Betting both sides

**cobra_king** · 12-18-09, 04:39 PM

If you could accurately and consistently predict line movement you would never have to bet both sides of a game, and you could be making all your bets from your private yacht.

**swisher33** · 12-18-09, 05:39 PM

You can't do it a lot, but for games like colts vs. New england were the spread starts at 3, you know the public is going to nail the underdog and the line is going to move.

**20Four7** · 12-18-09, 06:16 PM

Why do you think slow moving books boot players for betting steam..... if your consistently beating the book to a line movement they will limit you. If you could accurately predict the line movement as cobra said you don't need to bet both sides. If you can do it well enough betting both sides may offer you middle opportunities. I got a few 5 and 6 point middles this week unfortunately they never hit, but when they do you feel like your a great capper.

**Dunder** · 12-18-09, 06:50 PM

Cobra King is correct in his advice i.e. in the long run it would be more profitable to only bet one side.

If, however you wish to mitigate short term risk then what you are actually doing is trading.

To maximise your profitable trades you should have accounts at Matchbook and as many highly rated books as you can and ensure you get the best odds available for both bets, but bear in mind that if you are consistently getting the best line, most books will quickly apply limits.

You should also, in advance, have a plan in terms of what you will do if the line does not move in the direction you expect. Closing the trade obviously means a guaranteed loss (hopefully small). Is that going to be preferable to not making the second bet? What about partially covering?

Of course you tend to find more volatility (bigger line movements) away from high profile and mainstream markets (college sports/minority sports). But predicting the weight of money in those will generally require a greater degree of handicapping ability and if you have those you basically come back full circle to what Cobra King said.

**Pancho sanza** · 12-18-09, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by cobra_king

If you could accurately and consistently predict line movement you would never have to bet both sides of a game, and you could be making all your bets from your private yacht.

Not true, its possible for both sides of a game to be + ev

**Dunder** · 12-18-09, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Pancho sanza

Not true, its possible for both sides of a game to be + ev

Everyone has said that it is possible to be +EV.

**xyz** · 12-18-09, 08:42 PM

For this to work long term, at least one of the two bets must be +EV. If you can consistently identify +EV bets, then there are many ways to make money, and betting on both sides may not be the most efficient one.

**swisher33** · 12-18-09, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by xyz

For this to work long term, at least one of the two bets must be +EV. If you can consistently identify +EV bets, then there are many ways to make money, and betting on both sides may not be the most efficient one.

What are the "most efficient" one's?

**Hybris** · 12-19-09, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by swisher33

What are the "most efficient" one's?

Bet the +EV line and be happy about it...

**dwaechte** · 12-19-09, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Pancho sanza

Not true, its possible for both sides of a game to be + ev

But not common.

**will2survive** · 12-19-09, 01:02 PM

smart idea

**DOMINATER** · 01-03-10, 04:10 AM

I HAVE DONE THIS , I took the action used to bookies each play would cost me fifty because they were 100 time bets lines would be 2 points off sometimes 3 .Itried it for a full season never hit the middle so IT DIDN'T WORK FOR ME

**skrtelfan** · 01-03-10, 06:05 AM

If you have a profitable middle, by definition one of the sides must be +EV.

**kokky** · 01-03-10, 06:31 PM

In my opinion that requires to much effort for very small profit, plus some times you wont guess in which direction will line move

**DOMINATER** · 01-13-10, 12:27 AM

WELL you make 1000 if you hit both sides, but most of the time you lose a bet and win one, so it cost you 50

**reno cool** · 01-13-10, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Dunder

Cobra King is correct in his advice i.e. in the long run it would be more profitable to only bet one side.

If, however you wish to mitigate short term risk then what you are actually doing is trading.

To maximise your profitable trades you should have accounts at Matchbook and as many highly rated books as you can and ensure you get the best odds available for both bets, but bear in mind that if you are consistently getting the best line, most books will quickly apply limits.

You should also, in advance, have a plan in terms of what you will do if the line does not move in the direction you expect. Closing the trade obviously means a guaranteed loss (hopefully small). Is that going to be preferable to not making the second bet? What about partially covering?

Of course you tend to find more volatility (bigger line movements) away from high profile and mainstream markets (college sports/minority sports). But predicting the weight of money in those will generally require a greater degree of handicapping ability and if you have those you basically come back full circle to what Cobra King said.

I used to believe this, but now I think the opposite is easily proven.
Simply because a sure thing like an arbitrage of 1% gain on all money staked is more valuable than a 5% edge on a 50% proposition.
This of course may not be true when limits are an issue.

**cantin** · 01-13-10, 05:38 AM

You know it can be very profitable. Especially when you have 3-4 locals who love to play with the lines depending on action. Middle the half, games and totals. You will be very surprised how many can hit and the ratio of win/loss is very low to show a profit.

**LT Profits** · 01-13-10, 07:07 AM

I normally boohoo middling and hedging, as if you are on the right side of a line move, chances are good your original bet is +EV.

That said, an important exception that allowed me to make a down payment on a yacht last year (LOL...kidding) is John Morrison MLB, because he caused artificial line moves, which is just about the only time I think scalping is appropriate.

Of course, guys that do nothing but scalp for a living would disagree with that last statement.

**Bswitz32** · 01-15-10, 04:51 PM

I havent had much sucess betting both sides as it is hard to gain + or ev on both.

bol

**soxwin** · 01-15-10, 05:21 PM

a pretty good example was green bay last week. You knew going in that everybody liked Green Bay. GB opened up at +2.5. You knew that was going to go down, the only question was would it make it to zona + points. It did it made it as high as zona +2.5 one one of my books so I got +120 for both sides. I have to admit that I originally liked Green Bay to win the game, so loading up on the original ML was easy. Then when I saw the line move so much so quickly, I knew arbitrage was going to come into play. It worked out perfectly as my original thought lost and I am always happy with a guaranteeed profit.

**eberetta1** · 01-16-10, 01:18 AM

I don't see + betting offers on both sides of football games. I would think a bet would be placed on tuesday for one side,
then pray ,oh pray the, late saturday night , sunday morn the train comes in where the other side becomes positive, like
the quarterback is not playing the game...
Agree play both sides for a guaranteed payoff. Maybe even take out a loan.