Everyone should read some of Steven Levitt's (Freakonomics) papers on sports betting markets and efficiency. He essentially sets out to prove that books often knowingly (and willingly) take disproportionate money on each side (i.e. not 50/50).
One of the papers is called "How Do Markets Function? An Empirical Analysis of Gambling on the National Football League." I couldn't find an acutal link. The paper would have been better coming from someone with actual sports betting experience, but it's definitely still worth checking out.
Everyone should read some of Steven Levitt's (Freakonomics) papers on sports betting markets and efficiency. He essentially sets out to prove that books often knowingly (and willingly) take disproportionate money on each side (i.e. not 50/50).
One of the papers is called "How Do Markets Function? An Empirical Analysis of Gambling on the National Football League." I couldn't find an acutal link. The paper would have been better coming from someone with actual sports betting experience, but it's definitely still worth checking out.
Your logic here is messed up. The average difference of 10 pts is because of blowouts. So if the Pats beat Mia by 24 pts, does that mean the spread shouldve been 24 pts? Of course not. Post #2 was right. That's the way to tell if linesmakers are good or not. If the favorite win % and dog win % are right near 50/50 then theyve done a good job for the season. Remember 7-8 years ago when favorites hit at 60% for a whole season?? Now that was a bad year for the linesmakers.
Your logic here is messed up. The average difference of 10 pts is because of blowouts. So if the Pats beat Mia by 24 pts, does that mean the spread shouldve been 24 pts? Of course not. Post #2 was right. That's the way to tell if linesmakers are good or not. If the favorite win % and dog win % are right near 50/50 then theyve done a good job for the season. Remember 7-8 years ago when favorites hit at 60% for a whole season?? Now that was a bad year for the linesmakers.
Your logic here is messed up. The average difference of 10 pts is because of blowouts. So if the Pats beat Mia by 24 pts, does that mean the spread shouldve been 24 pts? Of course not. Post #2 was right. That's the way to tell if linesmakers are good or not. If the favorite win % and dog win % are right near 50/50 then theyve done a good job for the season. Remember 7-8 years ago when favorites hit at 60% for a whole season?? Now that was a bad year for the linesmakers.
Don't kid yourself. That 60% stat doesn't say much either. I'm sure there were games that the bookies cleaned up that was enough to cover more than a few games lost. Good example- the game where Tenn covered in the last few seconds against Indy last year. I doubt that was a balanced betting game.
Your logic here is messed up. The average difference of 10 pts is because of blowouts. So if the Pats beat Mia by 24 pts, does that mean the spread shouldve been 24 pts? Of course not. Post #2 was right. That's the way to tell if linesmakers are good or not. If the favorite win % and dog win % are right near 50/50 then theyve done a good job for the season. Remember 7-8 years ago when favorites hit at 60% for a whole season?? Now that was a bad year for the linesmakers.
Don't kid yourself. That 60% stat doesn't say much either. I'm sure there were games that the bookies cleaned up that was enough to cover more than a few games lost. Good example- the game where Tenn covered in the last few seconds against Indy last year. I doubt that was a balanced betting game.
In 2006 the favorites hit 63% and the books lost money on the NFL. For the whole SEASON. Only the 3rd time since 1989. So , that 60% does in fact say a lot. It says they got theyre asses kicked that year. All year.
In 2006 the favorites hit 63% and the books lost money on the NFL. For the whole SEASON. Only the 3rd time since 1989. So , that 60% does in fact say a lot. It says they got theyre asses kicked that year. All year.
The MEDIAN winning / losing margin vs the point spread was 8 points.
That means half winning/losing margins were 8 points or less and half the winning/losing margins were 8 points or more.
The MEDIAN is the middle number in a set of numbers. In this case there were 64 numbers (games). 8 was the middle number. So half the games were off by more than a touchdown.
The MEDIAN winning / losing margin vs the point spread was 8 points.
That means half winning/losing margins were 8 points or less and half the winning/losing margins were 8 points or more.
The MEDIAN is the middle number in a set of numbers. In this case there were 64 numbers (games). 8 was the middle number. So half the games were off by more than a touchdown.
In 2006 the favorites hit 63% and the books lost money on the NFL. For the whole SEASON. Only the 3rd time since 1989. So , that 60% does in fact say a lot. It says they got theyre asses kicked that year. All year.
Juice is about -105 to -115. To be a profitable gambler- supposedly you have to win about 55% of your bets or more obviously depending on juice and consistent unit betting. That said, you do the math. The books can still win less than 50% of the bets and still make out.
I wouldn't be suprised that one game can net them 10 million while 3 other games give them a total of an 8 million dollar loss still giving them a net profit.
It's hard for me to believe they lose money in the long run- and to me, the whole season is a the long run.
In 2006 the favorites hit 63% and the books lost money on the NFL. For the whole SEASON. Only the 3rd time since 1989. So , that 60% does in fact say a lot. It says they got theyre asses kicked that year. All year.
Juice is about -105 to -115. To be a profitable gambler- supposedly you have to win about 55% of your bets or more obviously depending on juice and consistent unit betting. That said, you do the math. The books can still win less than 50% of the bets and still make out.
I wouldn't be suprised that one game can net them 10 million while 3 other games give them a total of an 8 million dollar loss still giving them a net profit.
It's hard for me to believe they lose money in the long run- and to me, the whole season is a the long run.
The MEDIAN winning / losing margin vs the point spread was 8 points.
That means half winning/losing margins were 8 points or less and half the winning/losing margins were 8 points or more.
The MEDIAN is the middle number in a set of numbers. In this case there were 64 numbers (games). 8 was the middle number. So half the games were off by more than a touchdown.
And that explains why some of the guys on here factor in the teasers when they are buying alternate lines. And why some believe certain games are 'teaser busters'.
The MEDIAN winning / losing margin vs the point spread was 8 points.
That means half winning/losing margins were 8 points or less and half the winning/losing margins were 8 points or more.
The MEDIAN is the middle number in a set of numbers. In this case there were 64 numbers (games). 8 was the middle number. So half the games were off by more than a touchdown.
And that explains why some of the guys on here factor in the teasers when they are buying alternate lines. And why some believe certain games are 'teaser busters'.
It is pretty easy to predict what the lines will ne for a given week in the NFL.
Before the lines are released each week, I examine the game and write in what I think the line for the game will be.
Not to hard to predict about 3 or 4 games exactly right and just miss on a few others. Lines are so tight in the NFL and I give props to the linesmakers.
That's my system for betting on the NFL...the top 3 or 4 games with the biggest difference get my attention. It's a pretty worth while system...also use it in the NBA. Probably not this year, though!
It is pretty easy to predict what the lines will ne for a given week in the NFL.
Before the lines are released each week, I examine the game and write in what I think the line for the game will be.
Not to hard to predict about 3 or 4 games exactly right and just miss on a few others. Lines are so tight in the NFL and I give props to the linesmakers.
That's my system for betting on the NFL...the top 3 or 4 games with the biggest difference get my attention. It's a pretty worth while system...also use it in the NBA. Probably not this year, though!
This is an old study for the years 1980 thru 1998 but more than likely it's probably still accurate.
The linesmaker is within a field goal or less of the actual result in 21.3% of all games, just over one game in five.
He's within a touchdown of the actual spread 44.4% of the time (a bit more than two games in five).
He's within 10 points of the actual spread just under 59% of the time.
Looked at another way the linesmaker misses the mark by more than a field goal almost 80% of the time (4 games in 5).
He misses by more than a touchdown 56% of the time (almost 3 games in 5).
And he really misses the mark, by more than 10 points, 41% of the time (2 games in 5).
What does this tell you about the linesmaker and how to play the NFL? Just pick the winner of the game and you have an excellent chance of being a pointspread winner!
The accompanying charts reveal that the median difference between the line and the actual result of a game is 8.2 points. What this means is that 50% of the time the linesmaker is within 8.2 points of the actual result and 50% of the time he misses by more than that number.
And you'll note that he has been consistent in that median in that his best years were 1989 and 1991 when he was off by 7.3 points or less 50% of the time. His worst years were 1982 and 1990 when he missed the mark by 9.5 points or more 50% of the time.
This is an old study for the years 1980 thru 1998 but more than likely it's probably still accurate.
The linesmaker is within a field goal or less of the actual result in 21.3% of all games, just over one game in five.
He's within a touchdown of the actual spread 44.4% of the time (a bit more than two games in five).
He's within 10 points of the actual spread just under 59% of the time.
Looked at another way the linesmaker misses the mark by more than a field goal almost 80% of the time (4 games in 5).
He misses by more than a touchdown 56% of the time (almost 3 games in 5).
And he really misses the mark, by more than 10 points, 41% of the time (2 games in 5).
What does this tell you about the linesmaker and how to play the NFL? Just pick the winner of the game and you have an excellent chance of being a pointspread winner!
The accompanying charts reveal that the median difference between the line and the actual result of a game is 8.2 points. What this means is that 50% of the time the linesmaker is within 8.2 points of the actual result and 50% of the time he misses by more than that number.
And you'll note that he has been consistent in that median in that his best years were 1989 and 1991 when he was off by 7.3 points or less 50% of the time. His worst years were 1982 and 1990 when he missed the mark by 9.5 points or more 50% of the time.
One way to look at this, once a book takes money on a game, they under no circumstances want to give any money back on a tie. That is, a game that landed on the actual spread. Why would they want to give back the 9% vig they already have in their grasp? It's the same reason that when you look over the board with the lines, almost all fall on a half number.
The guy who invented the half number is or will be burning in hell for eternity. What a crock of shit.
One way to look at this, once a book takes money on a game, they under no circumstances want to give any money back on a tie. That is, a game that landed on the actual spread. Why would they want to give back the 9% vig they already have in their grasp? It's the same reason that when you look over the board with the lines, almost all fall on a half number.
The guy who invented the half number is or will be burning in hell for eternity. What a crock of shit.
Let's say New England is at Oakland. The line opens up at New England -5. Most people think that spread is too low and a lot of money starts coming in on New England to cover. The linesmakers will raise the line to -5.5. If money keeps coming in on New England the spread will be raised to -6 and so on. The linesmakers do not care about the final score. They will keep adjusting the line until each side starts seeing 50-50 action. When they reach that point the line will hold. If they get the action to 50-50 each casino will make money. How you ask? Obviously, money will be made from the people that choose the losing side. They also make money off of the winning side. Remember, the juice is usually -110 meaning if you bet $100 you win $90. When you compare the guy that won $90 to the guy that lost $100 that is a $10 profit. Their goal is to have the losses offset the wins. That is why they try to get 50-50 action on each team. Same with the over/under.
Let's say New England is at Oakland. The line opens up at New England -5. Most people think that spread is too low and a lot of money starts coming in on New England to cover. The linesmakers will raise the line to -5.5. If money keeps coming in on New England the spread will be raised to -6 and so on. The linesmakers do not care about the final score. They will keep adjusting the line until each side starts seeing 50-50 action. When they reach that point the line will hold. If they get the action to 50-50 each casino will make money. How you ask? Obviously, money will be made from the people that choose the losing side. They also make money off of the winning side. Remember, the juice is usually -110 meaning if you bet $100 you win $90. When you compare the guy that won $90 to the guy that lost $100 that is a $10 profit. Their goal is to have the losses offset the wins. That is why they try to get 50-50 action on each team. Same with the over/under.
In 14 of the 16 games the team that won the game also covered the point spread. That's 87.5% This continues what happened in the preseason where 84% (54 out of 64) of the straight up winners also covered the spread. The point being that you could have capped the majority of these games as moneylines and just ignored the point spread, which is what the article in post 1 of this thread said you could do. Granted picking the straight up winner of these games is not that easy either. You've got to pick a lot of straight up DOG winners.
Below is the margins of victory / loss versus the point spread for all 16 games in Week 1. The spreads were beaten by an average of about 12 points. The median was 9 points meaning half the games were beaten by more than 9 points and half less than 9 points.
In 14 of the 16 games the team that won the game also covered the point spread. That's 87.5% This continues what happened in the preseason where 84% (54 out of 64) of the straight up winners also covered the spread. The point being that you could have capped the majority of these games as moneylines and just ignored the point spread, which is what the article in post 1 of this thread said you could do. Granted picking the straight up winner of these games is not that easy either. You've got to pick a lot of straight up DOG winners.
Below is the margins of victory / loss versus the point spread for all 16 games in Week 1. The spreads were beaten by an average of about 12 points. The median was 9 points meaning half the games were beaten by more than 9 points and half less than 9 points.
In 14 of the 16 games the team that won the game also covered the point spread. That's 87.5% This continues what happened in the preseason where 84% (54 out of 64) of the straight up winners also covered the spread. The point being that you could have capped the majority of these games as moneylines and just ignored the point spread, which is what the article in post 1 of this thread said you could do. Granted picking the straight up winner of these games is not that easy either. You've got to pick a lot of straight up DOG winners.
Below is the margins of victory / loss versus the point spread for all 16 games in Week 1. The spreads were beaten by an average of about 12 points. The median was 9 points meaning half the games were beaten by more than 9 points and half less than 9 points.
In 14 of the 16 games the team that won the game also covered the point spread. That's 87.5% This continues what happened in the preseason where 84% (54 out of 64) of the straight up winners also covered the spread. The point being that you could have capped the majority of these games as moneylines and just ignored the point spread, which is what the article in post 1 of this thread said you could do. Granted picking the straight up winner of these games is not that easy either. You've got to pick a lot of straight up DOG winners.
Below is the margins of victory / loss versus the point spread for all 16 games in Week 1. The spreads were beaten by an average of about 12 points. The median was 9 points meaning half the games were beaten by more than 9 points and half less than 9 points.
So there was only 2 games out of 16 that the Fav won and didn't cover the spread.
In two games though if you got the right line it would have made a difference. If you got Tennessee at +3 instead of -1 before they announced Jax was cutting David Garrard, then Tennessee would have lost the game straight up but covered the spread. If you got an extra 1/2 point with Carolina from 6.5 to 7, then you could have gotten a push on that game.
So if you got the right line on those two games than the record for straight up winners that also covered the point spread would have been 12-3-1 instead of 14-2
Line moves wouldn't have changed anything in any other game as far as I know. By the way I'm using the final spread in the Covers scoreboard for this data and for line moves I'm using the Vegas Hotels not the online books.
So there was only 2 games out of 16 that the Fav won and didn't cover the spread.
In two games though if you got the right line it would have made a difference. If you got Tennessee at +3 instead of -1 before they announced Jax was cutting David Garrard, then Tennessee would have lost the game straight up but covered the spread. If you got an extra 1/2 point with Carolina from 6.5 to 7, then you could have gotten a push on that game.
So if you got the right line on those two games than the record for straight up winners that also covered the point spread would have been 12-3-1 instead of 14-2
Line moves wouldn't have changed anything in any other game as far as I know. By the way I'm using the final spread in the Covers scoreboard for this data and for line moves I'm using the Vegas Hotels not the online books.
Everyone should read some of Steven Levitt's (Freakonomics) papers on sports betting markets and efficiency. He essentially sets out to prove that books often knowingly (and willingly) take disproportionate money on each side (i.e. not 50/50).
One of the papers is called "How Do Markets Function? An Empirical Analysis of Gambling on the National Football League." I couldn't find an acutal link. The paper would have been better coming from someone with actual sports betting experience, but it's definitely still worth checking out.
I still laugh my ass of when people talk about lines being set to garner 50/50 action.
Everyone should read some of Steven Levitt's (Freakonomics) papers on sports betting markets and efficiency. He essentially sets out to prove that books often knowingly (and willingly) take disproportionate money on each side (i.e. not 50/50).
One of the papers is called "How Do Markets Function? An Empirical Analysis of Gambling on the National Football League." I couldn't find an acutal link. The paper would have been better coming from someone with actual sports betting experience, but it's definitely still worth checking out.
I still laugh my ass of when people talk about lines being set to garner 50/50 action.
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.