I needed the CGY/LAK UNDER 5.5 to win a parlay for $1310. My risk was $240 so the pot is $1550.
Now I know the cashout proposition is usually very very bad for the bettors because why else the bookies would offer it? The cash out was for $321, or a net profit of $81. I don't lose.
The question is, were my chances of hitting that Under not worst than 20.7% ?
The score was 2-2 with just around 10:00 left in the 2nd. All it takes is 2 goals and I get nothing. 2 goals in a full period and a half. But wait, just ONE more goal and it leaves room for an empty netter.
I think my true odds were something around 12.5% to win this bet. Maybe less because of the empty net possibility.
I needed the CGY/LAK UNDER 5.5 to win a parlay for $1310. My risk was $240 so the pot is $1550.
Now I know the cashout proposition is usually very very bad for the bettors because why else the bookies would offer it? The cash out was for $321, or a net profit of $81. I don't lose.
The question is, were my chances of hitting that Under not worst than 20.7% ?
The score was 2-2 with just around 10:00 left in the 2nd. All it takes is 2 goals and I get nothing. 2 goals in a full period and a half. But wait, just ONE more goal and it leaves room for an empty netter.
I think my true odds were something around 12.5% to win this bet. Maybe less because of the empty net possibility.
For 2016/2017 the odds of a game going under 5.5 with 4 goals being scored was 47%.
Considering you had
- 10 minutes still left in the second period
- A 2-2 tie versus 3-1 or 4-0 score
- New hooking/slashing rules with more penalties
the odds of that score staying under 5.5 would probably have been somewhere in the mid teens or low 20's.
Your stats are incomplete. You say "under 5.5 with 4 goals being scored".. is that "4 goals being scored at exactly 10:00 in the second period" ? That's the most important part.
Because if it is, I am finding a hard time believing it. The bulk of the 47% would come from 4-0 and 3-1 games, which means 2-2 games, like you said, go over 80-85% of the time.
This means that to get to that weighted average of 47%, assuming that 3-1 and 4-0 games combined occur at equal frequency as the 2-2 games, which stay under about 15% of the time, 4-0 and 3-1 games would have to stay under 75% of the time (!!).
For 2016/2017 the odds of a game going under 5.5 with 4 goals being scored was 47%.
Considering you had
- 10 minutes still left in the second period
- A 2-2 tie versus 3-1 or 4-0 score
- New hooking/slashing rules with more penalties
the odds of that score staying under 5.5 would probably have been somewhere in the mid teens or low 20's.
Your stats are incomplete. You say "under 5.5 with 4 goals being scored".. is that "4 goals being scored at exactly 10:00 in the second period" ? That's the most important part.
Because if it is, I am finding a hard time believing it. The bulk of the 47% would come from 4-0 and 3-1 games, which means 2-2 games, like you said, go over 80-85% of the time.
This means that to get to that weighted average of 47%, assuming that 3-1 and 4-0 games combined occur at equal frequency as the 2-2 games, which stay under about 15% of the time, 4-0 and 3-1 games would have to stay under 75% of the time (!!).
Your stats are incomplete. You say "under 5.5 with 4 goals being scored".. is that "4 goals being scored at exactly 10:00 in the second period" ? That's the most important part.
Because if it is, I am finding a hard time believing it. The bulk of the 47% would come from 4-0 and 3-1 games, which means 2-2 games, like you said, go over 80-85% of the time.
This means that to get to that weighted average of 47%, assuming that 3-1 and 4-0 games combined occur at equal frequency as the 2-2 games, which stay under about 15% of the time, 4-0 and 3-1 games would have to stay under 75% of the time (!!).
Yes that is what I wanted to see the data for. It's not if 4 goals are scored, but when the 4 goals are scored by.
Your stats are incomplete. You say "under 5.5 with 4 goals being scored".. is that "4 goals being scored at exactly 10:00 in the second period" ? That's the most important part.
Because if it is, I am finding a hard time believing it. The bulk of the 47% would come from 4-0 and 3-1 games, which means 2-2 games, like you said, go over 80-85% of the time.
This means that to get to that weighted average of 47%, assuming that 3-1 and 4-0 games combined occur at equal frequency as the 2-2 games, which stay under about 15% of the time, 4-0 and 3-1 games would have to stay under 75% of the time (!!).
Yes that is what I wanted to see the data for. It's not if 4 goals are scored, but when the 4 goals are scored by.
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.