We all know the talking about a big underdog covering backdoor. I just noticed this season, while loosing on some big underdogs (i usually avoid favorites and play dogs - my record is about 20-20), that i would have won about 70-80% of my bets if i had taken the dog to cover the first half. Of cause my sample size is very thin, so i did some research. I could use some opinions to the following results:
First of all, I checked the average SU-Margin for every dog line (0.5 to 20+) since 1990 and calculated the average advantage. For example: all +1 dogs had an average SU Margin of +0.9 points (they actually won their games - of cause - on average). So the avg advantage for them is +1.9. 6-point dogs had an avg SU margin of -7.6, which means an (dis)advantage of -1.6. I will put the most interesting lines below:
Line | SU Margin FT | advantage
-7.6| -1.6
+6.5| -5.4 |+1.1
+7.0| -9 | -2.0
+9.0| -10.4 | -1.4
+9.5| -8.4 | +1.1
+10 | -10.5 | -0.5
+13.5| -11.4| +2.1
+14| -14.5 | -0.5
Sorry, i know this kind of "table" is suboptimal - i hope you can see what i mean. My thoughts: The usual betting advice is to avoid these "key numbers" (+6.5 etc.) because of the cummon results (10-17 etc.) - i assume most of you know this stuff. Could these results be a hint of trap-lines? In case you wonder, the median average advantage over all lines is -0.48. So an "advantage" of more than one point seems a lot. The betting market should work pretty decent, so that you shouldnt have much of difference between the line and the average SU-Margin if the sample size is big enough.
My thought: Since these are well known key numbers, they are used as a trap by the bookies. When the favorit should be a 5 or 5.5 favorite - it could be a common method to set the line even higher, because the casual better only sees the 6.5 and thinks "ooh lets take the key number before it jumps to seven" - of course without reconsidering what the line should be. I dont know if that makes sense at all - maybe the results occured by accident and i'm talking lots of bullshit here.
Anyone who read my less-than perfect english (german boy here ) has some good thoughts on this stuff?
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
We all know the talking about a big underdog covering backdoor. I just noticed this season, while loosing on some big underdogs (i usually avoid favorites and play dogs - my record is about 20-20), that i would have won about 70-80% of my bets if i had taken the dog to cover the first half. Of cause my sample size is very thin, so i did some research. I could use some opinions to the following results:
First of all, I checked the average SU-Margin for every dog line (0.5 to 20+) since 1990 and calculated the average advantage. For example: all +1 dogs had an average SU Margin of +0.9 points (they actually won their games - of cause - on average). So the avg advantage for them is +1.9. 6-point dogs had an avg SU margin of -7.6, which means an (dis)advantage of -1.6. I will put the most interesting lines below:
Line | SU Margin FT | advantage
-7.6| -1.6
+6.5| -5.4 |+1.1
+7.0| -9 | -2.0
+9.0| -10.4 | -1.4
+9.5| -8.4 | +1.1
+10 | -10.5 | -0.5
+13.5| -11.4| +2.1
+14| -14.5 | -0.5
Sorry, i know this kind of "table" is suboptimal - i hope you can see what i mean. My thoughts: The usual betting advice is to avoid these "key numbers" (+6.5 etc.) because of the cummon results (10-17 etc.) - i assume most of you know this stuff. Could these results be a hint of trap-lines? In case you wonder, the median average advantage over all lines is -0.48. So an "advantage" of more than one point seems a lot. The betting market should work pretty decent, so that you shouldnt have much of difference between the line and the average SU-Margin if the sample size is big enough.
My thought: Since these are well known key numbers, they are used as a trap by the bookies. When the favorit should be a 5 or 5.5 favorite - it could be a common method to set the line even higher, because the casual better only sees the 6.5 and thinks "ooh lets take the key number before it jumps to seven" - of course without reconsidering what the line should be. I dont know if that makes sense at all - maybe the results occured by accident and i'm talking lots of bullshit here.
Anyone who read my less-than perfect english (german boy here ) has some good thoughts on this stuff?
To calculate some results for the first question (taking big dogs to cover the first half - psychological thought behind this was, that big favorites maybe start slow against bad teams because they dont take them serious enough) i took the average First-Half-SU-Margin for all lines greater than 0. Then i calculated the possible First-Half line, because they dont appear in any database, by multiplying the FT-line with 0.57 (HT line for dogs always seem a bit higher than the line divided by 2). Then I calculated the average advantage for every line (the same way as above) and subtracted the Full-Time advantage to see if the HT advantage is greater than the FT-advantage. While for low lines (below 7) the dogs seem to be less profitable, there seems to be an significant advantage for big spreads (+10 to +13.5).
Yesterday was a perfect example. I took the raiders +7 1H - and while they lost the bet, the chances of covering were much better in the first half - until this crappy Anderson Run. The Broncos startet slow but then pulled away in the second half.
Do you guys have any experience in taking dogs to cover the first half?
0
To calculate some results for the first question (taking big dogs to cover the first half - psychological thought behind this was, that big favorites maybe start slow against bad teams because they dont take them serious enough) i took the average First-Half-SU-Margin for all lines greater than 0. Then i calculated the possible First-Half line, because they dont appear in any database, by multiplying the FT-line with 0.57 (HT line for dogs always seem a bit higher than the line divided by 2). Then I calculated the average advantage for every line (the same way as above) and subtracted the Full-Time advantage to see if the HT advantage is greater than the FT-advantage. While for low lines (below 7) the dogs seem to be less profitable, there seems to be an significant advantage for big spreads (+10 to +13.5).
Yesterday was a perfect example. I took the raiders +7 1H - and while they lost the bet, the chances of covering were much better in the first half - until this crappy Anderson Run. The Broncos startet slow but then pulled away in the second half.
Do you guys have any experience in taking dogs to cover the first half?
Hot Forum Topics
