Sports Gambling

This question is for the Wizard, and I have been sports betting for a long time.

This is not a sports betting "system" but basically looking at the NFL as fact, and betting accordingly.

I do all types of sports betting, but what I have done separately for years, is this betting "system" which is a martingale type betting system for football.

You take a team with a pre-season O/U win total between 6.5 and 8.5, and basically predict that they are not going to start 0-8 which is what I did again this year. (you can also predict that they won't go 0-16, which would work better, and has never lost in the history of the sport excluding the Lions and Tampa Bay, who had pre-season O/U win totals much lower than 6.5

Betting Moneylines only, you say bet the first game

I picked the Falcons this year, and I don't have exact numbers here, but I will show you an example.

Falcons -125

if you lose this bet, you then increase your bet for the next game.

Falcons +110

If you lose this bet, you then increase your bet, on and on, until eventually they win a game.

With enough starting units, as long as the team does not go 0-16, you will be positive after the teams first win.

This system works even better with the NBA, where I can guarantee you that a team does not go 0-82, especially a team with a pre-season over-under of 38-44 wins.

I would put this system to test (with the NBA) in a billion trial challenge, much like your blackjack contest where you have offered the $30,000 challenge.

I don't have advanced math to back up my claims (as I do for many of my sports betting "systems") but no team has ever or will ever go 0-82 in the NBA. (Or even 0-41) so I am positive it is an overall winning bet.

What do others, but most importantly, The Wizard, say?

You run into three problems:

1. Limit. The casinos will limit your action, especially in the NBA. If your unit was $25, you're going to have a tough time getting enough action once your team goes on a 10 game losing streak.

2. Moneyline. What if the game your team wins is the game when they are -190? You're going to have to more than double your bet sometimes.

3. Vig. If your unit is $25, you're going to have to always more than double your bet, to account for the vig.


I think (and I posted this almost a year ago) that there is something to using this system in the NFL, but using the spread, not the moneyline. I don't think a team has ever gone 0-16 against the spread. But ultimately, I don't think it's worth the money for the reward (1 unit)

And, the $30,000 challenge doesn't apply to sports betting.

1. 0-10 is a tough thing to predict. I doubt many teams have ever started 0-10, especially an above average team. Also in the NFL, "good" teams just never go 0-10, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. Also you can get enough money on your game if you really want, maybe you have to go to a few different casinos, or use different online sportsbooks, but you can.

2. Moneyline, yes you need to move your bet higher depending on your line, in order to win money, that is how it works.

3. Yes the vig is counted into the deal.

I have also used this system against the spread, I just felt that people could argue that a team may be more likely to go 0-16 against a spread (which I don't completely agree with).

You can also use this system predicting a loss for a team. It may be more expensive, but there are teams you can be 100% positive will not go undefeated. In the NFL, 29/32 teams already have a loss and only 3 games have been played. Picking an "average" team to eventually lose will work out as well.

I assumed it did not, but I was willing to say I'd stake whatever money on a challenge.

For example say a team was -150 every game (and no team who is now 0-3 or 0-4 in the NFL will be -150), we'll do some simple math.

Game 1 $75 to win $50 - Loss
Game 2 $188 to win $125 - Loss
Game 3 $470 to win $313 - Loss
Game 4 $1175 to win $783 - Loss
Game 5 $2937 to win $1958 - Win

So doubling your stake of $25, predicting -150 for every game. (Which if you are taking a team who is predicted to win 8 games is probably high for the first game by itself, and then when the team is 0-1, 0-2, 0-3, 0-4 you are going to be looking at lines of +200, to +300 or more)

Then you need just under $3000 to cover 5 games on $50, meaning about $1500 to cover your $25 unit. There is plenty of room to get action on that bet of $1500, which will actually be much less because your team is definitely going to be an underdog in some, if not 4 or so games.

For example in the NFL, there are only 5 winless teams left of 32.

Detroit is +675, ridiculously different from -150
Carolina is +575
San Francisco is +275
Buffalo is +215
Cleveland is +150

So we see that even at 0-3, a team is +150 at the lowest odds, much different from -150, and it will be even better odds if they did reach 0-4.

Even if you had lost $200 on Detroit so far, your bet would only be $37 here in week 4, moving your losing total to -$237. Not even close to the estimated -$1175 I have in my -150 estimate.

Quote: Enfuego

(you can also predict that they won't go 0-16, which would work better, and has never lost in the history of the sport excluding the Lions and Tampa Bay, who had pre-season O/U win totals much lower than 6.5

While the Bucs lost more than 16 straight games overall during their first two seasons, they never lost more than 14 games in one season, because back then the season was 14 weeks long (no bye weeks). Therefore the only team to go 0-16 in one season remains the Detroit Lions.

Obviously correct and thank you for making it more clear. Is there any way to find out what the Bucs projected O/U win total was for their 0-14 year?

Quote: Enfuego

Obviously correct and thank you for making it more clear. Is there any way to find out what the Bucs projected O/U win total was for their 0-14 year?

I've no idea. I'm not even sure what you're looking for. But surely the statistics for all NFL games are kept somewhere. Try nfl.com or the Bucs' own website.

I am looking for the Preseason prediction for this team. What was the betting line on how many wins they would have in the 14 game season, and if that is not available, at least what the public thought about the team. My point being we can know which teams not to use this system with, like those Bucs.

Oh, well, I doubt sport books keep those kinds of records. But maybe old newspaper reports? I recall some papers printed betting info on their game previews. You could start by googling local Tampa/St. Pete papers. Newspapers do keep exemplars of all issues printed.

Very interesting. Why not make it a super Martingale? Add a little bit to the base unit after each loss?

Two things used to refute the Martingale are always hitting the house limit before you win, and that the trails are random, that it IS
possible to lose 16 roulette spins in a row, or 16 blackjack hands, etc. But for this idea, sports team's efforts and capabilities, are NOT random.

Another anti-Martingale argument is that you are putting so much at risk for so little gain. This is true, but if a system truly insured an eventual return, then I don't think that is a worthy argument.

But it is not a sure fire thing. It is rare for a team to o 17-0, but it has been done. So just because it is rare for a team to go 0-16 doesn't mean it can't happen again. Highly unlikely, but not a certainty.

Very intriguing idea. Too bad that they don't comp sports bettors very well because that could factor into the equation to make it even more tempting.

Sigh. It's a martingale. 'Nuff said.

Its a martingale, but it might still be profitable. As a team loses more games there is a possibility that the losing team becomes undervalued to where betting the moneyline becomes greater than the true odds. If this were the case though, then you would probably just want to flat bet the streak to be broken or bet against the spread as it would be less risk.

This is a martingale. It just takes place over the length of a season. And if you get to 15 or 16 games (like the Bills) without a win, would you be willing to risk tens of thousands of dollars for that win to make $100 or whatever your goal is? What happens if that last game is against the Detroit Lions and you have to bet even money to win it.

The handicappers I think have you here as the house advantage is built in to the equation. There is nothing tremendously different about your system then betting at roulette. The odds and payouts are adjusted to include the house. Just because it's a football or basketball team doesn't mean anything.

Quote: Lote

Its a martingale, but it might still be profitable. As a team loses more games there is a possibility that the losing team becomes undervalued to where betting the moneyline becomes greater than the true odds. If this were the case though, then you would probably just want to flat bet the streak to be broken or bet against the spread as it would be less risk.

The fallacy lies in confusing the premises. "a team is very unlikely to go 0-10" with "this team is 0-9, so they're really really really DUE to win one". Once the bad team reaches that 0-9 mark, they are not necessarily going to be a good bet. Having lost nine in a row does not have any kind of positive impact on a team's chance of winning the next game--probably the opposite, in fact.

The handicappers will expect the public to bet against the streak, so they will penalize bettors on the team playing against a team mired in a losing streak. This may indeed create value, but it also may not. In any case, you can expect the line to be adjusted for all relevant factors, including, for instance, if the 0-9 matches up well against their current 6-3 opponents. Then the money line would be adjusted downwards--you might no longer get an attractive enough price. And I would definitely want a VERY attractive price--as well as balls of steel--to make my biggest wager of the season on an 0-9 team. (Note that betting against the spread wouldn't do the job at this point.)

Still another point to consider is that money lines on big underdogs/big favorites usually carry a HUGE amount of vig. You'll often see numbers like Rabid Wolverines, -850, Cowering Bunnies, +650. This sort of spread can NEVER be beaten in the long run.

It wasn't really a fallacy that the 0-9 team is "due" because Home Underdogs were traditionally an undervalued bet in the NFL. I'm not saying that a team is more likely to win if its on a losing streak, but that it is more likely to win compared with the current line due to overcorrecting for their bad-ness. Even with 20c lines, it was a slightly less than breakeven bet to bet for home dogs until 2008. Linesmakers have probably corrected this with their current lines but there is still the possibility that with line shopping and bookie overvaluation that it would be profitable to bet ATS. Moneyline would be much more rare like you said due to the vig.

Quote: Enfuego

This question is for the Wizard, and I have been sports betting for a long time.

This is not a sports betting "system" but basically looking at the NFL as fact, and betting accordingly.

You take a team with a pre-season O/U win total between 6.5 and 8.5, and basically predict that they are not going to start 0-8 which is what I did again this year. (you can also predict that they won't go 0-16, which would work better, and has never lost in the history of the sport excluding the Lions and Tampa Bay, who had pre-season O/U win totals much lower than 6.5

Betting Moneylines only, you say bet the first game

I picked the Falcons this year, and I don't have exact numbers here, but I will show you an example.

Falcons -125

if you lose this bet, you then increase your bet for the next game.

Falcons +110

If you lose this bet, you then increase your bet, on and on, until eventually they win a game.

With enough starting units, as long as the team does not go 0-16, you will be positive after the teams first win.

This system works even better with the NBA, where I can guarantee you that a team does not go 0-82, especially a team with a pre-season over-under of 38-44 wins.

I would put this system to test (with the NBA) in a billion trial challenge, much like your blackjack contest where you have offered the $30,000 challenge.

I don't have advanced math to back up my claims (as I do for many of my sports betting "systems") but no team has ever or will ever go 0-82 in the NBA. (Or even 0-41) so I am positive it is an overall winning bet.

What do others, but most importantly, The Wizard, say?

I tinkered with this a little during the baseball season, getting started too late to really do much. I have a few problems with how yours is set up.

First, the longes losing streak in sports is in baseball and I think it was 29 games by I forget what team in 1987 or 1988. That is once ever game, but it meets the Wizard's statement of Martingale eventually wiping you out. Or, put another way, betting on a loser can make you a big loser. I had better luck, again very limited, by waiting to find a MLB team on a 5+ game winning streak and betting AGAINST them. This had twin effects. First, it is harder to keep a winning streak than a losing streak. Second, you still get the effect of a positive moneyline, you just have to keep picking the other team. Third, I would forget it with the NFL. At least the way you are thinking. Why start in week one? Wait until a winner establishes itself, then bet the other team. Wait for any streak. And have a limit. Lose half your roll and then quit.