 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Question for Justin re: HFA
Hey guys, my questions reagrds applying home field advantage to my projected game score. For example, using NFL, if my #'s say away team 17, home team 21 I would then apply my HFA #, if it's 3 in this example I would add 3 to the home team score, making my projection 17-24. I'm pretty sure I read in Justin's book that he does -1.5 to away team, +1.5 to home team. Can someone help me understand why you should split it vs. just adding it to home team score?
Thanks in advance!!
~VV~
If you add 3 points to the home team, you just increased your total by 3 points (if you bet totals). If you split the HFA and apply +1.5 / -1.5, you don't screw up your totals.Originally Posted by VegasVixen
Thanks Justin, makes perfect sense!
this is awful.
you can't just add/subtract points for hfa because not all points are equal.
There are better ways to do HFA. As far as simple approaches go, it's not bad.
it is awful for football where the value of points is so important. consider the number of games lined around 3 and 7. just adding/subtracting 1.5 points to each team you risk crossing key numbers effectively treating the 3 as worth the same as the 2 and 4.
TomG,
With the point add/subtract approach, the HFA affects the moneyline more on a percentage basis on games near Pick. As you said, this is because the fixed point move is likely to cross the "3". Home teams in NFL win almost 60% of their games.
Do you think the HFA adds 10% to the win rate of all teams? Or is it more for close games, and less for blow-out games? A add/subtract does the latter.
If you move a game from Pick to -3, the ML for that favorite isn't far from -150 (matching up with historical results of a 59% home win-rate). There are plenty of reasons why this approach to HFAs has problems, but I am not concerned about crossing the 3 or 7 as one of the problems.
When making my football line, after coming up with each team's total, I then "convert" it to a real football #. Per John Miller's book, only 13 #'s make up more than 2/3's of all final scores. 7-10-13-14-16-17-20-21-23-24-27-28-31. So, if my projected score is for example 16.5 to 22, using Justin's approach for HFA it becomes 15 - 23.5. Since it's very unlikely to score 15 in NFL, and impossible to score 23.5, my adjusted projection would be 16-23. Total is now 39 which is only .5 different from my original projection of 16.5 - 22...
I read Miller's work, and was not impressed.
In your example, you believe a team is a 5.5 point favorite, and the fair total is about 38.5. Why not use that raw score, instead of fudging it to -7/39?
It's 5.5 before HFA adjustment, which leads back to the original question. You would advocate apply the 1.5/-1.5 and use the new "raw" number and throw out Miller's recommendation of adjusting to more likely #'s?
Last season I just added the entire HFA to the home team. (Different amounts for different teams)...After backtesting & splitting it between the teams instead, I would have had 6 additional bets lost for the season (sides & totals)... not the direction I want to go thats why I made the original thread.
I really struggle with capping NFL compared to what I've done in baseball. With the MLB season winding down, I'm reading & researching everything I can to try to improve my football capping. I wouldn't say I was overly impressed with Miller's work either, but I'm trying to read/research everything I can. In addition to yours & Miller's books, I've also read Bobby Smith, Dan Gordon & Wong this summer to try to look at new approaches.
Thanks again for your time!
~VV~
In addition to what TomG said, wouldn't you also formulate HFA as a %? Obviously bumping a 1 point favorite up to 4 for HFA is drastically different from moving a 45 point favorite up to 48 and that's putting key numbers aside.
What about moving from +1.5 to -1.5?
Do you think a fixed % is the right way to treat HFA? Should you just determine the win probability, and add about 0.09 to it?
Does this mean that any favorite of more than -1000 (on a neutral field) is an auto-win?
^As a % of the neutral field spread. I'm not adding 9% to win probability, I'm maybe adding 20% of the neutral field spread to account for HFA.
No one is suggesting this, Justin. The fact that other methods are bad doesn't imply simply adding/subtracting points to account for HFA is OK.
How do you handle HFA?
The simplest way to account for HFA is to convert the spread into a ML. Then add a fixed number of cents. Then convert back to a spread.
So in NFL, if the home team should win about 59%, would you advocate adding 45-50 cents to all home favorites?
what if it was a -1000 favorite? Would you adjust it to -1050?
I'm not chop busting, just trying to understand your approach.
I gave up trying years ago as it drove me mad and at the end of the day its whatever makes you happy. The reason I'm posting is that a while back I read an interesting article somewhere suggesting that the better the team, the less they have a HFA as their road performance is not such a drop off compared to bad teams. I'm open minded about it but might be worth considering.
Reply With Quote