Is a -110 really a 4.55% disadvantage against the book? Is pushing already factored?

[oiris11]

If I bet a game ATS (lets assume college basketball) blind, I'm supposed to lose 4.55% in the long run, right?

This is, if I bet $110, I'm expected to lose $10 for every $220 invested. (50% of the time I lose $110 and 50% I win $100)

BUT

Lets say I bet blind all the games whose closing line at all or almost all SBs is +7.

According to the half-point calculator, there's a 4.03% of a PUSH, therefore I'm not losing and winning anymore 50% of the time, right?

Lets round to 4%, so, I push 4%, win 48% and lose 48%

Therefore

EV%=((100*.48) - (110*.48))/110 = -4.36% instead of -4.55%

Same for every other number

Am I doing this wrong?

[byronbb]

Always wondered if books cared about dealing a flat number vs the half-point.

Had a look at Nevada Gaming Revenue reports. Basketball is the most profitable sports for the books.

[statnerds]

Wouldn't it be easier to play reduced juice at -105 instead of all of the fancy pants bells and whistle, assuming your goal is lower the House Edge.

[GunShard]

Always wondered if books cared about dealing a flat number vs the half-point.

Had a look at Nevada Gaming Revenue reports. Basketball is the most profitable sports for the books.

Very true. I read that report as well. The public won more money on Football than Basketball.

[HUY]

Very true. I read that report as well. The public won more money on Football than Basketball.

Are you guys referring to these data: http://gaming.nv.gov/index.aspx?page=149 ? If so, how do you make sense of that data?