Reason being that if the game goes into OT you don't lose on a regulation line or PL and you get the juice way down. This is for use on higher juiced faves. Tons of 1 goals gamed are played.
That's why you would play it.
0
You wouldn't bet +1, you would wager -1.
Reason being that if the game goes into OT you don't lose on a regulation line or PL and you get the juice way down. This is for use on higher juiced faves. Tons of 1 goals gamed are played.
Reason being that if the game goes into OT you don't lose on a regulation line or PL and you get the juice way down. This is for use on higher juiced faves. Tons of 1 goals gamed are played.
That's why you would play it.
But if someone has bet a high priced fav and the game went to OT they've made a bad bet. I admittedly don't have the numbers but it seems to me OT and SO are close to coinflips. They aren't even part of the game. In OT you are playing with 20% fewer players and a SO is a pure crapshoot. Longterm if you've got 100 favs that go to OT your going to lose money, thus you've made a bad bet.
All the -1 does it "appear" to cover for making a bad bet if it goes to OT. It may reduce some juice and turn losses into pushes but it also turns all 1 goal regulation wins (and possible -1.5 wins) from wins into pushes or losses. The regulation bet is IMO a far, far, better bet.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Lippsman:
You wouldn't bet +1, you would wager -1.
Reason being that if the game goes into OT you don't lose on a regulation line or PL and you get the juice way down. This is for use on higher juiced faves. Tons of 1 goals gamed are played.
That's why you would play it.
But if someone has bet a high priced fav and the game went to OT they've made a bad bet. I admittedly don't have the numbers but it seems to me OT and SO are close to coinflips. They aren't even part of the game. In OT you are playing with 20% fewer players and a SO is a pure crapshoot. Longterm if you've got 100 favs that go to OT your going to lose money, thus you've made a bad bet.
All the -1 does it "appear" to cover for making a bad bet if it goes to OT. It may reduce some juice and turn losses into pushes but it also turns all 1 goal regulation wins (and possible -1.5 wins) from wins into pushes or losses. The regulation bet is IMO a far, far, better bet.
But if someone has bet a high priced fav and the game went to OT they've made a bad bet. I admittedly don't have the numbers but it seems to me OT and SO are close to coinflips. They aren't even part of the game. In OT you are playing with 20% fewer players and a SO is a pure crapshoot. Longterm if you've got 100 favs that go to OT your going to lose money, thus you've made a bad bet.
All the -1 does it "appear" to cover for making a bad bet if it goes to OT. It may reduce some juice and turn losses into pushes but it also turns all 1 goal regulation wins (and possible -1.5 wins) from wins into pushes or losses. The regulation bet is IMO a far, far, better bet.
There are way too many OT games for my liking for regulation plays. Also the games that go into OT the better team most of the time will have an advantage considering they were the so called better team. Better horses on the ice.
Sometimes I will adjust this to a regulation if the goaltender I wager on is really bad in the SO's. Hasek was a prime example of this. I would always play the Wings or who the hell he played for in regulation, because he was just horrible in the SO.
0
Quote Originally Posted by andarmac99:
But if someone has bet a high priced fav and the game went to OT they've made a bad bet. I admittedly don't have the numbers but it seems to me OT and SO are close to coinflips. They aren't even part of the game. In OT you are playing with 20% fewer players and a SO is a pure crapshoot. Longterm if you've got 100 favs that go to OT your going to lose money, thus you've made a bad bet.
All the -1 does it "appear" to cover for making a bad bet if it goes to OT. It may reduce some juice and turn losses into pushes but it also turns all 1 goal regulation wins (and possible -1.5 wins) from wins into pushes or losses. The regulation bet is IMO a far, far, better bet.
There are way too many OT games for my liking for regulation plays. Also the games that go into OT the better team most of the time will have an advantage considering they were the so called better team. Better horses on the ice.
Sometimes I will adjust this to a regulation if the goaltender I wager on is really bad in the SO's. Hasek was a prime example of this. I would always play the Wings or who the hell he played for in regulation, because he was just horrible in the SO.
There are way too many OT games for my liking for regulation plays. Also the games that go into OT the better team most of the time will have an advantage considering they were the so called better team. Better horses on the ice.
Sometimes I will adjust this to a regulation if the goaltender I wager on is really bad in the SO's. Hasek was a prime example of this. I would always play the Wings or who the hell he played for in regulation, because he was just horrible in the SO.
In theory that sounds logical but the numbers don't play out that way. Here is a very rough example:
Last season all 14 non-playoff teams (theoretically bad teams) went a combined 134-148 in OT and SO games. Still a 48% winning percentage. If you had bet against all those teams in those games (assuming they were dogs) with the -1 line it would have saved you only 14 times over the whole season.
But the problem is those same 14 teams lost in regulation by exactly 1 goal a whopping 123 times.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Lippsman:
There are way too many OT games for my liking for regulation plays. Also the games that go into OT the better team most of the time will have an advantage considering they were the so called better team. Better horses on the ice.
Sometimes I will adjust this to a regulation if the goaltender I wager on is really bad in the SO's. Hasek was a prime example of this. I would always play the Wings or who the hell he played for in regulation, because he was just horrible in the SO.
In theory that sounds logical but the numbers don't play out that way. Here is a very rough example:
Last season all 14 non-playoff teams (theoretically bad teams) went a combined 134-148 in OT and SO games. Still a 48% winning percentage. If you had bet against all those teams in those games (assuming they were dogs) with the -1 line it would have saved you only 14 times over the whole season.
But the problem is those same 14 teams lost in regulation by exactly 1 goal a whopping 123 times.
In theory that sounds logical but the numbers don't play out that way. Here is a very rough example:
Last season all 14 non-playoff teams (theoretically bad teams) went a combined 134-148 in OT and SO games. Still a 48% winning percentage. If you had bet against all those teams in those games (assuming they were dogs) with the -1 line it would have saved you only 14 times over the whole season.
But the problem is those same 14 teams lost in regulation by exactly 1 goal a whopping 123 times.
But that's the exact point I am making with the -1 line. If you played the regulation line it would not make any difference in the outcome of OT at all.
Because if you played the regulation line you would of already lost.
0
Quote Originally Posted by andarmac99:
In theory that sounds logical but the numbers don't play out that way. Here is a very rough example:
Last season all 14 non-playoff teams (theoretically bad teams) went a combined 134-148 in OT and SO games. Still a 48% winning percentage. If you had bet against all those teams in those games (assuming they were dogs) with the -1 line it would have saved you only 14 times over the whole season.
But the problem is those same 14 teams lost in regulation by exactly 1 goal a whopping 123 times.
But that's the exact point I am making with the -1 line. If you played the regulation line it would not make any difference in the outcome of OT at all.
Because if you played the regulation line you would of already lost.
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.
Hot Forum Topics
