Without talking specifics of or about models, bankroll management, ect ect
This is a simple basic form of +ev? Or is it not?
1. Games that are typically wagerd on with no spreads like mlb, hockey, soccer ect. Only taking teams with a minimum 40% chance of winning.
Team-A model says team-A has a 47.2% chance of winning with odds of +129. That would mean your expected value would be 8%, even though your break even is achieved at .94?? conclusion being if I bet this same scenario risking .47 each time over 100 wagers risking 47 total my ev would be 8% of 47= 3.76 ev profit???
2. Same model chance as above for winning but the line is +105 which doesn't come close to beak even so therefore it's a no bet?? conclusion wagers appear to only have value based off the payout the line is offering??
3. Spread games like NBA, NCAAF, NFL, ect ect
Using the typical 91% (.91) payout . Team whatever, whoever has a 46% chance of winning model says they should loose by 2, but they are getting +6 from the books giving a value of 4 points. If the total -over/under- of a game is say 200 , would that now be a 54% chance of winning for team-a 46+ the % of perceived points in game?? 54% + .91 payout giving a +ev of 3.14%????
4. Totals,. Models suggest score of 8.75 while the line is 10 so would that not then be 62.5% for game to go under given the 1.25 discrepancy?? So that would +ev of 19.3% (62.5 +.91%) payout????
Any thoughts on these, does anybody wager like this??
This is a simple basic form of +ev? Or is it not?
1. Games that are typically wagerd on with no spreads like mlb, hockey, soccer ect. Only taking teams with a minimum 40% chance of winning.
Team-A model says team-A has a 47.2% chance of winning with odds of +129. That would mean your expected value would be 8%, even though your break even is achieved at .94?? conclusion being if I bet this same scenario risking .47 each time over 100 wagers risking 47 total my ev would be 8% of 47= 3.76 ev profit???
2. Same model chance as above for winning but the line is +105 which doesn't come close to beak even so therefore it's a no bet?? conclusion wagers appear to only have value based off the payout the line is offering??
3. Spread games like NBA, NCAAF, NFL, ect ect
Using the typical 91% (.91) payout . Team whatever, whoever has a 46% chance of winning model says they should loose by 2, but they are getting +6 from the books giving a value of 4 points. If the total -over/under- of a game is say 200 , would that now be a 54% chance of winning for team-a 46+ the % of perceived points in game?? 54% + .91 payout giving a +ev of 3.14%????
4. Totals,. Models suggest score of 8.75 while the line is 10 so would that not then be 62.5% for game to go under given the 1.25 discrepancy?? So that would +ev of 19.3% (62.5 +.91%) payout????
Any thoughts on these, does anybody wager like this??