Author: 
[NFL Betting] Topic: NFL FORUM  BUYING THE HOOK TO 3 AND 7 IN THE NFL  FULL 7 YEARS OF STATS AND PROBABILITIES INSIDE 
TexasD 


Posted: 2/11/2013 7:10:53 PM I've proven that in basketball that buying points is an absolute waste of your money....doesn't matter the few times you "saved your *ss" with the points, but the juice that you pay on the 85% of the time it DIDN'T MATTER in basketball, YOU WASTE MORE ON THE JUICE THAN YOU "SAVE" BY BUYING THE POINTS. BUT that is in basketball and the point values are linear at 1, 2 and 3.
CHECK OUT THE BASKETBALL STATS IN NBA AND NCAA FORUMS.

Here it is, the FULL 7 NFL REGULAR SEASON STATS that Covers.com offers with FULL STATS AND PROBABILITIES on BUYING 1/2 POINT TO 3 OR 7, FG or TD:
For your understanding, I took ALL THE GAMES THAT HAD ORIGINAL SPREADS "NEAR" OR ON 3 OR 7.
For games that were originally 3.5, it was bought down to 3 to make loss into push. For games that were +2.5, it was bought to +3 to make loss into push. For games that were 7.5, it was bought down to 7 to make loss into push. For games that were +6.5, it was bought to +7 to make loss into push.
For games that were ON 3 or 7, 1/2 point was bought on ONLY 1 of the 2 teams as you would NOT buy 1/2 point on both sides. Either way, doesn't matter WHICH team you picked, but that you bought the half point on the game that was ON the number FOR THE WIN instead of a PUSH.



TexasD 


Posted: 2/11/2013 7:11:22 PM NFL Regular Season 201213 Stats: Of the 256 games player, 121 games had spreads near or on 3 or 7 Of the 121 games, buying 1/2 point on 5 games would've resulted in a loss to a push. Of the 121 games, buying 1/2 point on 4 games would've resulted in a original push to a win. 1/2 point would have mattered in only 5 OTHER GAMES OTHER THAN BUYING TO 3 OR 7.
9 of 121 games that could've bought 1/2 point near or on 3 or 7 were affected for a probability of 7.44%.
60 of all 256 games ended in a 3 or 7 point margin of win for a 23.44% probability or just under 1 in 4 games were won by 3 or 7.
NFL Regular Season 201112 Stats: Of the 256 games player, 117 games had spreads near or on 3 or 7 Of the 117 games, buying 1/2 point on 6 games would've resulted in a loss to a push. Of the 117 games, buying 1/2 point on 5 games would've resulted in a original push to a win. 1/2 point would have mattered in only 7 OTHER GAMES OTHER THAN BUYING TO 3 OR 7.
11 of 117 games that could've bought 1/2 point near or on 3 or 7 were affected for a probability of 9.4%.
65 of all 256 games ended in a 3 or 7 point margin of win for a 25.4% probability or just over 1 in 4 games were won by 3 or 7.
NFL Regular Season 201011 Stats: Of the 256 games player, 115 games had spreads near or on 3 or 7 Of the 115 games, buying 1/2 point on 4 games would've resulted in a loss to a push. Of the 115 games, buying 1/2 point on 3 games would've resulted in a original push to a win. 1/2 point would have mattered in only 8 OTHER GAMES OTHER THAN BUYING TO 3 OR 7.
7 of 115 games that could've bought 1/2 point near or on 3 or 7 were affected for a probability of 6.09%.
63 of all 256 games ended in a 3 or 7 point margin of win for a 24.61% probability or just under 1 in 4 games were won by 3 or 7.
NFL Regular Season 200910 Stats: Of the 256 games player, 83 games had spreads near or on 3 or 7 Of the 83 games, buying 1/2 point on 2 games would've resulted in a loss to a push. Of the 83 games, buying 1/2 point on 3 games would've resulted in a original push to a win. 1/2 point would have mattered in only 9 OTHER GAMES OTHER THAN BUYING TO 3 OR 7.
5 of 83 games that could've bought 1/2 point near or on 3 or 7 were affected for a probability of 6.02%.
64 of all 256 games ended in a 3 or 7 point margin of win for a 25.0% probability or exactly 1 in 4 games were won by 3 or 7.
NFL Regular Season 200809 Stats: Of the 256 games player, 102 games had spreads near or on 3 or 7 Of the 102 games, buying 1/2 point on 4 games would've resulted in a loss to a push. Of the 83 games, buying 1/2 point on 3 games would've resulted in a original push to a win. 1/2 point would have mattered in only 3 OTHER GAMES OTHER THAN BUYING TO 3 OR 7.
7 of 102 games that could've bought 1/2 point near or on 3 or 7 were affected for a probability of 6.86%.
51 of all 256 games ended in a 3 or 7 point margin of win for a 19.92% probability or just under 1 in 5 games were won by 3 or 7.
NFL Regular Season 200708 Stats: Of the 256 games player, 116 games had spreads near or on 3 or 7 Of the 116 games, buying 1/2 point on 4 games would've resulted in a loss to a push. Of the 116 games, buying 1/2 point on 6 games would've resulted in a original push to a win. 1/2 point would have mattered in only 4 OTHER GAMES OTHER THAN BUYING TO 3 OR 7.
10 of 116 games that could've bought 1/2 point near or on 3 or 7 were affected for a probability of 8.62%.
67 of all 256 games ended in a 3 or 7 point margin of win for a 26.17% probability or just over 1 in 4 games were won by 3 or 7.
NFL Regular Season 200607 Stats: Of the 256 games player, 109 games had spreads near or on 3 or 7 Of the 109 games, buying 1/2 point on 5 games would've resulted in a loss to a push. Of the 83 games, buying 1/2 point on 3 games would've resulted in a original push to a win. 1/2 point would have mattered in only 6 OTHER GAMES OTHER THAN BUYING TO 3 OR 7.
8 of 109 games that could've bought 1/2 point near or on 3 or 7 were affected for a probability of 7.34%.
67 of all 256 games ended in a 3 or 7 point margin of win for a 26.17% probability or just over 1 in 4 games were won by 3 or 7. 


TexasD 


Posted: 2/11/2013 7:33:23 PM \/7 NFL Regular Seasons OVERALL Data\/
7 NFL Regular Seasons 200607 Through 201213 Stats: Of the 1,792 games played, 763 games had spreads Near or On 3 or 7 Of the 763 games, buying 1/2 point on 31 games would've resulted in a loss to a push. Of the 763 games, buying 1/2 point on 27 games would've resulted in a original push to a win. 1/2 point would have mattered in only 42 OTHER GAMES OTHER THAN BUYING TO 3 OR 7.
58 of 763 games that could've bought 1/2 point near or on 3 or 7 were affected for a probability of 7.6%.
437 of all 1,792 games ended in a 3 or 7 point margin of win for a 24.39% probability or just over 1 in 4 games were won by 3 or 7.
/\7 NFL Regular Seasons OVERALL Data/\



TexasD 


Posted: 2/11/2013 7:45:25 PM Sorry, been doing cutting and pasting to save time...post #3 correction:
437 of all 1,792 games ended in a 3 or 7 point margin of win for a 24.39% probability or just UNDER 1 in 4 games were won by 3 or 7.



TexasD 


Posted: 2/11/2013 8:38:49 PM SO...WAS BUYING 1/2 POINT ON GAMES NEAR OR ON 3 OR 7 WORTH IT?!?!?
Using the 7 NFL Regular Seasons worth of data and the sample size of 763 games that we could have bought 1/2 a point to or off of 3 or 7 points:
31 bets would have pushed instead of lost, for a savings of $120 per bet for a total of $3,720.
27 bets would have won instead of the original push for an extra winnings of $100 per bet for a total of $2,700.
By buying 1/2 a point on games near or on 3 or 7 would have had a total result of $6,420.
763 total games bet on minus the 58 games where the 1/2 point affected the outcome of the game from a loss to a push or an original push to a win equals 705 bets where THE 1/2 POINT DID NOT MATTER.
On those 705 bets we would have Lost $10 more than just taking the original 110 bet OR won approx. $10 less than had we put the $120 on the original 110 spread.
705 bets X $10 = $7,050 lost on the 10% juice
$6,420 "savings" < $7,050 lost on juice.
CONCLUSION: BUYING THE HOOK OF 1/2 A POINT ON SPREADS AROUND 3 OR 7 WOULD HAVE LOST A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY AND WAS PRETTY MUCH JUST A WASTE OF TIME.
ALTHOUGH IT MAY HAVE GOTTEN 7.6% MORE WINS, THE CALCULATIONS DON'T LIE....IT REALLY DIDN'T HELP AT ALL, BUT RATHER WOULD HAVE LOST A SMALL $630 OVER THE STRETCH OF BUYING 1/2 A POINT 763 TIMES.
ADVICE: JUST WORK ON HAVING OVER A 52.5% ON 110 ORIGINAL SPREADS TO MAKE MONEY. IF YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO BUY THE 1/2 POINT, OR ANY AMOUNT OF POINTS FOR THAT MATTER,....WHY ARE YOU EVEN BETTING ON THE GAME?!?!?
THERE ARE BETTER BETS ON THE BOARD!!!!!!




TexasD 


Posted: 2/11/2013 8:47:38 PM WINNING OVER 52.5% OF BETS ON 110 ORIGINAL SPREAD ODDS CALCULATIONS:
Winning 52.5% of 1,000 bets is 525 wins x $100 = $52,500
Losing 47.5% of 1,000 bets is 475 losses x $110 = $52,250
$52,500 winnings  $52,250 in losses = $250 in PROFIT
Pick bets that you are sure on. If you feel you need to buy the "hook" to win, don't bet on that game. Don't bet just because it is on TV,....then you are Paying for Entertainment.
THE REAL REASON ANY OF US GOT INTO GAMBLING:
TO MAKE MONEY AND PROFIT....NOT JUST FOR ENTERTAINMENT
...BUT TO EACH HIS OWN
BEST OF LUCK EVERYONE



TexasD 


Posted: 2/12/2013 4:27:39 PM Does this put the whole buying the 1/2 point to the "KEY" numbers of 3
and 7 to rest? Or are people who buy that 1/2 point Psychic where they
can pick BETTER THAN the 7.6% of games where that 1/2 point will even
matter, just to make a profit overall?
Do all the stats and
numbers and logic look right? Did anybody see any mistakes in my
analysis? Always open to hearing if I did something wrong or
miscalculated or didn't explain something well enough.
Let me
know guys, I think this is some great insight into the myth of buying
points near 3 and 7 in football. I hope it was helpful and insightful. 


TexasD 


Posted: 2/12/2013 7:06:28 PM I will also add that many sports books understand how people like to buy to 3 and 7 in football. Many books understand that buying down on favorite lines of 3.5 and 7.5 and buying up on dogs of +2.5 and +6.5 is of WAY HIGHER DEMAND than people buying 1/2 point on 2.5 or 6.5 down to 2 or 6 and buying 1/2 point on +7.5 and +3.5 up to +4 and +8.....
sooo.....they raise the rate and jack up the juice. At least at my sportsbooks, lines of 3.5, 7.5, +2.5 and +6.5 cost MORE than the usual 10 cents for the 1/2 point as compared to buying the 1/2 point on 2.5, 6.5, +3.5 and +7.5.
Sportsbooks know the demand and charge accordingly, so even if you hit the average of 7.6% of bets being affected by the 1/2 point, you would also have to add in the HIGHLY TAXED JUICE for those 1/2 points that EVERYBODY and their mothers want to buy.
So in my example where I compared the money "SAVED" on the bets that WERE affected against the money LOST on the ADDED JUICE of the 92.4% of the bets where the 1/2 point did NOT MATTER,....the disparities would have been even greater if you calculate in paying MORE THAN 10 cents juice for the inhighdemand 1/2 point.
In the example of 6.7% of all bets being affected, there was a $630 LOSS of money. Understand that that loss would have been even greater had the sports books charged MORE.



theclaw 


Posted: 2/13/2013 10:02:08 AM That's some nice work Texas, thanks for looking that up.
I'm still a berliever of buying a half point to go for a push instead of a loss but not going for a win instead of a push because the benefit is greater because you save the juice VS all your losses.
The point you made that I never have considered before when I break this down is  winning $10 more if you put the $120 on the orginal 110 line.
However, who would do that ? I know I would not.
If I'm playing to win $ 100 I'll lay $110 on the 110 line, I would only lay $120 on a 120 line so actual I am not failing to win $10 more on each win had I not layed the 120 line .
So basically on the 705 other bets if I win 50% and lose 50% only the losses affect me.
That gives me 352 wins and 353 losses, the 353 losses x $10 extra lost = $3530.
That would be my initial thoughts but I'll have to look into it a bit more and consider you point about the $10 more being won. 


TexasD 


Posted: 2/13/2013 12:37:29 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by theclaw: That's some nice work Texas, thanks for looking that up.
I'm still a berliever of buying a half point to go for a push instead of a loss but not going for a win instead of a push because the benefit is greater because you save the juice VS all your losses.
The point you made that I never have considered before when I break this down is  winning $10 more if you put the $120 on the orginal 110 line.
However, who would do that ? I know I would not.
If I'm playing to win $ 100 I'll lay $110 on the 110 line, I would only lay $120 on a 120 line so actual I am not failing to win $10 more on each win had I not layed the 120 line .
So basically on the 705 other bets if I win 50% and lose 50% only the losses affect me.
That gives me 352 wins and 353 losses, the 353 losses x $10 extra lost = $3530.
That would be my initial thoughts but I'll have to look into it a bit more and consider you point about the $10 more being won.
My love for numbers and research MAY have me go back and split the data up of "BUYING ONTO 3 AND 7 FOR THE PUSH" and "BUYING OFF OF 3 AND 7 FOR THE WIN".
Damn me and my obsession of numbers! It's hard for me to NOT research a thought that somebody brings up!




TexasD 


Posted: 2/13/2013 1:34:46 PM theclaw, you got me thinking now.....let's assume a gambler IS a 50/50 gambler. Here is my example of a 50/50 gambler buying original lines at 110 vs buying 1/2 point at 120 using the 763 games where he could have bought ONTO or OFF of 3 or 7:
50/50 gambler betting original spreads on the 763 games at 110 odds:
763 minus 27 original pushes = 736 games that were NOT pushes
736 divided by 2 = 368
368 wins x $100 in winnings per game won = $36,800
368 losses x $120 in losses per game lost = $44,160
$36,800  $44,160 = $7,360 in TOTAL LOSSES

50/50 gambler buying 1/2 point on the 763 games at 120 odds:
763 minus 27 original pushes = 736 games that were NOT pushes
736 divided by 2 = 368
(368 wins + 27 pushes to wins) x $100 in winnings per game = $39,500
(368 wins  31 losses to pushes) x $120 in losses per game = $40,440
$39,500  $40,440 = $940 in TOTAL LOSSES
$7,360 in losses betting original spreads > $940 in losses buying the 1/2 point onto or off of 3 or 7
IN CONCLUSION: When you compare a 50/50 bettor betting on original spreads at 110 as opposed to buying 1/2 point on those SAME 763 games where you could buy ONTO or OFF of 3 or 7, IT DID SAVE THE BETTOR $6,420 OVERALL.
POINT BUYING DID SAVE THE 50/50 GAMBLER MONEY, BUT STILL NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE A PROFIT.
MY VOTE IS: BUYING THE HOOK, OR 1/2 POINT ON GAMES NEAR OR ON 3 OR 7 IS BENEFICIAL TO YOUR BANKROLL.

I KNOW I HAVE BEEN ALL OVER THE BOARD WITH THE NFL DATA AND CONCLUSIONS! THIS HAS BEEN A WORK IN PROGRESS AND STILL IS A WORK IN PROGRESS.
THANK YOU TO THECLAW FOR MAKING ME THINK ABOUT MY DATA! IT'S PROVEN HELPFUL IN THE FULL ASSESSMENT OF BUYING THE HOOK IN NFL FOOTBALL.
PLEASE! IF YOU SEE ANYTHING IN MY THREADS ON POINT BUYING THAT IS QUESTIONABLE, PLEASE QUESTION IT! LIKE I SAID, IT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS!



TexasD 


Posted: 2/13/2013 1:43:17 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by TexasD:
I will also add that many sports books understand how people like to buy to 3 and 7 in football. Many books understand that buying down on favorite lines of 3.5 and 7.5 and buying up on dogs of +2.5 and +6.5 is of WAY HIGHER DEMAND than people buying 1/2 point on 2.5 or 6.5 down to 2 or 6 and buying 1/2 point on +7.5 and +3.5 up to +4 and +8.....
sooo.....they raise the rate and jack up the juice. At least at my sportsbooks, lines of 3.5, 7.5, +2.5 and +6.5 cost MORE than the usual 10 cents for the 1/2 point as compared to buying the 1/2 point on 2.5, 6.5, +3.5 and +7.5.
Sportsbooks know the demand and charge accordingly, so even if you hit the average of 7.6% of bets being affected by the 1/2 point, you would also have to add in the HIGHLY TAXED JUICE for those 1/2 points that EVERYBODY and their mothers want to buy.
So in my example where I compared the money "SAVED" on the bets that WERE affected against the money LOST on the ADDED JUICE of the 92.4% of the bets where the 1/2 point did NOT MATTER,....the disparities would have been even greater if you calculate in paying MORE THAN 10 cents juice for the inhighdemand 1/2 point.
In the example of 6.7% of all bets being affected, there was a $630 LOSS of money. Understand that that loss would have been even greater had the sports books charged MORE.
After everything I just said in post #11, I do want to reiterate that it DOES RELY on what your book is charging you for that 1/2 point also. A guy in another thread said that his book charges at least 125 for that 1/2 point around 3 or 7...at least the CRUCIAL 1/2 point on 3.5, 7.5, +2.5 and +6.5 and NOT the 2.5, 6.5, +3.5 and +7.5.
Adding the extra 5 cents or more into the equation/example could change things....well obviously it DOES hurt the amount saved,...but possibly not enough yet to say that buying points was NOT beneficial as opposes to just betting the original lines with a 50/50 gambler.
Again, please comment if you see any questionable data or thoughts...this still is a work in progress. Mona Lisa wasn't finished until she had her lips painted on....



TexasD 


Posted: 2/13/2013 4:23:42 PM Thank you KVS23!!!! THERE WAS AN ERROR IN MY CALCULATIONS!!!! I DID use
the losses times $120 and not $110 as they should have been on a 50/50
guy betting 110 on original spreads.
Here is the CORRECT CALCULATIONS:
50/50 gambler betting original spreads on the 763 games at 110 odds:
763 minus 27 original pushes = 736 games that were NOT pushes
736 divided by 2 = 368
368 wins x $100 in winnings per game won = $36,800
368 losses x $110 in losses per game lost = $40,480
$36,800  $40,480 = $3,680 in TOTAL LOSSES
$3,680 in losses betting original spreads > $940 in losses buying the 1/2 point onto or off of 3 or 7
IN CONCLUSION:
When you compare a 50/50 bettor betting on original spreads at 110 as
opposed to buying 1/2 point on those SAME 763 games where you could buy
ONTO or OFF of 3 or 7, IT DID SAVE THE BETTOR $2,740 OVERALL (BUT STILL DIDN'T PROFIT OVERALL).
POINT BUYING DID SAVE THE 50/50 GAMBLER MONEY, BUT STILL NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE A PROFIT.
MY VOTE IS: BUYING THE HOOK, OR 1/2 POINT ON GAMES NEAR OR ON 3 OR 7 IS BENEFICIAL TO YOUR BANKROLL. 


TexasD 


Posted: 2/13/2013 4:24:09 PM THANK YOU KVS23!!!! THAT'S
WHAT I HAVE BEEN WANTING PEOPLE TO DO!!!! IF YOU SEE A QUESTIONABLE
STAT, PROBABILITY, CONCLUSION, OPINION, ETC....PLEASE QUESTION IT FOR
ME!!!!
Like I've said before, this is a work in progress and Mona Lisa wasn't quite herself until she had lips painted on! 


TexasD 


Posted: 2/13/2013 9:46:17 PM NEW DATA HOT OFF THE PRESS:
I sifted through the 7 years of data again to find out what amount of the 763 games that were ON or 1/2 point OFF of 3 and 7 and broke them up, as some people have said that they ONLY BUY TO 3 and 7 FOR THE PUSH.
763 games that were on or near 3 or 7
421 games were originally ON 3 or 7 Of the 421 ON 3 or 7, 27 were originally pushes. 27 divided by 421 = 6.41%
342 games were originally 1/2 point OFF of 3 or 7 Of the 342 OFF of 3 or 7, 31 originally didn't cover by 1/2 point. 31 divided by 342 = 9.06%
Buying TO 3 or 7 not only proved to have a 2.65% more success rate, BUT let's not forget,..."saving" the amount risked on the games that changed from a loss to a push is HIGHER than the amount WON on pushes to wins.

Buying OFF 3 and 7 for a Win instead of Push calculations risking $120 on 120 odds:
Out of 100 bets buying OFF 3 or 7 for the win with 6.41% probability is 6.41 (rounded down to 6) extra wins x $100 = $640 "savings"
Out of 100 bets buying ONTO 3 or 7 for the push instead of loss with 9.06% probability is 9.06 (rounded down to 9) extra wins x $120 = $1,080 "savings"
$1,080 > $640 9.06% > 6.41% Buying TO 3 or 7 > Buying OFF 3 or 7
Conclusion: If you are going to buy around 3 or 7, it look like it was more beneficial to your bankroll buying TO 3 or 7 for the push as opposed to buying OFF 3 or 7 for the win.




theclaw 


Posted: 2/13/2013 9:51:00 PM I do agree it is a bit tricky and can get complicated to try and find the right way to look at it.
Here is what I like to do, compare 2 players betting the exact same teams, 1 buying a half point the other not, which player comesout ahead ?
Simple, just do the math.
Using your 9 in 121 games the number landed on 3 or 7 which is 7.44%
That is about 1 in 13 which is 7.69%.
If 1 in 13 games the score lands on 3 or it could be 7, that means 12 other games which both players won or lost, the same result for both players.
If we say the win 50% which is the true odds that means both players win 6 games and lose 6 games on those 12 games.
Player not buying a half point laying 110 wins $600 and loses $660 for a $60 loss.
Player buying a half point laying 120 wins the same $600 but loses $720 for a $120 loss.
Now, the 13th game, the player buying a half point pushes and endsup losing $120.
Player not buying half pt loses another $110 and he ends the 13 games losing $170.
The player buying a half pt comes out ahead by $50.
Now, if you see a mistake there please correct it but I'm sure it is right.
The point you broughtup about failing to make an additional $10 by putting the $120 on the 110 line.
Well, the player buying a half point did risk $130 more on the 13 games, $10 each game.
Did he comeout ahead because he risk more ?
Is risking another $10 a game like buying insurance ?
Well, let's say the player buying a half point lays the same $110 on a 120 line.
Now his 6 wins would be $550 not $600.
His 6 loses are now just $660, not the same $720 he lost betting $120.
He now loses $110 and comesout ahead by $60 over the player not buying pts.............................................



TexasD 


Posted: 2/13/2013 10:48:46 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by theclaw: I do agree it is a bit tricky and can get complicated to try and find the right way to look at it.
Here is what I like to do, compare 2 players betting the exact same teams, 1 buying a half point the other not, which player comesout ahead ?
Simple, just do the math.
Using your 9 in 121 games the number landed on 3 or 7 which is 7.44%
That is about 1 in 13 which is 7.69%.
If 1 in 13 games the score lands on 3 or it could be 7, that means 12 other games which both players won or lost, the same result for both players.
If we say the win 50% which is the true odds that means both players win 6 games and lose 6 games on those 12 games.
Player not buying a half point laying 110 wins $600 and loses $660 for a $60 loss.
Player buying a half point laying 120 wins the same $600 but loses $720 for a $120 loss.
Now, the 13th game, the player buying a half point pushes and endsup losing $120.
Player not buying half pt loses another $110 and he ends the 13 games losing $170.
The player buying a half pt comes out ahead by $50.
Now, if you see a mistake there please correct it but I'm sure it is right.
Your math is still wrong IMO, but why are we breaking it down to a small number where you rounded stats?
PLUS, your biggest mistake was that you used a stat of 9 in 121 that INCLUDED BOTH THE STATS OF LOSSES TO PUSHES AND PUSHES TO LOSSES, BUT DECIDED TO CHOOSE ONLY 1 GAME THAT WENT FROM A LOSS TO A WIN....YOU CAN'T USE A 9 IN 121 STAT THAT INCLUDES BOTH, THEN WHITTLE IT DOWN TO A ROUNDED OFF 1 IN 13, AND THEN ONLY PICK 1 OF THE 2 SITUATIONS THAT WERE IN THE 9 IN 121 STAT.
You pretty much did EXACTLY what I did with my 2 scenarios of a 50/50 bettor paying 110 on straight bets, and a 50/50 bettor buying 1/2 point at 120 odds, BUT you rounded off the numbers and did the math incorrect again. You got better results as you are getting closer to what I have made an example of, but you can't water down the stats and only choose 1 of the 2 scenarios.
Out of 121 bets in 201213, there were 5 games that lost by 1/2 point and 4 games that originally pushed. YOU CAN'T OMIT THOSE STATS. You have to do what I did and USE ALL 121 BETS, THE 5 BETS THAT DIDN'T COVER BY 1/2 POINT, AND THE 4 GAMES THAT WOULD HAVE ORIGINALLY PUSHED TO DO A CORRECT EXAMPLE/CALCULATION.



theclaw 


Posted: 2/14/2013 4:13:05 PM I did not want to write a 30 chapter book on the subject so I did a simple easy comparison that gives one an idea about it.
It does not matter, the results would be the same had I used a push to win or a loss to a push, or both , the one buying points comesout ahead.
In your info you never state how often the spread lands on 2.5, 3.5, 6.5 or 7.5 and how often it lands exactly on 3 or 7.
So the 121 games includes all those spreads, to breakitdown to PUSHES TO WINS OR LOSSES TO PUSHES ONE NEEDS TO KNOW HOW OFTEN THE SREAD WAS AT 2.5, 3.5, 6.5 OR 7.5.
AND HOW OFTEN THE LINE WAS EXACTLY 3 OR 7.
Your 121 games includes both ways. So I used the info available to me, but you can make the same comparison with pushes to wins and the player buying points comesout ahead, but by a smaller amount.
Just do the math.
In your 7 years of data the % is 7.6% which is almost exactly 1 in 13 (7.69%) that is close enough to form an idea of the results.
763 games divided by 58 = 1 in 13.15. So on average every 13.15 games the the player buying a half point will benefit from buying that half point over a person who does not buy pts.
Just like my example, every 13.15 games the player buying a half point comesout ahead . 


theclaw 


Posted: 2/14/2013 4:57:26 PM OK Texas, it is easy to do the math on all 763 games.
In your 7 years of data 58 games were affected by buying pts of of 763.
Just do the math and com pare a player buying a half point with a player not buying, the player buying comesout ahead.
763 games  the 58 games the = 705 games in which both players either won or lost, they had the same result.
If they won 50% and lost 50%, the true odds of winning or losing.
Both players won 352 games
Both players lost 353 games
Player not buying pts.............wins $35,200 and loses $38,830 = lost $3630
Player buying a half point................wins the same $35,200 but loses much more $42360 = lost $7,160
The player not buying pts is $3530 ahead at this point.
That $3530 is easily more than made up by buying pts. That is the huge advantage to buying points.............................................
You say 31 games were losses to pushes.......................
The player not buying pts losses those 31 games = lost $3410
The player buying pts pushes in those 32 games and has already madeup most of the $3530.
27 games of pushes to wins..............................
The player not buying points pushes and finishes the 763 games losing $7040.
The player buying points wins instead of pushing = wins $2700 this player finishes the 763 games losing $4460.
Those 58 games where the player buying points gave him a huge $6110 advantage over the player not buying points, no way a play would lose that much paying extra juice to buy a half point............................................. 


theclaw 


Posted: 2/14/2013 5:06:13 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by TexasD:
SO...WAS BUYING 1/2 POINT ON GAMES NEAR OR ON 3 OR 7 WORTH IT?!?!?
Using the 7 NFL Regular Seasons worth of data and the sample size of 763 games that we could have bought 1/2 a point to or off of 3 or 7 points:
31 bets would have pushed instead of lost, for a savings of $120 per bet for a total of $3,720.
27 bets would have won instead of the original push for an extra winnings of $100 per bet for a total of $2,700.
By buying 1/2 a point on games near or on 3 or 7 would have had a total result of $6,420.
763 total games bet on minus the 58 games where the 1/2 point affected the outcome of the game from a loss to a push or an original push to a win equals 705 bets where THE 1/2 POINT DID NOT MATTER.
On those 705 bets we would have Lost $10 more than just taking the original 110 bet OR won approx. $10 less than had we put the $120 on the original 110 spread.
705 bets X $10 = $7,050 lost on the 10% juice
$6,420 "savings" < $7,050 lost on juice.
CONCLUSION: BUYING THE HOOK OF 1/2 A POINT ON SPREADS AROUND 3 OR 7 WOULD HAVE LOST A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY AND WAS PRETTY MUCH JUST A WASTE OF TIME.
ALTHOUGH IT MAY HAVE GOTTEN 7.6% MORE WINS, THE CALCULATIONS DON'T LIE....IT REALLY DIDN'T HELP AT ALL, BUT RATHER WOULD HAVE LOST A SMALL $630 OVER THE STRETCH OF BUYING 1/2 A POINT 763 TIMES.
ADVICE: JUST WORK ON HAVING OVER A 52.5% ON 110 ORIGINAL SPREADS TO MAKE MONEY. IF YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO BUY THE 1/2 POINT, OR ANY AMOUNT OF POINTS FOR THAT MATTER,....WHY ARE YOU EVEN BETTING ON THE GAME?!?!?
THERE ARE BETTER BETS ON THE BOARD!!!!!!
OK, here is where I think you are making a mistake Texas.
You say a player lost money buying a half pt, yes that may be true but what you fail to regonize is had the player bet those same games and NOT BOUGHT A HALF POINT he would of lost MORE MONEY.
So buying the haf point did benefit the player because he lost less money than he would have had he not bought the half point................................. 



TexasD 


Posted: 2/14/2013 8:52:24 PM You are going off my original data which I corrected in posts #11 and #13. The quite was when I said point buying was NOT beneficial...the most recent posts FLOPPED TO it IS BENEFICIAL after the stat corrections were made. I thought you were trying to say it was NOT beneficial even though your stats were saying the guy buying points was losing LESS money.
I still feel like your stats are incorrect because you are subtracting BOTH games that lost by 1/2 pt AND the ORIGINAL PUSHES. IMO I think you take 763, subtract JUST the pushes, and then divide by 2 for 50/50 wins/loses.
I'm at work, so I can't write a book like I normally do...lol. 

Posted using a mobile device. 
TexasD 


Posted: 2/14/2013 8:59:05 PM ..and we don't need to know how many games had originally been ON and how many OFF as far as the scope of what we r trying to accomplish unless you want to figure out how much you would win/lose betting JUST ON or OFF...But I DO have those stats that I pulled just yesterday that I will post.
Here is teaser: buying 1/2 pt TO 3 or 7 for a push instead of loss was MORE beneficial that buying OFF 3 or 7 for the win. 

Posted using a mobile device. 
TexasD 


Posted: 2/14/2013 9:53:43 PM I'm convinced (but still am openminded to the idea I may just not understand you) that you CANNOT subtract the 31 games that originally lost by 1/2 point because those ARE LOSSES to the 50/50 bettor NOT buying the 1/2 pt.
You say BOTH guys win 352 and lose 353...but then go on to say in the 31 games that originally lost by 1/2 point...he losses ALSO.
SO...our 50/50 guy NOT buying the half pt has 353 losses + 31 = 384.
So he lost 384, won 352, and pushed on 27...that is NOT a 50/50 gambler, but a 384/352 gambler.
I FINALLY FIGURED OUT HOW TO EXPLAIN HOW IMO YOUR CALCULATIONS WERE OFF!
*agree? 

Posted using a mobile device. 
theclaw 


Posted: 2/15/2013 6:31:01 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by TexasD:
I'm convinced (but still am openminded to the idea I may just not understand you) that you CANNOT subtract the 31 games that originally lost by 1/2 point because those ARE LOSSES to the 50/50 bettor NOT buying the 1/2 pt.
You say BOTH guys win 352 and lose 353...but then go on to say in the 31 games that originally lost by 1/2 point...he losses ALSO.
SO...our 50/50 guy NOT buying the half pt has 353 losses + 31 = 384.
So he lost 384, won 352, and pushed on 27...that is NOT a 50/50 gambler, but a 384/352 gambler.
I FINALLY FIGURED OUT HOW TO EXPLAIN HOW IMO YOUR CALCULATIONS WERE OFF!
*agree?
Yes I realized that after I posted it as I don't have much time to put into this.
But either way the player buying points comesout ahead.



theclaw 


Posted: 2/15/2013 7:02:59 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by TexasD:
You are going off my original data which I corrected in posts #11 and #13. The quite was when I said point buying was NOT beneficial...the most recent posts FLOPPED TO it IS BENEFICIAL after the stat corrections were made. I thought you were trying to say it was NOT beneficial even though your stats were saying the guy buying points was losing LESS money.
I still feel like your stats are incorrect because you are subtracting BOTH games that lost by 1/2 pt AND the ORIGINAL PUSHES. IMO I think you take 763, subtract JUST the pushes, and then divide by 2 for 50/50 wins/loses.
I'm at work, so I can't write a book like I normally do...lol.
EXACTLY !!
76327 pushes = 736
736 GAMES winning 50% = 368 games won  368 games lost 27 pushes = a 50% W/L record.
Do the math......................................
$110 at 110  368 wins = $36,800
368 losses = $40,480
27 pushes = $0.
Player not buying points and winning 50% = lost $3680
Player buying points would have the same 368 + 27 pushes that become wins for 395, he turns 31 losses into pushes.................368 31 = 337 losses
his line 395 wins  337 losses  31 pushes
do the math..................................395 wins = $39500
337 losses at 120 = $40,440
he loses $940, much better to buy points.
You could also have both players bet equal amounts.....................
Player buying points, wins 395 games betting $110 at 120 = $32,915
337 losses at $110 each = $37,070
player betting same amount loses $4155.
Now the player not buying points comeout ahead, interesting...................
I quess the moral of the story is to lay the extra $ in juice, the player laying extra juice is also betting more so maybe that is why he comesout ahead.


