked noses and take a cut. Soopoo wouldn't do that but others might.
link to original post
I guess no one here knows. Forget me. How much would ANYONE have to bet on a running back ‘under yards receiving’ or a pitcher ‘first pitch ball’ for it to be considered ‘suspicious’ enough for anyone to do any sort of investigation.
I told this particular player my son was a big fan and asked his permission to tell my son I took care of him. He said sure. But I didn’t tell my son until after the next game.
Quote: lilredrooster.
some of the powers that be in MLB are unhappy about prop betting which is now huge
it's hard for me to believe the MLB players would risk so much for so little (I don't think a person can make huge prop bets) but I guess the potential for human beings to be corrupted when money is involved, even if it's a relatively small amount, shouldn't be underestimated
from the link:
"“We’ve been on prop bets from the very beginning,” MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said last year. “When we lobby in states, there’s always certain types of bets that we have lobbied against — I mean, the first pitch of the game, we really don’t want that available as a prop bet.”
MLB has put two pitchers for the Cleveland Guardians — Luis L. Ortiz and Emmanuel Clase — on paid administrative leave through the end of August while it conducts an investigation into their potential use of sports betting apps to bet on baseball.
In the case of Ortiz, he is being investigated for throwing two specific pitches in early June that line up with a pair of bets that were flagged by a sports betting integrity firm. Those pitches — each of them an uncommon first-pitch slider — align with patterns flagged by a betting integrity watchdog firm."
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/cleveland-guardians-luis-ortiz-emmanuel-clase-prop-betting-sports-rcna221850
link to original post
If I was the batter and the pitcher had a reputation for doing this, I would swing at the first pitch anyway, just for the pleasure of impoverishing his family.
Then when in his rage he hits me with a pitch I get on base anyway. Win-win!
Quote: SOOPOO
I guess no one here knows. Forget me. How much would ANYONE have to bet on a running back ‘under yards receiving’ or a pitcher ‘first pitch ball’ for it to be considered ‘suspicious’ enough for anyone to do any sort of investigation.
I told this particular player my son was a big fan and asked his permission to tell my son I took care of him. He said sure. But I didn’t tell my son until after the next game.
link to original post
I doubt there is a specific $ amount, more likely a standard deviation from what is a typical amount bet on those props. Probably 5 to 10 standard deviations would cause suspicion.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: unJonQuote: SOOPOOQuote: billryanQuote: SOOPOOQuote: billryanIf it is proven that those players were involved, they should be banned. My concern is that most young pitchers don't call their own games so did the catcher call for it? How about the pitching coach?
link to original post
It doesn’t matter what was ‘called’. Any pitch can intentionally be thrown outside to be a ball. And the bets can be as simple as ‘ball, strike, or in play’.
Clase is making around $5 million a year for the next two years. If his performance didn’t drop he’d be in line for 8 figures a year in his next contract.
I’m interested in finding out HOW MUCH they think Clase profited from whatever he is being investigated for?
link to original post
The bet was the pitch would be a slider.
link to original post
Link!? Not saying that’s not true, just I’ve never seen that type of offer. I’ve heard announcers argue all the time whether a pitch was a ‘sweeper’, a ‘slurve’, or a ‘slider’, not to be confused with a ‘forkball’, a ‘ghost slider’, a fastball, or a fastball that’s actually a ‘sinker’, let alone a curveball that’s really a ‘knuckle curve’ , or a ‘changeup with motion’, or to go way back….. an Ephus pitch!
What I read about the other guy was he just threw the ball way outside so it would be a ball.
link to original post
Did you read the post? Bill Ryan was responding to LilRooster who posted it. Why would you ask Bill Ryan for the link? And there is a link in LR post, which I didn’t click.
link to original post
Huh? Bill Ryans post was one sentence. He posted ‘the bet was the pitch would be a slider’. I asked Bill if he had a link? I have no idea what YOU are referring to!
link to original post
Like just scroll up. It was LilRooster post saying it was a slider. That’s where Bill Ryan info came from. And LR had a link. It is all in this thread. You were brow beating the wrong person.
The bet was on the officially scored outcome of the first pitch of specified innings. As called by the umpire and entered into the record by the official scorer. What matters to the outcome is that it was so very clearly far out of the strike zone, and was therefore certain to be scored that way. Officially, as a "ball." The assertion that “slider” was more than an observation/opinion about how it looked, and instead was actually the bet is utter fantasy. Though like so many of these things I suspect it probably was truly believed the instant it emerged from someone’s garbled misreading, but is nothing but the usual sort of WoV forum factoid someone frequently cooks up here on all manner of things large and small as stuff gets diced, chopped, sauced, and baked to a crisp in their noggin.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45843304/sources-guardians-emmanuel-clase-leave-gambling-probeQuote: ESPN, by Jeff PassanIn both cases, unusual amounts of money were wagered on the pitches being a ball or hit batsman from betting accounts in New York, New Jersey and Ohio, according to a copy of the IC360 alert obtained by ESPN.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2025/07/28/emmanuel-clase-luis-ortiz-investigation-gambling/85415150007/Quote: USA Today, by Bob NightengaleGamblers wagered high amounts of money on whether those two pitches would result in a ball or hit batsmen.
And on, and on, from dozens of sources reporting on the specifics of the matter including The New York Times, Washington Post, The Athletic, Fox Sports, CBS Sports, CNN, LA Times… Someone *ahem* ‘misunderstood’ what they thought they remember they heard/read somewhere. Again. When someone never, ever provides a source for a constantly gushing flow of assertions and hyperactive geyser of stories, there is a reason for that. People who aren’t emotionally invested in the little clubhouse here, who don’t choose to sign on to post but do look in on the site for information & who make up the vast majority of its readers, can find it useful to take note. If a very active participant on the weird social-media forum side of the site says “today is Friday and tomorrow will be Saturday” you’d be wise to start doubting it.
As to the where did BillRyan get his bald assertion from, the answer is clearly the text of LilRooster’s post a few posts up from BR’s post. Not at all a link that SOOPOO desired, as it is on the same webpage as BR’s post a link isn’t necessary to get there.
My reaction was to SOOPOO’s chiding / browbeating (I still like my word but we can all agree to disagree about shades of gentleness) BillRyan when it was obvious and apparent that all answers to SOOPOO’s queries could be had by scrolling up another few posts and clicking the link he was requesting / demanding.
A link that I mentioned I had not (and still haven’t) clicked not being interested at all in MLB or prop wagering on the sport.
Quote: unJonThanks, DD.
As to the where did BillRyan get his bald assertion from, the answer is clearly the text of LilRooster’s post a few posts up from BR’s post. Not at all a link that SOOPOO desired, as it is on the same webpage as BR’s post a link isn’t necessary to get there.
My reaction was to SOOPOO’s chiding / browbeating (I still like my word but we can all agree to disagree about shades of gentleness) BillRyan when it was obvious and apparent that all answers to SOOPOO’s queries could be had by scrolling up another few posts and clicking the link he was requesting / demanding.
A link that I mentioned I had not (and still haven’t) clicked not being interested at all in MLB or prop wagering on the sport.
link to original post
just to be clear
my post quoted the link that the 2 pitches were sliders, not that the bet was that the pitch would be a slider as billryan posted
Bill made a mistake
it's really not all that much of a big deal - people make mistakes
anybody looking to a site like this to have absolutely authoritative info on anything is going to run into problems and it's their own fault
there is tons of wrong info posted here and on similar sites -
here again is what I quoted and the link I got it from:
"Those pitches — each of them an uncommon first-pitch slider — align with patterns flagged by a betting integrity watchdog firm."
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/cleveland-guardians-luis-ortiz-emmanuel-clase-prop-betting-sports-rcna221850
.
But I think Billy just made an honest mistake in interpreting the article.
By the way, there ARE bets available on the SPEED of the next pitch. Like ‘over/under 95.2 mph’. So if pitcher A throws 3 different pitches, fastball, curveball, changeup, you are essentially betting on over if you think it’s going to be a fastball. The speed is an OBJECTIVE fact. What you call it can be subjective.
SOOPOO lost one of his ‘bridge jumper’ bets last night. Took Pirates to win (-700) when they were up 15-10.
But won regular bet on Marlins +1.5. They were down 6-0, AND 12-10 in the 9th!
Best win ‘felt’ like a +EV bet. Player to hit a HR, free bet back if you lose. I took Volpe at an astounding +800! He had 6 HRs in his previous 11 games! Add one more!
Burns last 3 starts at ‘regular’ ballparks. 10 strikeouts. 10 strikeouts. 10 strike outs. The o/u on his strikeouts? 7.5.
SOOPOO hammering the over. I think if anything with new backdrop for hitters there will be more strikeouts than usual, but probably no significant effect.
And of course you can bet on the speed of the first pitch. Quite specifically. I may bet on 99.0 -99.9!
Quote: SOOPOOBraves (Strider)
And of course you can bet on the speed of the first pitch. Quite specifically. I may bet on 99.0 -99.9!
it might interest you - from google -
"Spencer Strider's fastball speed has seen some fluctuations. In 2023, his four-seam fastball averaged 97.2 mph, but in 2025, it has been averaging around 95.2 mph, down from his rookie season average of 98.2 mph. This decrease in velocity has been a point of concern for some, particularly after his return from injury."
and also from google -
"it's not common for MLB pitchers to throw their fastest pitch as their first pitch of the game. While some pitchers might throw a fastball to start, they often pace themselves and may not reach maximum velocity on the first pitch. A significant number of pitchers will throw a fastball as their first pitch, but not necessarily their fastest."
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: unJonThanks, DD.
As to the where did BillRyan get his bald assertion from, the answer is clearly the text of LilRooster’s post a few posts up from BR’s post. Not at all a link that SOOPOO desired, as it is on the same webpage as BR’s post a link isn’t necessary to get there.
My reaction was to SOOPOO’s chiding / browbeating (I still like my word but we can all agree to disagree about shades of gentleness) BillRyan when it was obvious and apparent that all answers to SOOPOO’s queries could be had by scrolling up another few posts and clicking the link he was requesting / demanding.
A link that I mentioned I had not (and still haven’t) clicked not being interested at all in MLB or prop wagering on the sport.
link to original post
just to be clear
my post quoted the link that the 2 pitches were sliders, not that the bet was that the pitch would be a slider as billryan posted
Bill made a mistake
it's really not all that much of a big deal - people make mistakes
anybody looking to a site like this to have absolutely authoritative info on anything is going to run into problems and it's their own fault
there is tons of wrong info posted here and on similar sites -
here again is what I quoted and the link I got it from:
"Those pitches — each of them an uncommon first-pitch slider — align with patterns flagged by a betting integrity watchdog firm."
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/cleveland-guardians-luis-ortiz-emmanuel-clase-prop-betting-sports-rcna221850
.
link to original post
I have now clicked the link and read that article and another one on the Ortiz situation. The second article did state that the bets were on whether the pitch would be a ball or hit the batter. And both were balls.
The first article, that was linked above doesn’t say that at all. Only says that they were investigating bets on two pitches, both that were uncommon first pitch sliders. No mention of balls or strikes.
So my read is that the article itself is mistaken or poorly worded. Not that billryan made a mistake. Unless it’s a mistake not to know that there aren’t MLB props on whether a pitch is a slider, which I wouldn’t call that lack of knowledge a mistake.
Anyway, carry on. I hope not to read any more baseball articles for a bit.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: SOOPOOBraves (Strider)
And of course you can bet on the speed of the first pitch. Quite specifically. I may bet on 99.0 -99.9!
it might interest you - from google -
"Spencer Strider's fastball speed has seen some fluctuations. In 2023, his four-seam fastball averaged 97.2 mph, but in 2025, it has been averaging around 95.2 mph, down from his rookie season average of 98.2 mph. This decrease in velocity has been a point of concern for some, particularly after his return from injury."
and also from google -
"it's not common for MLB pitchers to throw their fastest pitch as their first pitch of the game. While some pitchers might throw a fastball to start, they often pace themselves and may not reach maximum velocity on the first pitch. A significant number of pitchers will throw a fastball as their first pitch, but not necessarily their fastest."
.
link to original post
Good info…. but…. The first pitch was by Chase, not Strider. And….. I won at +340! It was a 99 mph fastball.
However, due to the rain delay, Strider not even playing. And Chase likely to be pulled early making my over strikeout bets suspect. I tried to get an under hedge bet in but they aren’t even offering a line now.
Quote: SOOPOOToday there is a baseball game being played at Bristol Motor Speedway in Tennessee. Braves (Strider) versus Reds(Burns).
Burns last 3 starts at ‘regular’ ballparks. 10 strikeouts. 10 strikeouts. 10 strike outs. The o/u on his strikeouts? 7.5.
SOOPOO hammering the over. I think if anything with new backdrop for hitters there will be more strikeouts than usual, but probably no significant effect.
And of course you can bet on the speed of the first pitch. Quite specifically. I may bet on 99.0 -99.9!
link to original post
Game postponed after 1st inning due to rain. To be restarted Sunday at 1PM. Do your bets carry over to Sunday, or are they refunded?
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOToday there is a baseball game being played at Bristol Motor Speedway in Tennessee. Braves (Strider) versus Reds(Burns).
Burns last 3 starts at ‘regular’ ballparks. 10 strikeouts. 10 strikeouts. 10 strike outs. The o/u on his strikeouts? 7.5.
SOOPOO hammering the over. I think if anything with new backdrop for hitters there will be more strikeouts than usual, but probably no significant effect.
And of course you can bet on the speed of the first pitch. Quite specifically. I may bet on 99.0 -99.9!
link to original post
Game postponed after 1st inning due to rain. To be restarted Sunday at 1PM. Do your bets carry over to Sunday, or are they refunded?
link to original post
Most were voided. But I did lose 1 as they counted the strikeout total as under. I wouldn’t be surprised if they (Fan Duel) gives a free bonus bet as a ‘sorry’ after they get complaints.
Bad beat of ‘all time’? You can bet on which golfer gets closest to the pin. Difficult par 3 on women’s tour. First golfer hits ball that looks like it’s going in but stops and inch short. Next golfer hits ‘billiard shot’. Taps ball in front and caroms in for hole in one. That is legal. First golfer gets to replace her ball to one inch.
Another site has NRFI at +128, YRFI -156.
I’m not sure what my limit would be on either bet, but I got in around 20x my average usual bet on such bet types.
Milk the cow, don’t kill it?
Quote: SOOPOOToday there is a baseball game which one site gives the ‘no vig’ line on YRFI or NRFI. So YRFI is -115, NRFI is +115.
Another site has NRFI at +128, YRFI -156.
I’m not sure what my limit would be on either bet, but I got in around 20x my average usual bet on such bet types.
Milk the cow, don’t kill it?
link to original post
More milk today. NRFI -120. YRFI + 126. Just a few dollars at my betting level but I love the concept.
Quote: SOOPOO
Bad beat of ‘all time’? You can bet on which golfer gets closest to the pin. Difficult par 3 on women’s tour. First golfer hits ball that looks like it’s going in but stops and inch short. Next golfer hits ‘billiard shot’. Taps ball in front and caroms in for hole in one. That is legal. First golfer gets to replace her ball to one inch.
Did the hole in one win the bet or was it closest without going in?
Quote: DRichQuote: SOOPOO
Bad beat of ‘all time’? You can bet on which golfer gets closest to the pin. Difficult par 3 on women’s tour. First golfer hits ball that looks like it’s going in but stops and inch short. Next golfer hits ‘billiard shot’. Taps ball in front and caroms in for hole in one. That is legal. First golfer gets to replace her ball to one inch.
Did the hole in one win the bet or was it closest without going in?
link to original post
Hole in one must count as ‘zero inches’. So it wins.
Speaking of golf betting, my bet for the week coming up is Bud Cauley top 20 at +260. He’s been pretty good all year. And only 49 golfers going this week.
the Wizard tracked a little over 2,000 NFL games and found that the home faves against the spread were well over bet
he has the away underdog winning 53.75% of the time ats and generating a 2.57% positive return - see link
I wanted to see more data re that so I found a site with historical data and I found that in the last 50 seasons against the spread away underdogs have won more games than the home favorite in 34 of those seasons and lost more games than the home favorite in only 16 of those seasons - see link
it looks like a player betting only away underdogs will very likely have one of these three things happen - 1. a tiny loss, or more likely_______ 2. about breaking even or______ 3. a smallish win
all the while the player can very easily be milking free play and/or bonus money while he's doing this
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/
.
Yet opponent is slight underdog! Taking Rangers.
A’s Twins.
Lopez (A’s) has given up ZERO runs last 3 outings totaling 20 innings. 24 K’s!
Ryan (Twins) has only given up 4 runs his last 3 outings in 18 innings.
UNDER 8.5 is the bet. Also Lopez over 5.5 K’s.
Posted so when I lose it reminds me why I should only make + EV bets!
Edit. I’m getting lots of offers for college football. I’m waiting for DRich to post his thoughts on opening eeekend games!
Quote: lilredrooster.
the Wizard tracked a little over 2,000 NFL games and found that the home faves against the spread were well over bet
he has the away underdog winning 53.75% of the time ats and generating a 2.57% positive return - see link
I wanted to see more data re that so I found a site with historical data and I found that in the last 50 seasons against the spread away underdogs have won more games than the home favorite in 34 of those seasons and lost more games than the home favorite in only 16 of those seasons - see link
it looks like a player betting only away underdogs will very likely have one of these three things happen - 1. a tiny loss, or more likely_______ 2. about breaking even or______ 3. a smallish win
all the while the player can very easily be milking free play and/or bonus money while he's doing this
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/
.
link to original post
I would be very careful about using data that old. Sports betting is not what it was 50 years ago. The closing lines are very sharp now. You are not going to beat them using something simplistic.
Quote: SkinnyTonyQuote: lilredrooster.
the Wizard tracked a little over 2,000 NFL games and found that the home faves against the spread were well over bet
he has the away underdog winning 53.75% of the time ats and generating a 2.57% positive return - see link
I wanted to see more data re that so I found a site with historical data and I found that in the last 50 seasons against the spread away underdogs have won more games than the home favorite in 34 of those seasons and lost more games than the home favorite in only 16 of those seasons - see link
it looks like a player betting only away underdogs will very likely have one of these three things happen - 1. a tiny loss, or more likely_______ 2. about breaking even or______ 3. a smallish win
all the while the player can very easily be earning free play and/or bonus money while he's doing this
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/
.
link to original post
I would be very careful about using data that old. SPORTS BETTING IS NOT WHAT IT WAS 50 YEARS AGO. The closing lines are very sharp now. You are not going to beat them using something simplistic.
link to original post
the home fave has has lost more games than the away underdog in 7 OF THE LAST 10 SEASONS.
the away underdog has won 52.2% in the last 10 seasons - less than the wizard found (53.75) - see link
no edge - but just about break even - still good for earning bonuses and free play
of course, there are no guarantees
in the last 10 seasons the most the away underdog lost was 54.7% in any one season - the most the away underdog won was 59.3% in any one season
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: SkinnyTonyQuote: lilredrooster.
the Wizard tracked a little over 2,000 NFL games and found that the home faves against the spread were well over bet
he has the away underdog winning 53.75% of the time ats and generating a 2.57% positive return - see link
I wanted to see more data re that so I found a site with historical data and I found that in the last 50 seasons against the spread away underdogs have won more games than the home favorite in 34 of those seasons and lost more games than the home favorite in only 16 of those seasons - see link
it looks like a player betting only away underdogs will very likely have one of these three things happen - 1. a tiny loss, or more likely_______ 2. about breaking even or______ 3. a smallish win
all the while the player can very easily be earning free play and/or bonus money while he's doing this
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/
.
link to original post
I would be very careful about using data that old. SPORTS BETTING IS NOT WHAT IT WAS 50 YEARS AGO. The closing lines are very sharp now. You are not going to beat them using something simplistic.
link to original post
the home fave has has lost more games than the away underdog in 7 OF THE LAST 10 SEASONS.
the away underdog has won 52.2% in the last 10 seasons - less than the wizard found (53.75) - see link
no edge - but just about break even - still good for earning bonuses and free play
of course, there are no guarantees
in the last 10 seasons the most the away underdog lost was 54.7% in any one season - the most the away underdog won was 59.3% in any one season
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/
.
link to original post
When you say ‘won’ you must of course mean ‘won against the spread’. Since many bets are moneyline with no spread you should be clearer.
I’ll agree with Tony. Rules changes, new stadiums, more indoor games all dilute the data from 15+ years ago.
I do like your point that if for some bonus you HAVE to make a pointspread bet and have no other information your system might be slightly better than a coin toss.
But I’ll offer you this bet. I will bet you $$ that the away underdog covers LESS than 52.0 % of the games this year!
Want the action?
Decided to use my ‘research’ to make some (still probably -EV) bets today. Picked a (hugely correlated!) parlay. Team wins and it’s pitcher over in strikeouts. Looked at my 5 sites. Odds ranged from +239 to +320! Since I’m assuming +320 is still slightly -EV, imagine the juice you are paying if you took +239! I (coincidentally) had a 25% boost available so got it at +400.
Ozzie Albies to get a hit is my bet of the day .
Quote: SOOPOO
Since many bets are moneyline with no spread you should be clearer.
I’ll agree with Tony. Rules changes, new stadiums, more indoor games all dilute the data from 15+ years ago.
But I’ll offer you this bet. I will bet you $$ that the away underdog covers LESS than 52.0 % of the games this year!
Want the action?
since my op clearly stated "against the spread" I didn't feel it necessary to repeat that in the follow up post - so very obvious -
as far as "data from 15+ years ago" - I clearly stated in my follow up post that in this new post MY DATA WAS FROM THE LAST 10 YEARS - that's why I made the post - after I read Tony's valid point
sheeeeez
no, I don't want your action on the bet - I don't bet anymore - I'm not willing to bet big enough to make a real difference in my finances so it's pointless to me - I've done tons and tons of betting in the past - it doesn't thrill me anymore - I just like analyzing stuff
since I also very clearly stated that away underdogs ats lost in 3 of the last 10 years it's very possible that your side of the proposed bet would win -
it would be meaningless -
10 years however imo is not meaningless
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: SOOPOO
Since many bets are moneyline with no spread you should be clearer.
I’ll agree with Tony. Rules changes, new stadiums, more indoor games all dilute the data from 15+ years ago.
But I’ll offer you this bet. I will bet you $$ that the away underdog covers LESS than 52.0 % of the games this year!
Want the action?
since my op clearly stated "against the spread" I didn't feel it necessary to repeat that in the follow up post - so very obvious -
as far as "data from 15+ years ago" - I clearly stated in my follow up post that in this new post MY DATA WAS FROM THE LAST 10 YEARS - that's why I made the post - after I read Tony's valid point
sheeeeez
no, I don't want your action on the bet - I don't bet anymore - I'm not willing to bet big enough to make a real difference in my finances so it's pointless to me - I've done tons and tons of betting in the past - it doesn't thrill me anymore - I just like analyzing stuff
since I also very clearly stated that away underdogs ats lost in 3 of the last 10 years it's very possible that your side of the proposed bet would win -
it would be meaningless -
10 years however imo is not meaningless
.
link to original post
Most of my bets of this type are ‘a Starbucks’ or some such.
Just like you, none of my sports bets are of any ‘significance’.
I just doubt you can identify any single parameter GOING FORWARD that would be expected to beat the normal vig.
I am reading these two bets:
Penn State +600 to win the CFP championship
Penn State -85 (that's what it says) not to win the CFP championship
It also has +500 on the yes and -69 on the no for Texas
Quote: ThatDonGuySomebody tell me if I am reading this wrong, but I may have found an AP at the Circa Nevada online app
I am reading these two bets:
Penn State +600 to win the CFP championship
Penn State -85 (that's what it says) not to win the CFP championship
It also has +500 on the yes and -69 on the no for Texas
link to original post
Yes, probably should be -850. I am guessing that if it allows you to make a large bet that it will be cancelled.
I was surprised that both Texas and Ohio State are the favorites at +450 at Hardrock. They play each other in Week 1. I will be rooting for Ohio State again, but I think it is unlikely after having 14 players drafted by the NFL this year and starting a Freshman QB that has never started a college game.
Quote: SOOPOOI just doubt you can identify any single parameter GOING FORWARD that would be expected to beat the normal vig.
I was going to post this later, closer to the first game - but since you mentioned it - I'll post it now
I posted this last season and it won by a smallish %
all underdogs against the spread in the first 2 weeks of the season
a year ago I speculated that will all the new players coming in and all of the older players now a year older there would be much unpredictability that favors the dogs since they are getting points
I've now tracked the last 500 games of the first 2 weeks of several seasons and the underdogs have won 55% against the spread which equates to about 5% profit for anybody who had bet on all of them
yesterday, I searched google and found they confirmed the idea:
"AI Overview
In the early parts of the NFL season, underdogs have demonstrated a surprising ability to perform well against the spread (ATS) and even secure outright victories.
Based on recent trends and betting analysis, there's evidence suggesting that underdogs in the NFL tend to perform well in the early part of the season, particularly against the spread.
Here's why this trend is observed and some considerations for betting on underdogs early in the NFL season:
Uncertainty and Value: Early in the season, the true strength of teams is still relatively unknown, leading to more uncertainty in setting betting lines. This uncertainty can create value for bettors in identifying underestimated underdog teams that might have a higher chance of performing better than expected, especially against the spread."
https://www.google.com/search?q=unde...hrome&ie=UTF-8
My ‘research’ today leads to ….
ROYALS. Only the slightest of favorite at home.
Royals pitcher. ZERO runs last two outings.
Rangers pitcher. Last 3 outings. Only made it total of 10 innings. Because…. 18 hits. 8 walks. 13 runs!
Parlay with Witt to get a hit at plus odds total.
Last one ‘like this’ I lost as Albies went hitless…..
MLB teams all have a hierarchy of their relief pitchers. The better ones are saved for ‘high leverage situations’. But if they were used, say, for the two previous games they won’t pitch in the 3rd straight game.
I’m wondering if the books factor this information in ‘enough’.
Is there value in betting against a team that won’t have its best (and sometimes second best also) reliever available?
And even more so, is there value in betting ON their starting pitchers to get over on the total outs prop, as the manager wants to avoid using his now weaker bullpen?
It would be too difficult and time consuming for ME to do a real analysis…. but my hunch is it might be fruitful.
This of course would not work for a longshot as your chances of the return of your bet is much smaller.
I’m putting out a line for birdies today. Scottie SOOPOO + 4.5 over Scottie Scheffler. My one (hopefully) against his 5 and I win!
Quote: DRichQuote: ThatDonGuySomebody tell me if I am reading this wrong, but I may have found an AP at the Circa Nevada online app
I am reading these two bets:
Penn State +600 to win the CFP championship
Penn State -85 (that's what it says) not to win the CFP championship
It also has +500 on the yes and -69 on the no for Texas
link to original post
Yes, probably should be -850. I am guessing that if it allows you to make a large bet that it will be cancelled.
I was surprised that both Texas and Ohio State are the favorites at +450 at Hardrock. They play each other in Week 1. I will be rooting for Ohio State again, but I think it is unlikely after having 14 players drafted by the NFL this year and starting a Freshman QB that has never started a college game.
link to original post
How many of those fourteen were replaced by transfers who also have plans to be playing on Sunday? The old system of grooming a lineman for three years to get one good season is gone. If a team like Tejas or Bama loses a stud MLB in the draft, they open their purse and buy the best available replacement.
Quote: ThatDonGuySomebody tell me if I am reading this wrong, but I may have found an AP at the Circa Nevada online app
I am reading these two bets:
Penn State +600 to win the CFP championship
Penn State -85 (that's what it says) not to win the CFP championship
It also has +500 on the yes and -69 on the no for Texas
link to original post
What does -85 mean even possibly as a legit line? No American odds are written that way. Almost no chance the bet isn’t voided. Would be interesting to see how the site calculates it if it lets you make bet? Does it convert to +118?
I see what you mean. To go "beyond" -100 , which would mean even money, you don't go to "-99" you go to +101 or -101 depending where you want to go as the oddsmakerQuote: unJonQuote: ThatDonGuySomebody tell me if I am reading this wrong, but I may have found an AP at the Circa Nevada online app
I am reading these two bets:
Penn State +600 to win the CFP championship
Penn State -85 (that's what it says) not to win the CFP championship
It also has +500 on the yes and -69 on the no for Texas
link to original post
What does -85 mean even possibly as a legit line? No American odds are written that way. Almost no chance the bet isn’t voided. Would be interesting to see how the site calculates it if it lets you make bet? Does it convert to +118?
link to original post
This will probably give them something to go on to cancel the bets
an MLB pick -
Royals -110 over the Rangers
I note that Royals are much better at home than the Rangers are away
Rangers are 3-7 in their last 10 while the Royals are 7-3
also, on covers.com I note that 65% of over 500 people picked the Royals - that's a very high % for a game that is priced like that
I'm not sure why so many went for the Royals - but I'm hoping they know something that I don't know - game is at 2:10
edit - just noted that's also Soopoo's pick - so it must be good one
https://www.covers.com/sports/mlb/matchups
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: SOOPOOI just doubt you can identify any single parameter GOING FORWARD that would be expected to beat the normal vig.
I was going to post this later, closer to the first game - but since you mentioned it - I'll post it now
I posted this last season and it won by a smallish %
all underdogs against the spread in the first 2 weeks of the season
a year ago I speculated that will all the new players coming in and all of the older players now a year older there would be much unpredictability that favors the dogs since they are getting points
I've now tracked the last 500 games of the first 2 weeks of several seasons and the underdogs have won 55% against the spread which equates to about 5% profit for anybody who had bet on all of them
yesterday, I searched google and found they confirmed the idea:
"AI Overview
In the early parts of the NFL season, underdogs have demonstrated a surprising ability to perform well against the spread (ATS) and even secure outright victories.
Based on recent trends and betting analysis, there's evidence suggesting that underdogs in the NFL tend to perform well in the early part of the season, particularly against the spread.
Here's why this trend is observed and some considerations for betting on underdogs early in the NFL season:
Uncertainty and Value: Early in the season, the true strength of teams is still relatively unknown, leading to more uncertainty in setting betting lines. This uncertainty can create value for bettors in identifying underestimated underdog teams that might have a higher chance of performing better than expected, especially against the spread."
https://www.google.com/search?q=unde...hrome&ie=UTF-8
link to original post
This is meaningless AI drivel. It doesn't even really match what happened last year. When the Pats beat the Bengals in week 1 and entire survivor leagues ended it wasn't because the the Bengals were worse than people thought or the Patriots were better. The Bengals were a pretty good team with a shitty defense and the Pats were trash just like everyone thought.
Later in the year (like, from week 3 onwards) we saw favorites cover and overs hit like we have never seen before. Probably the new kickoff rules were not properly factored in. They have changed them again this year; expect a small scoring increase again, though I wouldn't just go and blindly bet favorites and overs.
Quote: SkinnyTonyThis is meaningless AI drivel. It doesn't even really match what happened last year.
this is what faves did ats in the first 2 weeks for the last 5 years per the link ignoring pushes:
2024________ 14-17
2023_________11-19
2022_________16-16
2021_________11-21
2020_________16-16
faves didn't have a single winning year ats in the first 2 weeks out of the last 15 years___and maybe beyond that - the link was moving too slow for me to wanna go further than that
summation - faves ats went 68-89 in the first 2 weeks of the last 5 years_________they won just a little over 43%
again, I've now tracked the last 500 games of the first 2 weeks from many past seasons and the ats faves have consistently lost coming close to matching the above figure
believe what you wanna believe - I don't care - I'll believe what I wanna believe
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-season/?y=2024
.
Quote: billryanWhat do you believe the stats show? Do you think a favorable betting situation exists to bet on every road dog?
no
the Wizard's data did show a 2.57% positive return on betting all away underdogs but the data was very old (see link)
this what I posted yesterday:
"the home fave has has lost more games than the away underdog in 7 OF THE LAST 10 SEASONS.
the away underdog has won 52.2% in the last 10 seasons - less than the wizard found (53.75) - see link
no edge - but just about break even - potentially good for earning bonuses and free play based on your total action
of course, there are no guarantees
in the last 10 seasons the most the away underdog lost was 54.7% in any one season - the most the away underdog won was 59.3% in any one season"
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/
.
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: billryanWhat do you believe the stats show? Do you think a favorable betting situation exists to bet on every road dog?
no
the Wizard's data did show a 2.57% positive return on betting all away underdogs but the data was very old (see link)
this what I posted yesterday:
"the home fave has has lost more games than the away underdog in 7 OF THE LAST 10 SEASONS.
the away underdog has won 52.2% in the last 10 seasons - less than the wizard found (53.75) - see link
no edge - but just about break even - potentially good for earning bonuses and free play based on your total action
of course, there are no guarantees
in the last 10 seasons the most the away underdog lost was 54.7% in any one season - the most the away underdog won was 59.3% in any one season"
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/
.
.
link to original post
Scoring is up this preseason. Teams are realizing that they need to get their starters some playing time in the preseason to avoid slow starts on offense. The Bengals are a very obvious example (1-9 in the first 2 games in the Joe Burrow era). Their offensive starters got more playing time this preseason than in the past, presumably in an attempt to address this. Not only that but they are actually running their real offenses instead of a vanilla version. I've noticed this with a few teams vs last year. The Dolphins were an obvious example for me -- last year in the preseason their offense was vanilla and boring. This year they are running their normal offense, complete with all the exotic motions. Teams are getting the reps they need.
The offenses "clicking" early in the season means higher scoring, which is good for the favorites (favorite and over are obviously correlated).
I'm always very suspicious of trends. They look great in the rear view mirror but their predictive ability is suspect.
Quote: SkinnyTony
Scoring is up this preseason.
The offenses "clicking" early in the season means higher scoring, which is good for the favorites
I counted the faves going 15-20 against the spread so far in the preseason
.https://www.covers.com/sports/nfl/matchups
.
I'm 1-0 on my MLB picks so far_________woohoo__________+91 based on a $100 bet
trying to keep it going with the Rangers -148 over the Guardians
the Rangers are much better at home than the Guardians are away
the Rangers starter Eovaldi, is having a great year - he's 11-3 with a 1.76 era -
the Guardians starter Cecconi is mediocre
and oh yeah, "the wisdom of the crowd" - 69% picked the Rangers on covers.com_________glta
.
Quote: DRich24 hours from now is college football kickoff for 2025. The Iowa state Cyclones play the Kansas State Wildcats in Dublin Ireland. Probably my first losing bet of the season.
link to original post
I had a friend 45 years ago with Iowa State ties. I visited Iowa then and had a Cyclones T shirt that lasted over 20 years until it finally disintegrated. I had an offer so bet on ISU money line at around +220.
I think this matchup is referred to as ‘Farmageddon’.
Quote: lilredrooster.
I'm 1-0 on my MLB picks so far_________woohoo__________+91 based on a $100 bet
trying to keep it going with the Rangers -148 over the Guardians
the Rangers are much better at home than the Guardians are away
the Rangers starter Eovaldi, is having a great year - he's 11-3 with a 1.76 era -
the Guardians starter Cecconi is mediocre
and oh yeah, "the wisdom of the crowd" - 69% picked the Rangers on covers.com_________glta
.
link to original post
Start worrying. I’m with you on the Rangers. Also like same bet which won…. Royals and Witt hit.
I have a big leftover parlay needingPirates to win.
And going with underdog Red Sox +1.5 over Yankees.
