Help with Teasers

**Pancho sanza** · 10-13-10, 06:55 PM

Teasing up +4.5 dogs may have worked in the past, but its not the way to break down teasers. You are capping the future, not the past.

Look at it this way.

A Game lined -4.5 will have a moneyline of around -215/+195, which translates into 33.2 outright wins by the dog, and 66.8 outright losses.

Now in order to get the teaser % into the 72 -73 % range, that would mean that the dog would have to stay withing 10.5 points in about 39 of the 66.8 games that it will lose, about 58.3 % of the time.

Do a simple analysis on avg MOV by spread, break it down by home/road, AFC/NFC etc, look at how often teams cover +10.5 WHEN THEY LOSE, you will see that this subset is no good. Even when 2 and 3 point dogs lose, they dont stay within 10.5 points of the final score 58 % of the time. If 2 and 3 point dogs can't hit that #, then surely 4.5 dogs won't.

For fun I drilled down on my database which covers 1978-present.

Dogs of 4 and 4.5, when they lose, stay within 10.5 points of the final score only about 53 % of the time.

**Highland** · 10-13-10, 07:04 PM

Bill, while you are being generous with your database can you give any win %'s for -3 faves teased 10.5 points, and +4.5 dogs teased 10 points?

**Bill the cop** · 10-13-10, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Highland

Bill, while you are being generous with your database can you give any win %'s for -3 faves teased 10.5 points, and +4.5 dogs teased 10 points?

Sure, glad to.

HF-3 teased to +7.5, 382-76 for 83.4%
RF-3 teased to +7.5, 256-57 for 81.8%

HD+4.5 teased to +14.5, 34-8 for 81%
RD+4.5 teased to +14.5, 87-14 for 86.1%
Gee, I wonder what would be the best subset to tease

**Highland** · 10-13-10, 08:49 PM

Thanks again Bill.

I have a couple theories to "possibly" explain part of the road dog 4.5-6 teaser bias compared to that of home dogs in the same range. Good chance they are both BS

The first is a kind of strength of opponent factor. When road dogs are in that range we are obviously dealing with teams that are within a couple points on a power rating basis, and when the home dog is in that range it is closer to 7-9 point difference. Is there a possible difference in expectations of teams in each scenario when the game starts to get a little out of hand? In the Minnesota +4.5 at Jets example: Are the Jets more likely to be content to be up a TD or 10 points when playing at home vs a solid team like the Vikings... compared to the home dog scenario where for example the Redskins would be up 7 or 10 points at a weak team like Buffalo? Is the mindset of the Redskins and Bills more likely to lead to a blowout if things start to get out of hand, where the Vikings and Jets are expecting a closer game from each other, and play to that level?

Also, could there be somewhat of a diminishing homefield advantage as games get to double digit margins? The Bills crowd is much more likely to be a factor when the Bills are within a TD of the Redskins than if they get down 10 or 14 points in the second half. Maybe even the home crowds let up some when they are up a comfortable margin so road teams trying a backdoor cover of the +10.5 face less resistance than if they are trying to win the game. This could possibly both hurt the home teasers and help the road teasers. This could also be a part of the theory for why basic strategy teasers of road favorites -7.5 to -8.5 perform poorly. The closer the game, the more the home field edge comes into play. The road favorite is going to have a harder time coming from behind in a 17-21 game to cover the (-2) teaser line than they are to just hold onto a double digit lead and keep the -8 margin in the 4th quarter.

**Shonner** · 10-13-10, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Peregrine Stoop

OP, familiarize yourself with push charts and learn how to use them

Be careful with the half point calculator, it is a great tool but comes with a stated disclaimer. The push rates do not adjust as the line moves, so it's only effective if you stay within 1.5 pts of the original line.

**Bill the cop** · 10-13-10, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Highland

Thanks again Bill.

I have a couple theories to "possibly" explain part of the road dog 4.5-6 teaser bias compared to that of home dogs in the same range. Good chance they are both BS

The first is a kind of strength of opponent factor. When road dogs are in that range we are obviously dealing with teams that are within a couple points on a power rating basis, and when the home dog is in that range it is closer to 7-9 point difference. Is there a possible difference in expectations of teams in each scenario when the game starts to get a little out of hand? In the Minnesota +4.5 at Jets example: Are the Jets more likely to be content to be up a TD or 10 points when playing at home vs a solid team like the Vikings... compared to the home dog scenario where for example the Redskins would be up 7 or 10 points at a weak team like Buffalo? Is the mindset of the Redskins and Bills more likely to lead to a blowout if things start to get out of hand, where the Vikings and Jets are expecting a closer game from each other, and play to that level?

Also, could there be somewhat of a diminishing homefield advantage as games get to double digit margins? The Bills crowd is much more likely to be a factor when the Bills are within a TD of the Redskins than if they get down 10 or 14 points in the second half. Maybe even the home crowds let up some when they are up a comfortable margin so road teams trying a backdoor cover of the +10.5 face less resistance than if they are trying to win the game. This could possibly both hurt the home teasers and help the road teasers.

All those could possible contribute to what I call the "dynamics" of the game. There just are some things that are hard to quantify. It must be kept in mind that about 44% of these RD4.5 to 6 games are between division rivals. Inasmuch as they play each other twice a year there may a tendency for the coaches to play it close to the vest and not run up the score when they have a two score lead.

In the final analysis, it really doesn't matter to me WHY something happens, just that it does. If a subset consistently covers over an extended period of time, being a results-oriented person, I'll ride that horse until it bucks me off!

**donjuan** · 10-13-10, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Bill the cop

In the final analysis, it really doesn't matter to me WHY something happens, just that it does. If a subset consistently covers over an extended period of time, being a results-oriented person, I'll ride that horse until it bucks me off!

Cool story, but it's a massive fail and doesn't belong anywhere near the Think Tank. I think Players Talk is more your style where you don't actually need to have a coherent argument, the fish can praise your foolishness and those who know what we're doing don't have to read your drivel.

**Dark Horse** · 10-13-10, 11:11 PM

DJ, do you truly expect people to value your perfect theory over five years of profits made by BTC with an approach you ridicule? Are you so insecure that your only way of communicating with those who don't share your views is to ridicule them?

If you took the time to explain your view in detail, that would make sense within a forum context. But you consistently consider yourself too good for that, instead giving BTC a numbered list of questions. Go play school teacher somewhere else.

**donjuan** · 10-14-10, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

DJ, do you truly expect people to value your perfect theory over five years of profits made by BTC with an approach you ridicule? Are you so insecure that your only way of communicating with those who don't share your views is to ridicule them?

If you took the time to explain your view in detail, that would make sense within a forum context. But you consistently consider yourself too good for that, instead giving BTC a numbered list of questions. Go play school teacher somewhere else.

I like how you use years for your sample size rather than actual games/bets. Like if I make 7500 unique bets in a year that is somehow less relevant than a couple hundred bets over a 5 year period.

You see, I tried communicating with BTC, but he refuses to answer any questions I have. The numbered questions were a detailed list of why I believe BTC will not be successful going forward with the 4.5-6 subset. They were asked in question form to give BTC a chance to explain but he just ignored them and told me to shove them up my ass.

**Dark Horse** · 10-14-10, 12:51 AM

He's presenting an approach that's been winning. It's not like he's borrowing against time like the Morrison chaser. Those winnings are in the bank, and it would take an enormous losing streak to give them back. There can be a number of reasons why this is winning. I haven't studied this in-depth, but as an example I like the idea that books are 'holding' at HF-9, and that the more they're trying to avoid the 6 pt teaser, the more the true number should be -8.5, -8, or even -7.5. Numbers are being contorted. I don't know to what extent. But couldn't it, possibly, result in a more dynamic, more flexible picture than the rigid idea you seem to represent? To me this kind of redefining of boundaries is always interesting. Does it have to be right all the time? No. It's trial and error. But I always have a soft spot for those, in science or art, who embrace the unknown. Because they are the ones that come up with the new breakthroughs. And, to me, it would be sad, in a think tank, to see those efforts cut off.

**tomcowley** · 10-14-10, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

He's presenting an approach that's been winning. It's not like he's borrowing against time like the Morrison chaser.

If you have an NFL database at all, look at it. If you look at it and still think these are good, read the thread again for the obvious concerns with them, then look at your db again. If you read the thread, use your db, and still think these are good going forward, you should probably never bet sports again. Or bet these things for huge amounts so books have money to pay me with when I win on actual +EV bets. Either way. And if you're yapping this much without a DB, kill yourself.

**Dark Horse** · 10-14-10, 01:48 AM

Thank you for the advice.

I've been winning long term, but now that you've convinced me of the futility of my efforts, would you have any recommendations as to how to kill myself? And I want proof that it really works, so please try it out on yourself first.

**donjuan** · 10-14-10, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

He's presenting an approach that's been winning. It's not like he's borrowing against time like the Morrison chaser. Those winnings are in the bank, and it would take an enormous losing streak to give them back.

This has nothing to do with what will happen going forward or to those who ill-advisedly follow BTC's advice.

There can be a number of reasons why this is winning. I haven't studied this in-depth, but as an example I like the idea that books are 'holding' at HF-9, and that the more they're trying to avoid the 6 pt teaser, the more the true number should be -8.5, -8, or even -7.5. Numbers are being contorted. I don't know to what extent. But couldn't it, possibly, result in a more dynamic, more flexible picture than the rigid idea you seem to represent?

What are you even trying to say here? It seems you're arguing that a HF of -9 has more value to be teased from -9 than if the fair value to tease from was -8.5, -8 or -7.5. Obviously, that is illogical as you'd be paying for a 6 pt teaser when you're only getting 4.5 to 5.5 and failing to cross the 3. And note that I'm not arguing that the HF -7 to -9 subset is bad here (well the -7 to -8.5 is good at least) but rather the RD 4.5-6.

To me this kind of redefining of boundaries is always interesting. Does it have to be right all the time? No. It's trial and error. But I always have a soft spot for those, in science or art, who embrace the unknown. Because they are the ones that come up with the new breakthroughs. And, to me, it would be sad, in a think tank, to see those efforts cut off.

Yeah, this is awesome redefining of boundaries. No one has ever data mined before and subsequently bet based on that without understanding why that might be a bad idea going forward. Groundbreaking stuff.

**Dark Horse** · 10-14-10, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by donjuan

What are you even trying to say here? It seems you're arguing that a HF of -9 has more value to be teased from -9 than if the fair value to tease from was -8.5, -8 or -7.5. Obviously, that is illogical as you'd be paying for a 6 pt teaser when you're only getting 4.5 to 5.5 and failing to cross the 3. And note that I'm not arguing that the HF -7 to -9 subset is bad here (well the -7 to -8.5 is good at least) but rather the RD 4.5-6.

I'm interested in the HF -7 to -9 (which I brought up because BTC discussed that subset as well). I have no interest in the other subset.

Why would a book not be able to hold a number at 9 if it absolutely doesn't want the game to be teased by 6 pts? If the book dropped the number to 8 more easily, then, hypothetically, it didn't have the same opinion on the game. So I look at HF-9 with an increased level of interest. Possibly, at times, to an extent where not crossing the 3 is secondary.

If there is anything to this, it could be tested with action points (for each number). Would it truly be surprising if the HF-9 ended up with more action points than the HF-8.5?

**donjuan** · 10-14-10, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

I'm interested in the HF -7 to -9 (which I brought up because BTC discussed that subset as well). I have no interest in the other subset.

Why would a book not be able to hold a number at 9 if it absolutely doesn't want the game to be teased by 6 pts? If the book dropped the number to 8 more easily, then, hypothetically, it didn't have the same opinion on the game. So I look at HF-9 with an increased level of interest.

HF of -7 to -8.5 is profitable and this is widely known. I have never argued this. This entire discussion has been about RD 4.5-6.

Why do you look at it with an increased level of interest? It's no different than any other line, they just adjust the payout odds on the spread for teaser protection. There's nothing special about it. And if they hold it at -9 for teaser protection, that's not something you want to be teasing as you're starting off with less than a 50/50 proposition before you tease, and you fail to capture the full 3.

**subs** · 10-14-10, 06:09 AM

thanks for a great discussion on this topic every1 that has contributed. people are presenting strong arguments and unfortunately sometimes are letting their frustrations get the better of them. oh well...

as a casual observer, with limited experience, it would appear 5% or 10% over a few hundred games couldindeed just be variance and the data may be data mined. but equally, given 5 addition years of out of sample data and the continued success enjoyed by BTC there may equally be some human factors involved. for instance could the refs be influencing the game but not enough to beat 2 scores? who knows?

but i would like to just say BTC obviously believes in this and is kind enough to share his beliefs and database with us - he seems like a stand up guy. i have decided to add some BTC plays into my teaser options. the worst thing that can happen is i lose a bit of money. but i figure it will camo the BS teasers a bit and make me look even squarer than i am. i like my bonuses.

thanks Bill much appreciated and have sent you some points.

**lumpy19** · 10-14-10, 07:50 AM

Why is there no talk about totals? Take the controversial RD 4.5-6 subset. Teasing 4.5 to 10.5 on a game lined with a total of 38 is more valuable than 4.5 to 10.5 in a game lined at 48. Am I missing something?

**Pancho sanza** · 10-14-10, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by lumpy19

Why is there no talk about totals? Take the controversial RD 4.5-6 subset. Teasing 4.5 to 10.5 on a game lined with a total of 38 is more valuable than 4.5 to 10.5 in a game lined at 48. Am I missing something?

Doesn't matter how low the total is, nothing pushes that subset into + ev territory.

**djiddish98** · 10-14-10, 08:31 AM

If you believe this teaser set will still be profitable going forward based only on past result, then I have a house in Las Vegas to sell you for $400k.

**ouman101** · 10-14-10, 08:48 AM

Sorry, slightly off topic, but while you guys are discussing databases. Anyone know of a good place that I can get or buy a reliable NFL database?

**Peregrine Stoop** · 10-14-10, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Shonner

Be careful with the half point calculator, it is a great tool but comes with a stated disclaimer. The push rates do not adjust as the line moves, so it's only effective if you stay within 1.5 pts of the original line.

yep... which is why I said push charts and not the half-point calculator

**Dark Horse** · 10-14-10, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by donjuan

HF of -7 to -8.5 is profitable and this is widely known. I have never argued this. This entire discussion has been about RD 4.5-6.

Why do you look at it with an increased level of interest? It's no different than any other line, they just adjust the payout odds on the spread for teaser protection. There's nothing special about it. And if they hold it at -9 for teaser protection, that's not something you want to be teasing as you're starting off with less than a 50/50 proposition before you tease, and you fail to capture the full 3.

The problem is that some of you math guys are so harsh on posters with unconventional ideas that they would think ten times before ever posting anything remotely out-of-the-box again. Is it in the best interest of a think tank to chase people away, just because their contribution is not ready for a scientific journal? If all I take from BTC's brief article is that the HF-9 (recorded by him at 26-4 in L5 years when teased by 6) is worth an extra look, that is helpful to me. Could you make a case against it? Probably. But I could make a case in favor of it, especially if I had the added advantage of an open teaser.

On a sidenote, I'm not convinced that push frequencies and action points have the same bite in this context. If I wanted to isolate the HF-9 from HF-8 or -8.5, would push frequencies give me the greatest focus?

**tomcowley** · 10-14-10, 01:11 PM

The problem is that "the math guys" have, you know, ACTUALLY LOOKED AT RD 4.5, and universally decided that they're garbage. Beyond garbage. Not because they're unconventional, but because their suckiness jumps right off the screen and slaps you in the face when you look at them. I would rather bet a Morrison NBA/MLB bet than one of those teasers. I'd rather flip a coin and play a random side at -115/-115 lines than play one of those teasers. They're hugely -EV going forward. Everybody who actually has a database and a brain has come to the same conclusion.

**dimon** · 10-14-10, 01:26 PM

To the previous poster...if RD+4.5-+6 so bad, why did they win consistently then? I agree on the fact the past do not predict the future, however, 5 years and nothing but the WIN here...go ahead and bet Morrison maybe it will end your misery

**tomcowley** · 10-14-10, 01:33 PM

The same reason almost every data-mined subset wins. The same reason Morrison had a perfect MLB season out of sample. Dumb blind luck.

**Bill the cop** · 10-14-10, 01:43 PM

This will be my last post in this thread.

Over 5 years ago I posted my thoughts on the RD4.5 to 6 on the old LVA forum. The resident "sharps" at the time came at me with the same type of drivel "Get back to us in a few years when you're broke", "this is the worse teaser subset I've ever seen", " anyone foolish enough to follow this clown is going to lose all their money", and those were some of the nicer posts.

Now I don't know where those "sharps" are today, but it's five years later and I've been betting this subset ever since. How have I done you ask? As it turns out this subset has easily crushed the total Basic strategy subsets and continues to do so as of last week. Can things change going forward? Sure, remember Wong cited in his book RF7.5 to 8.5 as 76.2% covers, which now are a joke at about a 65% cover rate. So things CAN change, but until they do I'll be playing them. I'm sure in 5 more years a new set of "intelligentsia" will emerge and it will start all over again.

I've been a strong advocate of just 2 teaser subsets, the RD4.5 to 6 and the HF7 to 9. The reason for the HF7 to 9 are, although the BS HF7.5 to 8.5 is certainly good at 74.2, the books have made it harder and harder to get down. In fact there have only been a SS of 250 for this subset over the last 16 years. However, if you expand your parameters to include the HF-7 and -9, you increase your pool of potential teaser candidates to 551. Now if the -7 or -9 didn't have "stand alone" value I wouldn't have been interested, but they do. Collectively the HF7 to 9 has went 397-133-21 for 74.9%. Individually the 7 has went 159-55-9 for 74.3% and the 9 has went 54-14-10 for 79.4%.

So I'll continue to bet these 2 subsets and let the "group thinkers" carry on with their circular firing squad and virulent diatribes.

Five years of out-of-sample "dumb blind luck", gotta love these nitwits

**Pancho sanza** · 10-14-10, 01:59 PM

Bill you seem like a nice guy and all, and don't take this the wrong way, but you just don't get it.

Sorry if that sounds harsh.

**tomcowley** · 10-14-10, 02:03 PM

One question for you Bill: If you'd also been able to also tease +3.5 and +4 RDs up to +10.5 for the same price, how would you have done on those the last 5 years?

**Dark Horse** · 10-14-10, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by tomcowley

The same reason almost every data-mined subset wins. The same reason Morrison had a perfect MLB season out of sample. Dumb blind luck.

Five straight years of blind luck? I'm sorry, my friend, but that's a stretch.

(don't confuse people by using this in the same sentence as chasing; they're not remotely the same; if only because JM & followers are likely to give everything back).

Assuming that you use push frequencies, are there any weaknesses or soft spots that you could identify with that approach, in the present context? Any at all.

**ForgetWallStreet** · 10-14-10, 02:17 PM

YEARS != A SAMPLE SIZE. My word.

**tomcowley** · 10-14-10, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Five straight years of blind luck? I'm sorry, my friend, but that's a stretch.

(don't confuse people by using this in the same sentence as chasing; they're not remotely the same; if only because JM & followers are likely to give everything back).

Assuming that you use push frequencies, are there any weaknesses or soft spots that you could identify with that approach, in the present context? Any at all.

Of course- how do you think everybody with a brain decided that his teasers were complete shit?

And seriously, go get yourself a database (even repole.com should be good enough for this purpose) and answer the question in my previous post. If that doesn't make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I have no idea what to tell you.

**Dark Horse** · 10-14-10, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by ForgetWallStreet

YEARS != A SAMPLE SIZE. My word.

Years are important (in my unorthodox view). Pick any 60+% ATS winner over a NFL season and see how he does the next season. Luck does not continue year after year. It just doesn't.

**ForgetWallStreet** · 10-14-10, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Years are important (in my unorthodox view). Pick any 60+% ATS winner over a NFL season and see how he does the next season. Luck does not continue year after year. It just doesn't.

Is there a way to ignore posters on this forum? Serious question.

**Dark Horse** · 10-14-10, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by tomcowley

Of course- how do you think everybody with a brain decided that his teasers were complete shit?

I'm just inclined to think that you're missing something, if your best explanation for something that goes against your perfect view is 'blind luck'. Blind luck may have its place, but it never lasts very long. If it was me, I would go back to the drawing board until I had a better explanation.

**ForgetWallStreet** · 10-14-10, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

I'm just inclined to think that you're missing something, if your best explanation for something that goes against your perfect view is 'blind luck'. Blind luck may have its place, but it never lasts very long. If it was me, I would go back to the drawing board until I had a better explanation.

I've seen blind luck last for thousands of BETS. Not sure how many years it was though.