|2 votes (50%)|
|2 votes (50%)|
|No votes (0%)|
4 members have voted
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.
if you lose this bet, you then increase your bet for the next game.
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?
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.
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.
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.
(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?
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.
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.