All Forums | NFL Betting Forum

+5.5 spreads in the NFL

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 1061
Posts: 19
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 907
Posted: #1
they seem to always cover. does anyone have a stat on this? week 2 they covered as well as week 1. 

so my advice is...if its +5.5 go for it
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 18451
Posted: #2
Giants orginally started at +5.5 but got whooped. but i do agree with you, most 5.5s seem to do well.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 4044
Posted: #3
What if I buy down to 5, does that change the outcome?
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2010
Posts: 812
Posted: #4
An old school saying when looking at a dog was " 5 is alive!!", it never held much weight for me but it is a number that can give u quite a few options for a back door cover late in the game, u can cover down 6 with a fg or if your team is down 10 or 11 that late td can get u the cover
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2010
Posts: 396
Posted: #5

Quote Originally Posted by NYCPRO:

An old school saying when looking at a dog was " 5 is alive!!", it never held much weight for me but it is a number that can give u quite a few options for a back door cover late in the game, u can cover down 6 with a fg or if your team is down 10 or 11 that late td can get u the cover

i dont see alot of teams going for fgs late down since

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2010
Posts: 396
Posted: #6

*down 6 lol

 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2010
Posts: 812
Posted: #7
No, not late but early or mid way through the 4th there will be a lot of coaches kicking 3, especially  in those 4th and 10 situations from the 25-30 yard line.  

It doesn't factor into my capping , I'm just saying the 5 can give u a few options to get a late back door
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 907
Posted: #8
well it factors into mine. vikings , eagles, and titans were all 5.5's in my lg lst week
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2009
Posts: 41623
Posted: #9
Quote Originally Posted by nypride:

they seem to always cover. does anyone have a stat on this? week 2 they covered as well as week 1. 

so my advice is...if its +5.5 go for it



i was going to bring this up as well. wish someone had a stat for how often teams that are 5.5 cover and win outright!
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2003
Posts: 42643
Posted: #10
+5 or 5.5 got my first attention way back to 1993 AFC Divisional Playoff between KC Chiefs and Houston Oilers. The spread was KC +3 but it rosed sharply to +5 (or 5.5) at Caesars' Palace when i felt something fishy out of my gut. Subsequently,I bought back my original Oilers -5 bet with equal amount of Chiefs +5. Chiefs beat Oilers, 28-20. i mostly bet +5/5.5 since then. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2002
Posts: 4883
Posted: #11
Quote Originally Posted by NYCPRO:

An old school saying when looking at a dog was " 5 is alive!!", it never held much weight for me but it is a number that can give u quite a few options for a back door cover late in the game, u can cover down 6 with a fg or if your team is down 10 or 11 that late td can get u the cover


No stats just experience and I agree w/ this 100%....If a team is down 9-12 they seem to get that back door TD a lot easier as the opponent is obviously playing a prevent def and isn't worried about trying to score on the next possession, so to be comfortable w/ betting a fav of 5.5 you gotta hope your team is up 13+ or else shit may hit the fan.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #12
Quote Originally Posted by Europa:

+5 or 5.5 got my first attention way back to 1993 AFC Divisional Playoff between KC Chiefs and Houston Oilers. The spread was KC +3 but it rosed sharply to +5 (or 5.5) at Caesars' Palace when i felt something fishy out of my gut. Subsequently,I bought back my original Oilers -5 bet with equal amount of Chiefs +5. Chiefs beat Oilers, 28-20. i mostly bet +5/5.5 since then. 

Awful loss for the Run N' Shoot Oilers who went 12-4 that year I believe and won 11 in a row only to get one and doned by a fairly mediocre Chiefs team. 

Terrible memories of that game 

Oh yeah, that SAME year they lost to the Bills with a 35-3 lead in the playoffs as well on 1/3...

anyone have the Oilers ML in that game? what was the spread? Anyone know?
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2003
Posts: 42643
Posted: #13
 someone can remember that Run N' Shoot Oilers at that time. the lack of soild defense failed Jack Pardee's bid to go deep in postseasons.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2003
Posts: 42643
Posted: #14
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:


Awful loss for the Run N' Shoot Oilers who went 12-4 that year I believe and won 11 in a row only to get one and doned by a fairly mediocre Chiefs team. 

Terrible memories of that game 

Oh yeah, that SAME year they lost to the Bills with a 35-3 lead in the playoffs as well on 1/3...

anyone have the Oilers ML in that game? what was the spread? Anyone know?

Oilers +3, the game was so brutal in 2nd half from Houston's perspective after they lead the game 28-3 at the half. Probably it was the most came from behind and win in NFL playoffs history.

https://www.covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/nfl/teams/pastresults/1992-1993/team10.html

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 20
Posted: #15

I checked and since 2000 if a team has a spread of 5.5 straight up they are 33-60 but ats 50-43 ... I think this is opening line only though, so for example this year the only game that falls into this is Minnesota/NO. 

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2003
Posts: 42643
Posted: #16
Quote Originally Posted by Cadenas:

I checked and since 2000 if a team has a spread of 5.5 straight up they are 33-60 but ats 50-43 ... I think this is opening line only though, so for example this year the only game that falls into this is Minnesota/NO. 

Thanks! 50-43 isn't too bad, at least we don't lose something to the books.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2002
Posts: 4883
Posted: #17
Quote Originally Posted by Cadenas:

I checked and since 2000 if a team has a spread of 5.5 straight up they are 33-60 but ats 50-43 ... I think this is opening line only though, so for example this year the only game that falls into this is Minnesota/NO. 



A little better than break even at both price points assuming you get 2-1 on the SU wager. I wouldn't be shocked to see a lot heavier juice on the Fav as the book doesn't want to take it to 6 either.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 20
Posted: #18

Yeah I think 5.5 spread is about +214/-240 at fair odds so, at first blush, this does seem to be a winning strategy if you blindly bet 5.5 underdogs at >+200.

Seems, too, that this has become more profitable in recent years (since 2005 is 16-27 SU and 25-18 ATS) ....  'course once you find a trend is when it doesn't hold .. hahaha

 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 20
Posted: #19
And not to mention the sample size starts getting smaller as we narrow the dates as to possibly be due to variance...
All Forums | NFL Betting Forum
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.