[dynamite140]

I seen many games where a team can go on a huge lead in the first quarter or half. For example, the Heat are playing against the Spurs now and the spread is Spurs -2.5 for the game. At the end of the first quarter, Spurs was up 36 to 12 and winning by 24 points.

I checked the ingame wagering at a book and it had the Spurs -15. Is it me or is this pretty much an AUTO bet for the underdog? Yes the spurs are up by 24 points but isn't a live line of spurs -15 way too excessive. I mean, the Heat will eventually make some sort of run and even if they don't the spurs are not going to win by 30+ anyway the majority of the time.

Right now the ingame wagering is Heat +12 after they cut down the lead a bit. But isn't it a great situation where you take a team down by so many points really early in the game and getting much more points later on? So if one took Heat +15 earlier ingame, all they have to do is hope the Heat make a comeback and then suddenly the live line would be much lower. Even if it doesn't isn't it way too hard for the spurs team to cover 15 points?

How often does a team lead by 20+ points by the end of 1st quarter or the half and continue to romp their opponent? Not often right?

I don't know what is a fair in game live line but if Spurs are -15 shouldn't the Heat be an auto bet? Yes Spurs are up by 24 points at the moment and they are 9 points better now but at some point during the game, there is going to be a run by the other team.

Does anyone know what happens more often in these situations when a team gets in a huge lead really early in the game? I would have to assume the team that is down a ton of points would make a run at some point right? Rarely do i see a team get dominated this much. And even if they don't rout the Heat, isn't it just really tough for the Heat and other teams in this situation to NOT cover that in game live line of +15 after the first quarter despite being down 24?

I would think a really good strategy is take the Heat +15 and then as they get closer, you can then take Spurs -6 and then have a huge middle. I'm pretty sure there are many people that do this with in game live wagering right? I feel like taking the team that is down a lot early in the game feels like a bet that shouldn't be allowed b/c i feel like it hits more often right?

[brettd]

I've never looked at in-play betting. But a guy at my university created an in-play betting model for Australian football. It took him a PhD to get the thing right though.

I suspect that making +EV bets in-play is not all that simple.

[Peregrine Stoop]

I've never looked at in-play betting. But a guy at my university created an in-play betting model for Australian football. It took him a PhD to get the thing right though. I suspect that making +EV bets in-play is not all that simple.

truth, most people don't know how to accommodate pre-game predictions with mean reversion based on what has already happened

[WendysRox]

truth, most people don't know how to accommodate pre-game predictions with mean reversion based on what has already happened

say wha?

[Sdotbold]

still got beat by 30. but i do exactly what your saying, I would say i have had more success then not with it. I doing it in football. seemed to work better in NFL games this season for me, especially in the playoffs.

[Peregrine Stoop]

say wha?

put in some work

[cant call it]

I have taken plenty of 2H bets in college hoops. I have only found a few spots where I thought there was good value, and routinely hit a good % of those. Auburn was one of the teams I successfully put a few 2H bets on this year. They have an average to below average team. On the games where they would get down 12-20 points at the end of 1H , the 2H line would be anywhere from auburn -3 to au -6 for the 2H.
If I had good reason to believe auburn could ball in the 2H and not win persay but at least make it alot closer game; then I would take them in a heartbeat.

[DedesSports]

For this example, in game line, respecting non-live line of -2.5 would be something around -13.5. So, if they were offering -15.5, the difference would be related to money received on the favorite.

I seen many games where a team can go on a huge lead in the first quarter or half. For example, the Heat are playing against the Spurs now and the spread is Spurs -2.5 for the game. At the end of the first quarter, Spurs was up 36 to 12 and winning by 24 points.

I checked the ingame wagering at a book and it had the Spurs -15. Is it me or is this pretty much an AUTO bet for the underdog? Yes the spurs are up by 24 points but isn't a live line of spurs -15 way too excessive. I mean, the Heat will eventually make some sort of run and even if they don't the spurs are not going to win by 30+ anyway the majority of the time.

Right now the ingame wagering is Heat +12 after they cut down the lead a bit. But isn't it a great situation where you take a team down by so many points really early in the game and getting much more points later on? So if one took Heat +15 earlier ingame, all they have to do is hope the Heat make a comeback and then suddenly the live line would be much lower. Even if it doesn't isn't it way too hard for the spurs team to cover 15 points?

How often does a team lead by 20+ points by the end of 1st quarter or the half and continue to romp their opponent? Not often right?

I don't know what is a fair in game live line but if Spurs are -15 shouldn't the Heat be an auto bet? Yes Spurs are up by 24 points at the moment and they are 9 points better now but at some point during the game, there is going to be a run by the other team.

Does anyone know what happens more often in these situations when a team gets in a huge lead really early in the game? I would have to assume the team that is down a ton of points would make a run at some point right? Rarely do i see a team get dominated this much. And even if they don't rout the Heat, isn't it just really tough for the Heat and other teams in this situation to NOT cover that in game live line of +15 after the first quarter despite being down 24?

I would think a really good strategy is take the Heat +15 and then as they get closer, you can then take Spurs -6 and then have a huge middle. I'm pretty sure there are many people that do this with in game live wagering right? I feel like taking the team that is down a lot early in the game feels like a bet that shouldn't be allowed b/c i feel like it hits more often right?

[Yazworm91]

So take this from someone who has lost most of his yearly bankroll to live betting. My problem is i would chase. My take on things.

1. When things are going bad they usually get worse. Especially for road teams. Home teams are usually different. When a team is hot and things are going their way it usually continues to stay that way.

2. If I've already made a bet on the game don't make another bet on the game as far as spread because that's when you start chasing. Unless it's a +moneyline wager. In my expierence not too many games that I took the higher line that the original line didn't cover as well(thus can definitely be argued). But so many more cases both lines or multiple live bets on spreads didn't cover.

3. You should already have a line set in your head you are willing to live bet on before the game starts. I can't tell you how much I've lost on games I didn't even originally have on my radar.

Here's an example. I had no intention on betting any games on Saturday for NCAA. My dumba$$ lost 250$ on Kansas. If I'd have waited a little bit I could've only lost 50-100$ on a better number


Today in the Ky/UNC game there were chances to be on both at +250

Just be smart and don't be a dumba$$ like me.