Posted:
#1
Does anyone have any stats on betting underdogs +200 or more is this a profitable strategy? I have been doing this for kicks so far on wagerline and am 8-4 +12.78 units so far.
0
betting underdogs +200 or more
...
Search 
Views: 847
Posts: 14
Posted:
#2
Not really. Someone elsewhere even tried it with the NHL but it evened out too. Hmmm... Interesting
My opinion don't go for all the marbles but hate on the public. Take any team getting 30% of the public or less on the ML minutes before gametime. I personally use sportsbookspy for my gauge. Use your judgment if its a few % points higer then 30. And stay away from each last place team in a division. But they have been hitting. I am trying to work on some filters to eliminate losses. But dude its money in the grand scope of things. I don't have any documented results but this time of the year is hot cause of outragouse overated lines and the beginning of the year for the 1st month or so cause the public is all over favs anyway.
GL
0
Posted:
#8
Quote Originally Posted by Lippsman:
Someone in the baseball section was doing something like this. Grandma capper or something like that.
That was King Scorpio but he was playing every dog every day to prove a point during a 60 day period. During a stretch, the Favorites kept covering.
It was interesting that at 1 point, the record was approx 30 games under 500 yet $$$ wise he was just about at $0.. (The power of the Dog). A few more favorite covering days and he closed up shop.
Anyway, that experiment was different than playing just +200 dogs.
Best of Luck.
0
Posted:
#12
I know someone else started tracking it after KS stopped doing it. But yeah, I think he was not taking anything over+215 or something like that.
Favs are covering at a bigger clip in the last few years in the NHL. Well really since the rule changes and reffing changes. As RinkRat likes to say it's the NBA on ice and that has a great deal of truth. Those home teams seem to get the calls and those are the teams that are the huge favorites.
0
Posted:
#13
Quote Originally Posted by ellingson:
Does anyone have any stats on betting underdogs +200 or more is this a profitable strategy? I have been doing this for kicks so far on wagerline and am 8-4 +12.78 units so far.
Here are the records for this season for dogs +200 or more, as well as the ROI of betting on or against them, SU or RL, O/U.:
| SU: | 16-58 (-2.4 rpg) | average line: +222 / -264 | on / against: -$2,125 / +$1,450 | ROI: -28.7% / +7.4% |
| RL: | 27-47 (-0.9 rpg) | average line: +111 / -121 | on / against: -$1,745 / +$1,455 | ROI: -23.4% / +16.2% |
| O/U: | 36-35-3 (0.3 rpg) | average total: 8.9 | over / under: -$200 / -$510 | ROI: -2.4% / -6.1% |
So it seems to me that fading Dogs +200 or more, has been more profitable.
0
Posted:
#14
Quote Originally Posted by Adal1205:
Here are the records for this season for dogs +200 or more, as well as the ROI of betting on or against them, SU or RL, O/U.:
| SU: | 16-58 (-2.4 rpg) | average line: +222 / -264 | on / against: -$2,125 / +$1,450 | ROI: -28.7% / +7.4% |
| RL: | 27-47 (-0.9 rpg) | average line: +111 / -121 | on / against: -$1,745 / +$1,455 | ROI: -23.4% / +16.2% |
| O/U: | 36-35-3 (0.3 rpg) | average total: 8.9 | over / under: -$200 / -$510 | ROI: -2.4% / -6.1% |
So it seems to me that fading Dogs +200 or more, has been more profitable.
And playing the RL instead of the ML would get you out of a few huge losses.
0
Hot Forum Topics
