Tip/Strategy..??? EVER USE THIS??

**xxplosive** · 02-14-11, 11:55 AM

Do you have any evidence that this is a sound strategy of did you just randomly make it up?

**sharpcat** · 02-14-11, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by nikossf

A. you have a team as a fav. by more than -6 pts. Take the over.

B. you have a team as an underdog, more than +6 pts,. Take the under.

Do you guys ever use this? Ive tried to grasp this simple concept a few times, but just doesn't seem to really work.

Example would be todays game,. W. Virginia at Syracuse,...
I like Syracuse and they are favored. but the over would seem to hit here a lot easier than either of these teams covering the spread.

Hope this makes sense to someone out there. Thanks everyone.

So if a team is favored by more than 6 points in NCAABK and the O/U is 500 I would take over 500?

Yeah this makes a lot of sense!!!

**nikossf** · 02-14-11, 12:43 PM

Cmon people!!! Really..????

No I didnt just make this up..
I just heard this somewhere and thought someone else might have something a little more to add to this discussion.. Thanks for adding your sound advice and information to this thread. Really enjoy having these informative discussions with ass wipes like you.

**sharpcat** · 02-14-11, 01:04 PM

There is a sticky thread at the top of this subforum "no systems in the think tank".

Originally posted by Justin7

A system is any type of betting that doesn't care what the spread or money line is. If you follow this, you will lose. Please don't clutter up the Think Tank with losing systems.

**nikossf** · 02-14-11, 01:20 PM

Sorry man,.Thanks for the lesson learned.

**PokerDave** · 02-15-11, 01:32 AM

Not trying to be a dick here, however..... Lets say TEAM A is playing TEAM B
TEAM A is favored by 9 Pts (More than -6) So we bet the OVER.......
TEAM B is underdog by 9 pts (More than +6) So we bet the UNDER.....
RIGHT SO FAR???
NOW COMES THE PROFIT.... WE BET $110.oo ON TEAM A & $110.oo ON TEAM B
and if either team wins.......... WE LOSE $10.oo ON THE JUICE.
I RECOMMEND $550.oo WAGERS AND A HUGE BANKROLL.

**stikymess** · 02-15-11, 01:56 AM

I think you are missing some part of this? Isnt this some parlay angle?

**That Foreign Guy** · 02-15-11, 08:16 AM

The basic idea is that if you like the favourite you should like the over (assuming it's a sensible line) because favourites tend to cover more in high scoring games / games where the favourite covers tend to be higher scoring.

This is not saying blindly parlay fav-over dog-under but to consider when you like a side it is also one piece of evidence for liking a total.

**LegitBet** · 02-16-11, 05:36 AM

Sounds like the DNA of a correlated parlay.

**Daveyboy** · 02-16-11, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by nikossf

A. you have a team as a fav. by more than -6 pts. Take the over.

B. you have a team as an underdog, more than +6 pts,. Take the under.

All depends on the situation!! If Im confident the underdog will win Ill happily back them with +6!!

**BeatingBaseball** · 02-16-11, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by LegitBet

Sounds like the DNA of a correlated parlay.

Right. A correlated parlay is what he is trying to get at but not understanding.

Since in a two-decision parlay the split decision is the killer outcome, you're trying to find 2 separate bets that are correlated and are less likely to split - that will give you either a sweep or 2 losses - so overall you are playing to a parlay payout for what is actually closer to a single outcome than two independent outcomes. And these two plays correlate to some degree.

**LegitBet** · 02-17-11, 05:55 AM

Right beatingbb
Now if we can figure out correlations that exist under the radar we will be onto something big.
We need to look where the masses aren't.

**MadTiger** · 02-17-11, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by LegitBet

Right beatingbb Now if we can figure out correlations that exist under the radar we will be onto something big. We need to look where the masses aren't.

Ain't that the truth.

**JOHNPRUSSELL** · 02-19-11, 11:59 PM

correlated par

He is talking about a correlated par. Best example of a correlated par i can think of is the 2006(i think) Alabama/Hawaii football game 1st half. the first half line was Al-20.5 and the total was 21.5. therefore if you bet a par, then the only way it could go fav/und is if the score at half was Alabama 21, Hawaii 0. (not likely) I bet f/o, d/u, d/o. As you can guess---it fell Alabama 21, Hawaii 0.

Other correlations exist in less exagerations in just about every sport. The latest that i am looking at is Baseball---big favorite/under. The idea is that a big favorite is going to have a great pitcher like Roy Halladay(cy young winner) and he is expected to pitch shut down baseball. therefore, if he meets expectations, then the game is more likely to go under. Now---here is dilema. Even though the sounds like it makes sense, does it work?

Anyone care to comment. Is this flawed, if so how? if not, does anyone know of any other "correlations" out there?

**Flight** · 02-20-11, 09:33 AM

Search the think tank for the words correlated parlay and begin reading. This topic has been discussed many times.

You will also find threads relating to posters being robbed by sportsbooks when playing CPs. So be careful.

As far as your original post goes, there is nothing profitable about straight betting an over or under based on a spread.