So I have been an adament believer in systems for a long time now. Some have failed and some have had limited success, only to burn out later...I think I am one with them for now...
However, it seems that most of them concentrate on underdogs, so I thought, why not just try to win straight up by betting underdogs?
So my QUESTION is this...if you were to bet an average ML of +150 for each bet, what winning percentage would you have to have to break even? What percentage to make a descent amount?
I feel like I could hit atleast at a 40% if I put a lot of time and effort into it, but would thatmake money?
Any mathematicians around? I am horrible when it comes to things like this....Thanks in advance and sorry about being longwinded
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
So I have been an adament believer in systems for a long time now. Some have failed and some have had limited success, only to burn out later...I think I am one with them for now...
However, it seems that most of them concentrate on underdogs, so I thought, why not just try to win straight up by betting underdogs?
So my QUESTION is this...if you were to bet an average ML of +150 for each bet, what winning percentage would you have to have to break even? What percentage to make a descent amount?
I feel like I could hit atleast at a 40% if I put a lot of time and effort into it, but would thatmake money?
Any mathematicians around? I am horrible when it comes to things like this....Thanks in advance and sorry about being longwinded
I'm going for my PhD in math and statistics! yay! Go me!
Anyway, to answer your first question, here's a simple formula to convert ML to break even %.
To make things simple, I'll divide it into favs and dogs.
Favs: (1/[line -1]) + 1 (-150 = -1.5) So for -150 it would be (1/[-1.5 -1]) +1 = 1/-2.5 +1 = -0.4 +1 = .60 = 60% Dogs: 1/ 1+line (+150 = 1.5) So for +150 it would be 1/1+1.5 = 1/2.5 = .40 = 40%
I'm sure you can hit 40% since underdogs win about 44% of the time. Last year just betting all dogs in the NHL, you would be up shitloads.
0
I'm going for my PhD in math and statistics! yay! Go me!
Anyway, to answer your first question, here's a simple formula to convert ML to break even %.
To make things simple, I'll divide it into favs and dogs.
Favs: (1/[line -1]) + 1 (-150 = -1.5) So for -150 it would be (1/[-1.5 -1]) +1 = 1/-2.5 +1 = -0.4 +1 = .60 = 60% Dogs: 1/ 1+line (+150 = 1.5) So for +150 it would be 1/1+1.5 = 1/2.5 = .40 = 40%
Thanks Tom for the help...as I said I am retarded when it comes to numbers (hence my having been an English major)
So are you saying that if I hit 40% I would just be breaking even?
On a sidenote, were you the poster that had the system that played the two highest NHL dogs? That worked out pretty well for you no?
Again, awesome info, thanks
Yeah that was me. It did work out well, I can try to find my papers and get you the exact stats. NHL is pretty unpredictible which is great if you're betting underdogs. Last season I hit 53% betting only underdogs, which was obviously very nice :P
0
Quote Originally Posted by PatrickBateman:
Thanks Tom for the help...as I said I am retarded when it comes to numbers (hence my having been an English major)
So are you saying that if I hit 40% I would just be breaking even?
On a sidenote, were you the poster that had the system that played the two highest NHL dogs? That worked out pretty well for you no?
Again, awesome info, thanks
Yeah that was me. It did work out well, I can try to find my papers and get you the exact stats. NHL is pretty unpredictible which is great if you're betting underdogs. Last season I hit 53% betting only underdogs, which was obviously very nice :P
Do you have stats going back past from last year? I tracked it last year, I am just interested in finding out if it works year to year or if last year was an anomoly...I would definately appreciate those
Also, in your opinion, do you think a strategy of picking underdogs could be profitable without any sort of systems, just good ol'handicapping?
And lastly, will you be doing biggest dog thing again? Or do you have something else in the works?
0
Do you have stats going back past from last year? I tracked it last year, I am just interested in finding out if it works year to year or if last year was an anomoly...I would definately appreciate those
Also, in your opinion, do you think a strategy of picking underdogs could be profitable without any sort of systems, just good ol'handicapping?
And lastly, will you be doing biggest dog thing again? Or do you have something else in the works?
I have the stats since for it since the lockout. I'll have to go find them and get back to you, but I'm pretty sure they showed profit every season. If I can't find them, I'll just recheck it, won't take all that long.
As for your second question... Yes, very much so. When I hit the 53% last season and 56% the season before (betting only dogs) it was mainly off handicapping. Looking into games is important, and finding good value can be very benefitial. I recall a game last season, and I posted a thread about it, that I bet on Clb to beat Detroit. The line for Clb was +300, with about 90% of people on Detroit. That line tells me that if I believe Columbus has more than a 25% chance of winning, it would be a good bet. After doing my research, I estimated that Columbus had a 40% chance of winning, so I went with them and placed a pretty large bet. I posted in the forum on wagerline and got my ass flamed to shit about how stupid I was. Columbus won the game, I made alot of profit, and noboby came back to the thread to admit they were wrong.
As for the last question, my answer is yes, and yes. I will be playing the two largest dogs each day, and I will also be experimenting with other systems I've created this offseason. You can check my site (found in my space) and I'll have them up there soon, after I finish testing them post-lockout. I'll probably be posting them here as well though.
Also, on an unrelated note, there were a few rule changes that I find very beneficial. First off, the no TV timeouts after an icing. I completely agree with this, it makes the no changing on an icing rule mean something. The other major one is the penalty one. A team taking a penalty will have the first faceoff in their defensive zone. This means that more powerplay time will be spent in the offensive zone leading to more powerplay goals. Watch for teams that take a lot of penalties and play the over in that game or atleast on the other teams total. Another alternative could be to play some props such as power play goals. Betting a PPgoal prop on a team that has a low PP% can get you some good value, and if the team is facing a very undiciplined team, it's a bet that you can't miss.
0
I have the stats since for it since the lockout. I'll have to go find them and get back to you, but I'm pretty sure they showed profit every season. If I can't find them, I'll just recheck it, won't take all that long.
As for your second question... Yes, very much so. When I hit the 53% last season and 56% the season before (betting only dogs) it was mainly off handicapping. Looking into games is important, and finding good value can be very benefitial. I recall a game last season, and I posted a thread about it, that I bet on Clb to beat Detroit. The line for Clb was +300, with about 90% of people on Detroit. That line tells me that if I believe Columbus has more than a 25% chance of winning, it would be a good bet. After doing my research, I estimated that Columbus had a 40% chance of winning, so I went with them and placed a pretty large bet. I posted in the forum on wagerline and got my ass flamed to shit about how stupid I was. Columbus won the game, I made alot of profit, and noboby came back to the thread to admit they were wrong.
As for the last question, my answer is yes, and yes. I will be playing the two largest dogs each day, and I will also be experimenting with other systems I've created this offseason. You can check my site (found in my space) and I'll have them up there soon, after I finish testing them post-lockout. I'll probably be posting them here as well though.
Also, on an unrelated note, there were a few rule changes that I find very beneficial. First off, the no TV timeouts after an icing. I completely agree with this, it makes the no changing on an icing rule mean something. The other major one is the penalty one. A team taking a penalty will have the first faceoff in their defensive zone. This means that more powerplay time will be spent in the offensive zone leading to more powerplay goals. Watch for teams that take a lot of penalties and play the over in that game or atleast on the other teams total. Another alternative could be to play some props such as power play goals. Betting a PPgoal prop on a team that has a low PP% can get you some good value, and if the team is facing a very undiciplined team, it's a bet that you can't miss.
You are the man, thanks for all the help, definately BOL to you all season and then some.
If you don't mind putting the time in, yeah I would love to know if the Biggest NHL dog has been profitable for previous years...I am assuming as much since you are planning on betting it this year yourself...However, I did notice last year that the last month or two did not prove profitable. do you stop betting around March/April?
0
Tom,
You are the man, thanks for all the help, definately BOL to you all season and then some.
If you don't mind putting the time in, yeah I would love to know if the Biggest NHL dog has been profitable for previous years...I am assuming as much since you are planning on betting it this year yourself...However, I did notice last year that the last month or two did not prove profitable. do you stop betting around March/April?
yeah I'll get the stats for this to you soon. If I remember correctly, it was a slight drop in march and april, but I think overall last season was about +60units.
0
yeah I'll get the stats for this to you soon. If I remember correctly, it was a slight drop in march and april, but I think overall last season was about +60units.
The ML only goes back to the 05-06 season, are you testing further back that that?
No, because 04/05 was the lockout season. That led to a salary cap and several rule changes. That means that its not comparable to the games now so it wouldn't be fair to apply these systems to those games.
0
Quote Originally Posted by tbRays:
The ML only goes back to the 05-06 season, are you testing further back that that?
No, because 04/05 was the lockout season. That led to a salary cap and several rule changes. That means that its not comparable to the games now so it wouldn't be fair to apply these systems to those games.
Hot Forum Topics
