Is betting the favourite ever worth it?

**jtoler** · 06-28-16, 07:22 AM

Decimals are retarded, american odds is the easiest thing in the world to understand even for a child.

**Dr.Gonzo** · 06-28-16, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by jtoler

Decimals are retarded, american odds is the easiest thing in the world to understand even for a child.

**Dr.Gonzo** · 06-28-16, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by tsty

Hello all,

Is there any edge betting the favourite?

(Sorry i'm going to use decimals since I find the +100 stuff retarded)

I generally bet stuff where a bookie posts a team at 3$ when they should be at 2$ or a team at 2.7 when they should be 2.2 etc. In these two examples you are making .5 and .22 profit on these bets. Can a bet you make on a favourite ever really come close to that type of value?

If you are betting on a 1.6 game where it should be 1.4 ,how much are you really making? .1? is that even worth it?

Yes, it's worth it.

Because it's shorter priced and will win more often you can also put more of your bank on it.

Don't think in decimals, think in percentages.

**Gaze73** · 06-28-16, 09:53 AM

Actually when you bet at 2.7 when it should be 2.2, you're beating the books by 41%, and when you bet at 1.6 when it should be 1.4 you beat them by 50%. And like the other guy said, you can bet more on favs. You can be awesome at picking big dogs with 50% ROI and 30% strikerate, or you can pick heavy favs at 10% ROI but 75% strike rate so you can risk 10x more per pick.

**tsty** · 06-28-16, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Gaze73

Actually when you bet at 2.7 when it should be 2.2, you're beating the books by 41%, and when you bet at 1.6 when it should be 1.4 you beat them by 50%. And like the other guy said, you can bet more on favs. You can be awesome at picking big dogs with 50% ROI and 30% strikerate, or you can pick heavy favs at 10% ROI but 75% strike rate so you can risk 10x more per pick.

Is it possible to show me the math on how you got those percentages?

**Miz** · 06-30-16, 09:34 PM

very often the lines are shaded to account for fav/longshot bias, meaning that there is actually less vigorish on the favorite, albeit still some. This idea generally applies to ML sports like MLB NHL etc.

**omedo** · 07-10-16, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Miz

very often the lines are shaded to account for fav/longshot bias, meaning that there is actually less vigorish on the favorite, albeit still some. This idea generally applies to ML sports like MLB NHL etc.

This and by far.
Normally people dont like the 1.10 odds, they only use them in big parlays.

**omedo** · 07-10-16, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Gaze73

Actually when you bet at 2.7 when it should be 2.2, you're beating the books by 41%, and when you bet at 1.6 when it should be 1.4 you beat them by 50%. And like the other guy said, you can bet more on favs. You can be awesome at picking big dogs with 50% ROI and 30% strikerate, or you can pick heavy favs at 10% ROI but 75% strike rate so you can risk 10x more per pick.

You have to check your percentagens.

On the 1st example your edge is 8,42% and your expected value is 0,22cents on the dolar.

On the 2nd example your edge is 8,93% and your expected value is 14,28cents on the dolar

Dont do the math with odds, do it with the inherent probability