Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
People who make 10k a week… easy come easy go |
DoYouMind69 | 66 |
|
|
replied to
Lots of supposed sharp bettors here have said you shouldn’t buy points, so what do you say to the greatest gambler of all telling us he is willing to buy points!
in NFL Betting Quote Originally Posted by WISEGUY36:
Quote Originally Posted by williamwallace: Quote Originally Posted by ActionMagnet: Covers regularly lays -135 on MLB wagers literally everyday but it’s a cardinal sin to buy a half point in the NFL for the same juice, even if it saves you from a monster loss. You probably do this instinctually without realizing it.. Have you ever seen a bet where you saw the line at -160 and said, “nah thats too expensive. I would bet it at -135 though.” What you are saying mathematically, whether you know it or not, is that “i dont think this bet wins 61.54% of the time, but if it only has to win 57.45% of the time i think i have an edge” If you could see the future and knew for a fact this was a 60% outcome (which is basically what you are saying when you lay your money down), then this would be a negative bet at -160 but would be profitable at -135… You don't need to see the future , but you do need a capping method that calculates the outcome of a contest with high resolution and accuracy, and do so on a consistent basis. Then you can determine probability.
Same thing! |
begginerboy | 46 |
|
|
replied to
Lots of supposed sharp bettors here have said you shouldn’t buy points, so what do you say to the greatest gambler of all telling us he is willing to buy points!
in NFL Betting Quote Originally Posted by ActionMagnet:
Covers regularly lays -135 on MLB wagers literally everyday but it’s a cardinal sin to buy a half point in the NFL for the same juice, even if it saves you from a monster loss. You probably do this instinctually without realizing it.. Have you ever seen a bet where you saw the line at -160 and said, “nah thats too expensive. I would bet it at -135 though.” What you are saying mathematically, whether you know it or not, is that “i dont think this bet wins 61.54% of the time, but if it only has to win 57.45% of the time i think i have an edge” If you could see the future and knew for a fact this was a 60% outcome (which is basically what you are saying when you lay your money down), then this would be a negative bet at -160 but would be profitable at -135…
|
begginerboy | 46 |
|
|
replied to
Lots of supposed sharp bettors here have said you shouldn’t buy points, so what do you say to the greatest gambler of all telling us he is willing to buy points!
in NFL Betting Quote Originally Posted by ActionMagnet:
Covers regularly lays -135 on MLB wagers literally everyday but it’s a cardinal sin to buy a half point in the NFL for the same juice, even if it saves you from a monster loss.
Nothing wrong with laying 135 as long as you win 57.45% of your bets Just like theres nothing wrong with laying….say -1250, as long as you win 92.6% of the time…good luck with that btw but if it is actually really a 95% chance of happening, you actually do have an edge when laying -1250 (see vanzacks post about the onside kick in the superbowl) The analysis really just comes down to whether the extra 22cents you pay is worth the % of time that it actually matters. I feel like qualified handicappers could argue both sides fairly easily. |
begginerboy | 46 |
|
|
replied to
Lots of supposed sharp bettors here have said you shouldn’t buy points, so what do you say to the greatest gambler of all telling us he is willing to buy points!
in NFL Betting Quote Originally Posted by MudPhud3:
This argument is all about implied odds. At -110, to have an edge you must believe that your bet will win more than 52.38% of the time. At -132, your bet must win more than 56.90% of the time (4.62% higher than -110). As others have mentioned, when buying from 2.5 to 3, you are increasing your odds of pushing, NOT of winning. To me, this makes the benefit of buying from 2.5 to 3 about half as valuable as the implied odds difference would indicate. Buying from 2.5 to 3 (with these odds) then only makes sense if you believe that KC will lose by exactly 3 more than ~9% of the time. We know from vanzack's and other published data that NFL games land on 3 approximately 15% of the time. On an average NFL game, buying from 2.5 to 3 at the above odds is therefore a bad decision. HOWEVER, when the total is lower or when teams are more "evenly matched" than the average 2.5 line (this is where handicapping individual games comes into play), it is very reasonable to believe that one team has a 9% chance of losing by exactly 3. To make the argument more nuanced, books offer vastly different prices to buy points. Most recreational books offer poor odds when buying points. Differing opinions about this topic can (and will) be reasonably defended. I suggest everyone has an implied odds calculator like the one from actionnetwork bookmarked and readily accessible.
Exactly! Perfect post. So if you say a game lands on 3 15% of the time, you have roughly 7.5% chance it lands of 9ers by 3. Divide by 2 since you only get a push, its only a 3.75% advantage while you have to win 4.62% more often. Like you siad you might be able to rationalize the 3.75 up to a 4.62% if you believe game will be close/ low scoring. Whether that rationalization is accurate or not determines if you have a +EV or -EV position. |
begginerboy | 46 |
|
|
easy... 49ERS +145 - 40.8% RAVENS +180 - 35.7% KC + 380 - 20.8% LIONS + 800 - 11.1% NFC is 51.9% to win AFC is 56.5% to win Obviously don't add up to 100%. That extra 8.4% is the bookies vig but you should get the idea |
ActionMagnet | 27 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Quote Originally Posted by Maukaboy: Thanks Van the Man Detroit only 1 unit? Yeah, not much of an edge either way. Kind of like a regular season lean that is a play off 1 unit play.
How much is a playoff unit compared to a regular season unit? |
vanzack | 140 |
|
|
You posted the juice???? I cant believe you caved to the haters! And to think i used to respect you… Judt kidding, thanks for paying my rent again this year…if you ever need an apprentice, either for crunching numbers or oiling down models LMK |
vanzack | 175 |
|
|
From max bet to no wager in less than 8 hours? Hasty speculation? |
Wizerguy | 58 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by JimmyGape:
-435? Yikes I hope you don't that too often because you gotta 87% just to break even.
81.3% |
FredLeonard | 18 |
|
|
Hou@bal would have ravens as 10.5 favorites IMO All this talk about 6.5 or less is crazy |
vanzack | 398 |
|
|
* Bucs +3 (4 units) 3.5 (4.5), 2.5 (3) * Texans +2.75 (3.5 units) 3 (4), 2.5 (3), 2 (2.5) * Steelers +9.75 (2.5 units) 10.5 (3), 8 (2) * Cowboys -7.5 (2 units) -8 (1.5), -7 (2.5) * Dolphins +4.5 (2 units) 5 (2.5), 3.5 (1.5) 5 is a key number these days? Half unit addition for that half point? You only add a half unit for Tampa to get to 3.5 which has to be more important, right? * Rams +3.25 (1 unit) 3.5 (1.5), 2.5 (no bet)
Also, is it normal for you to have plays on every wildcard game? |
vanzack | 398 |
|
|
Legend What stops you from doing 100k, or 1million even, per unit (or maybe you do)? You print money… much respect |
vanzack | 165 |
|
|
Vanzack the mansack! Thanks for the plays this year again.
A consummate professional. Fascinating that you have haters… |
vanzack | 165 |
|
|
@unplucked_gem 104 coin flip games (defined as 3 points or less) 55 times the favorite won and covered 40 times the dog won outright 5 times the dog lost, but covered 4 times the game landed on the number. You went 45-55 if you bet the spread at -110. Which gives you -1550. betting the ml gives you 40-60. To match that -1550 you need to avg +111.25 on those MLs… which you proabably are, so those MLs are probably better than doing the straight bets.. In your specific sample betting pk+120 is better than +spread at -110. Like vanzack says, number and price are forever interlinked
|
Tiltmachine23 | 45 |
|
|
@vanzack If sportsbooks are dumping bama liability (like you) they are also betting on michigan as well right? So Whatdo you mean when you say they were the exchange? |
vanzack | 89 |
|
|
-110 52.38% 6-11 loses 6100 -115 53.48% 6-11 loses 6650 I know you say you dont have the same amount on every bet, but imagine losing an extra $550 over the course of like only 2 games!! you lose that extra money EVERY SINGLE TIME when youre betting -115. Just something to consider… go bama! |
O-K-Man | 190 |
|
|
-110 52.38% 55-45 makes 5500, 53-47 makes 1300 -115 53.48% 55-45 makes 3250, 53-47 loses 1050 -120 54.54% 55-45 makes 1000, 53-47 loses 3400
That’s a big difference. Getting -110 instead of -120 is like winning four extra bets… |
O-K-Man | 190 |
|
|
Van, if one were to tail you like in the nfl, how many units should we be getting down on bama and wash? Thanks in advance |
vanzack | 89 |
|
|
How do you figure sf is eliminated with a loss? |
garbagetime | 7 |
|
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.