[bettingman6]

I’m inclined to think that the football endgame makes underdogs more likely to cover, while the basketball endgame makes favorites more likely to cover. Therefore I usually lean toward betting for dogs in football and favorites in basketball.

In football the leading team will often
try to run the clock down in the fourth quarter more than they’ll actually try to score and expand their lead. If the leading team can knee the game out, they’ll obviously do so, even if they’re inside the opponent’s red zone.

In addition, the prevent defense that is often used when the defensive team is up by 2 scores in the last few minutes actually increases the opponent’s odds of scoring. It basically is allowing an opponent a higher probability of one score, in exchange that there will be hardly any time for them to get a second score. Lastly, in college football games, coaches will often bring out the backups if their team is way ahead.

In basketball games, in contrast, the endgame makes the favorite more likely to cover. The endgame in basketball is endless fouls and endless free throws for the leading team. Oftentimes this artificially inflates the final score. A few days ago, I lost the Texas Tech-Duke game because Texas Tech fouled when they were down by 9 with under 30 seconds left. Frankly this doesn’t make a lot of sense at the NCAAB level, since the NCAA committee might be looking at their point differential in March. (And the foul probably made a less than 0.1% difference in TTech’s odds of winning.) But teams do this anyway.

[TheMoneyShot]

You can use your favorites cover mentality for NCAA Men's Basketball....

I wouldn't apply the same philosophy with the NBA though.

[unusialsusp5]

I’m inclined to think that the football endgame makes underdogs more likely to cover, while the basketball endgame makes favorites more likely to cover. Therefore I usually lean toward betting for dogs in football and favorites in basketball.

In football the leading team will often
try to run the clock down in the fourth quarter more than they’ll actually try to score and expand their lead. If the leading team can knee the game out, they’ll obviously do so, even if they’re inside the opponent’s red zone.

In addition, the prevent defense that is often used when the defensive team is up by 2 scores in the last few minutes actually increases the opponent’s odds of scoring. It basically is allowing an opponent a higher probability of one score, in exchange that there will be hardly any time for them to get a second score. Lastly, in college football games, coaches will often bring out the backups if their team is way ahead.

In basketball games, in contrast, the endgame makes the favorite more likely to cover. The endgame in basketball is endless fouls and endless free throws for the leading team. Oftentimes this artificially inflates the final score. A few days ago, I lost the Texas Tech-Duke game because Texas Tech fouled when they were down by 9 with under 30 seconds left. Frankly this doesn’t make a lot of sense at the NCAAB level, since the NCAA committee might be looking at their point differential in March. (And the foul probably made a less than 0.1% difference in TTech’s odds of winning.) But teams do this anyway.

this has worked for decades in football. not only that but books always inflate the favorite a point or two since they know that there is more action on favorites than underdogs. if you play teasers in football (dogs only) you will get backdoor covers in droves. those who tease down favs will groan and moan when their team just runs out the clock with a lead less than the cover. your basketball theory is also sound but works best with a low spread game. it can be frustrating though when a team with the lead just dribbles out the clock with 15 seconds left leading by 7 when the spread is 8. losing team won't foul and winning team doesn't shoot.

[TommieGunshot]

This theory can be tested very easily. How often do underdogs cover in football? How about favorites in basketball?

[unusialsusp5]

This theory can be tested very easily. How often do underdogs cover in football? How about favorites in basketball?

test results have already been in for some time now. square bettors think that because a team is favored they must be better and most bet on them regardless of the fact that the books adjust for this. that and the ridiculous 3 pt adjustment for a home team which should actually be about 1.5 instead also misleads chalk football bettors. basketball is a coin flip in most cases. avoid.

[danshan11]

Nfl

ats:	3540-3667-207 (0.15, 49.1%)

nba

ats:	14121-13789-557 (-0.35, 50.6%)

ncaafb

ats:	12353-12535-489 (0.25, 49.6%)

ncaabb

ats:	23202-23131-976 (-0.15, 50.1%)

[bettingman6]

Nfl

ats:	3540-3667-207 (0.15, 49.1%)

nba

ats:	14121-13789-557 (-0.35, 50.6%)

ncaafb

ats:	12353-12535-489 (0.25, 49.6%)

ncaabb

ats:	23202-23131-976 (-0.15, 50.1%)

Hmm.

Maybe books sometimes adjust football lines a tad bit downward and basketball lines a tad bit upward for the reasons I suggested. My theory might only work if you’re measuring football results against a spread a computer program would project.

[gojetsgomoxies]

interesting theories.........

that's way too much history on the posted numbers. and my sense is that OP would think this should be at least somewhat situational

[gojetsgomoxies]

if the bookies add too much for NFL home field, is that "bookie error"? or is that because "squares" flock to home teams?.... serious questoin

[unusialsusp5]

if the bookies add too much for NFL home field, is that "bookie error"? or is that because "squares" flock to home teams?.... serious questoin

bookies seldom make errors in comparison to bettors. yes, squares flock to home teams and favorites. always have, always will. books of course have known this for the last 50 years thus the adjustments upwards which includes that 3 pt home field that they add to every home team every week. books win when favorites lose and that cannot change.

[gojetsgomoxies]

bookies seldom make errors in comparison to bettors. yes, squares flock to home teams and favorites. always have, always will. books of course have known this for the last 50 years thus the adjustments upwards which includes that 3 pt home field that they add to every home team every week. books win when favorites lose and that cannot change.

i thought the bookies large exposure to favorites was due to parlays, not unbalanced action......

[tsty]

Why do you guys keep regurgitating the same rubbish and pass it off as fact?

It isnt 1998 anymore

[semibluff]

test results have already been in for some time now. square bettors think that because a team is favored they must be better and most bet on them regardless of the fact that the books adjust for this. that and the ridiculous 3 pt adjustment for a home team which should actually be about 1.5 instead also misleads chalk football bettors. basketball is a coin flip in most cases. avoid.

Your understanding of how NFL lines are created and what that means is fundamentally flawed. Your posting about a 3 point adjustment for home teams serves to perpetuate an often expressed myth that is based on that flawed understanding.

[jtoler]

some opposing views here

[danshan11]

test results have already been in for some time now. square bettors think that because a team is favored they must be better and most bet on them regardless of the fact that the books adjust for this. that and the ridiculous 3 pt adjustment for a home team which should actually be about 1.5 instead also misleads chalk football bettors. basketball is a coin flip in most cases. avoid.

https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-...5JTMY67W9XFGGM

"since price anchoring will preserve some residual inefficiency even at market closure. At Pinnacle, it is probable that both price anchoring to an opening price and inherent random variability of closing prices about ‘true’ prices is small. However, we have now seen that we don’t necessarily need every price to be perfectly efficient to build a market that is collectively very accurate, and how that can happen in practice."

[danshan11]

over last 10,000 games
home team scored 22.7
away team scored 19.9
so yes 3 is horrible it should be roughly 2.8 LOL

[KVB]

over last 10,000 games
home team scored 22.7
away team scored 19.9
so yes 3 is horrible it should be roughly 2.8 LOL

This is the wrong way to approach home field advantage and one of the reasons the myth of the 3 point built in home field advantage exists.

Each game should be capped individually. Some teams in the past have shown a home field disadvantage and even a road field advantage.

Dan, your inability to be creative and recognize context within the larger numbers is, most likely, one of the reasons you struggle so much with the reality of beating the market.

You must learn to be dynamic in handicapping and not to look for one overarching method that has and always worked against the markets.

Although, I will tell you that for the most part there is an overarching method...which is adjusting.

Dan, I don't think you have the creativity to realize this.

This is why you struggle so much and think you are ruffling feathers or causing arguments by giving bettors the news they already know.

Dan, your view of yourself on the Forum is not in line with how the Forum views you.

This much is true.

Again, you really aren't a Think Tank poster, you should stay out of the tank.

[KVB]

Why do you guys keep regurgitating the same rubbish and pass it off as fact?

It isnt 1998 anymore

tsty makes a point.

[danshan11]

thanks for the insight KVB, merry christmas and happy new year!

[danshan11]

This is the wrong way to approach home field advantage and one of the reasons the myth of the 3 point built in home field advantage exists.

Each game should be capped individually. Some teams in the past have shown a home field disadvantage and even a road field advantage.

Dan, your inability to be creative and recognize context within the larger numbers is, most likely, one of the reasons you struggle so much with the reality of beating the market.

You must learn to be dynamic in handicapping and not to look for one overarching method that has and always worked against the markets.

Although, I will tell you that for the most part there is an overarching method...which is adjusting.

Dan, I don't think you have the creativity to realize this.

This is why you struggle so much and think you are ruffling feathers or causing arguments by giving bettors the news they already know.

Dan, your view of yourself on the Forum is not in line with how the Forum views you.

This much is true.

Again, you really aren't a Think Tank poster, you should stay out of the tank.

can you to help me show the time a book gave a team a negative move because they were at home? thanks!

[KVB]

can you to help me show the time a book gave a team a negative move because they were at home? thanks!

You're still looking at it wrong.

Forget the book for a moment. Cap the game.

Take advantage of the fact that the majority of people stick an inherent 3 point edge to the home team.

Because it's inaccurate many times, it can give you an edge, or at least the beginning of one over the market. If you cap assuming the 3 point HFA, then you may just be in line with the market.

Then you won't trigger a play.

Take advantage of the fact the people get HFA wrong. I know bettors that have been doing it for years and have stacked that edge on top of others to beat the closer and even edge out some profit.

It's why I posted.

[KVB]

Here's a tip.

Calculate the actual HFA (or dis advantage) for each team. You can use one season, but we know the NFL has a longer outlook, regardless of player movement on and off of teams.

Look at past years (recent of course), seek out sharp reversals.

There's a lot to be gleaned from some of that data and can even bleed into futures handicapping.

It can show you where a team has been and give some idea of where a team is heading.

[danshan11]

You're still looking at it wrong.

Forget the book for a moment. Cap the game.

Take advantage of the fact that the majority of people stick an inherent 3 point edge to the home team.

Because it's inaccurate many times, it can give you an edge, or at least the beginning of one over the market. If you cap assuming the 3 point HFA, then you may just be in line with the market.

Then you won't trigger a play.

Take advantage of the fact the people get HFA wrong. I know bettors that have been doing it for years and have stacked that edge on top of others to beat the closer and even edge out some profit.

It's why I posted.

I 100% agree that you should cap each game individually. I think that there is very likely a possible edge possibly by knowing better than the entire market that is using 3 across the board. I think that is very smart adjusting for each game individually.

[danshan11]

what is a sharp reversal and what is the value of it?

[danshan11]

I use an approach of trying to overall know the closing line as accurately as possible as early as possible, so I can beat the line if I think there is an opportunity, so in essence I am trying to replicate what I think the closing line will be not what is actually fair for each individual game. I try to predict the closing line not the game or its outcome. If I think the market will close at -4 it does not matter to me that the true line should be -18. I still bet trying to beat the line with total disregard for the winner.

when I cap a game I am trying to cap what the line will close at not who will win or why.

[KVB]

I use an approach of trying to overall know the closing line as accurately as possible as early as possible, so I can beat the line if I think there is an opportunity, so in essence I am trying to replicate what I think the closing line will be not what is actually fair for each individual game. I try to predict the closing line not the game or its outcome. If I think the market will close at -4 it does not matter to me that the true line should be -18. I still bet trying to beat the line with total disregard for the winner.

when I cap a game I am trying to cap what the line will close at not who will win or why.

I understand that. But one thing I have been trying to tell you is that if you can hang a line better than book, you will win long term.

Cap a better line, then beating the closer will come naturally.

One aspect of my business in line prediction, but I don't pull the trigger just to beat that prediction.

There's nobody that tracks at SBR like I do. I track the plays, post links to the originals in every summary and also post a closing line comparison.

The moneyline funds are easier to obviously compare, for spreads at SBR I don't usually bother with percentages (though I convert for the real comparisons) and just give the closing line from VI.

So I get that if, for SBR tracking, if I have -6.5 (-115) and it closes -7 (-110) I'm still counting the 1/2 point. That goes both ways though.

Here's an example of both moneyline funds and a spread fund.

We take the closing line very seriously, as it and the bankroll could be the two most important things to watch.

Also, I know it's difficult, but consider the power of average line error, it's one way to filter out noise. It's also another way to realize you are beating the closer, indirectly.

This is because if you are creating a better line, one that reflects reality better than the books can offer, then you will naturally beat the closer.

You can check these out, one thing to notice is that it does tend to be better for us when we hit early lines, max out the openers, then hit the low vig when it comes out.

Week 15	NCAAF	Week 15		Season	to Date
	Funds	# Plays	Units	# Plays	Units
	Totals	1	0.91	137	7.58
	ATS/ML	0	0	92	13.01
	UPSET Basket	0	0	126	2.5
	Visiting Dog	0	0	83	18.73
	Market Reads	0	0	14	-6.02
	Total:	1	0.91	452	35.8

Week 5	NCAAB	Week 5		Season	to Date
	Funds	# Plays	Units	# Plays	Units
	ATS/ML	9	2.56	53	5.68
	Totals	0	0	3	-1.09
	Weekday Under	7	-3.14	28	-12.44
	Visiting Value	8	-0.28	11	0.58
	Technical Value	9	-2.19	20	-3.44
	Total:	33	-3.05	115	-10.71

When you see the closing comparison of the Weekday Under basket, and it's performace, you'll see why we stopped that Fund this year.

[KVB]

what is a sharp reversal and what is the value of it?

Can be similar to the stock market. You can even chart it over time. The value is that it can show a team that has performed one way turning a corner and you can possibly identify that before the market catches up.

Sometimes it's all about just getting that quick edge that can take just days to weeks to evaporate. These edges don't always get priced out permanently, sometimes they rotate and what once worked can fall in and out of favor.

That's why it helps to stay dynamic and not just stick to static stats that go back so many years. There is value in both.

[KVB]

There are as many ways to handicap as there are handicappers.

Understanding different working methods and buying in and out of those can be helpful.

More importantly though, by understanding how the rest of the market is making decisions, by understanding the competition (other market participants), you can put yourself in a better position to beat them.

And the closer.

[KVB]

Another thing about just trying to beat the closer.

It doesn't work. It's too broad and not enough of an edge. The books will eat you alive during certain stretches that are not random, even though many want to believe that it is random.

It's better to get more specific, weed out some of those losers. Truthfully, you can beat the shit out of the closer of a short term and get killed with you bets.

You know that though.

[danshan11]

thanks for the info but I think that overall the line is efficient and if I can consistently beat the line, I will win if I can get enough wagers in to overcome the variance factor. I think you said you can create a better line than the closer and that is very difficult to do and honestly doubt many people can do that as we know the line is super efficient and the many models publicly available ie sagarin and others show that they cannot beat the line, the line is year after the most consistent public method to predict the outcome of games overall. I would say I think having a more efficient line than the close over a large sample size is a daunting task at minimum. I make my money on the difference between where I bet and where the closing line ends. I think your comments about my skill level and you deciding how I think is a shot in poor character and I personally have told myself I wont stoop to that level anymore. I am staying positive in future threads and wont engage in I am smarter than you or insult games anymore for the foreseeable future not saying I am too big to get heated though, so with a grain of salt of course.

[danshan11]

Another thing about just trying to beat the closer.

It doesn't work. It's too broad and not enough of an edge. The books will eat you alive during certain stretches that are not random, even though many want to believe that it is random.

It's better to get more specific, weed out some of those losers. Truthfully, you can beat the shit out of the closer of a short term and get killed with you bets.

You know that though.

Do you have anything to prove that it does not work or something I can use as reference to validate this idea or statement, I would really love to enhance if their is anything I can get from that data.

[KVB]

Think about it.

You are using every game and every line to show that beating the closer will predict future performance, and hopefully current profit.

So you can create data that shows it. But there is a practical aspect.

You need to bet every game that the line moves, after all, that's where you are generating your conclusions.

Don't do that, because you likely can't.

So you have to narrow it down. True, if you've sorted out the best edges, you should still seek to beat the closer overall. It makes sense.

But know that it is possible to beat the closer through long stretches with losing plays. It's possible to have your method of capping, if static, have a season or more where it manages to bet ahead of the market but be on the wrong side of the market.

The idea that the line is always efficient is a ridiculous notion.

The markets aren't that efficient and many bettors prove it everyday. Some times of of the year are better than others as markets that are swellled with public holiday and playoff and bowl and madness money are routinely out of whack.

I have taught many bettors and profiled many more.

Don't consider it an insult when I say a bettor lacks a certain creativity. That creativity is necessary to succeed and, simply put, not all people have that ability.

Consider it constructive criticism from someone who has been able to perform at the next level for many, many years.

[KVB]

And by the way, I would rather beat the market and be losing for a stretch of time than not beat the market and be winning over a stretch of time.

Like I said, we do not take the closing line lightly.

But, the opening line is far, far more important.

[danshan11]

I do not believe every game is efficient but I do believe and have the data to back it up that the market overall is efficient.
I think the funniest thing you say is that your line is more efficient than the closing line. That to me is an absurd statement and destroys your credibility in my eyes.
Why do you always say we, are you part of a syndicate or betting corporation?
do you have any proof or data to backup beating the closer only is a losing strategy, any example or something you can show me?
you said the opening line is more important, why?

thanks for the replies in advance of course

[gojetsgomoxies]

OP, i like your idea, but i think it has to be significant favorites......... i don't the average square (probably me) self-identifies with a 2 point nba favorite, but they do identify with golden state, duke basketball, new england/dallas/etc... i realize the empirical data shows that large favorites are actually often the good pick