 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Betting heavy favorites long term.
If you bet heavy favorites -350 or more over the course of a year do you think you would likely make or lose money? Given you are going to pay a lot of juice but you have to take into consideration that if big favorites like that win about 75 - 85% of the time you will make it back. Just wanted to get some opinions.
I'll you be down 20 bucks
Of course I am not going to do it was just curious what people's opinions are on this strategy.
If you take -300 for example and you hit 70% you are still in the hole.
70 winners @ $100 profit = $7000
30 losses @ $300 = $9000
I dont trust myself or MLB closers (if we just talk MLB) to pick 70-80%
How often do you really see -500 or more favorites lose?
True - valid point. I guess i'm just thinking baseball, where +/-300ish is all they go.
Would be nice to see the research/stats on CBB moneylines for example.
I think your better of Round robin 4 or 5 of them into 2 team parlays.
In college football last year, two huge favs lost-- one was Stanford over USC. The line was over 40 points on the game with a ML of over 100-1. Not too many bankrolls can withstand a loss of this size, let alone two.
Betting huge favs blindly is a recipe for disaster. That said, you can find some +Ev large favs (i.e. line is -600 and you 'cap it at -1000).
In MLB, if you take large favorites you will get killed, and I can confirm the same is true in NCAAF. Making them round robins changes nothing. However, each sport is different; the problem is that in the range where they might (or might not) be interesting, the sample sizes aren't big enough to know for sure and it's very hard to get down without paying a ton of juice. Even though Ganchrow would if necessary pop up to remind us how little -3000/+2000 might be in terms of % vig, that doesn't change the fact that getting an edge off that kind of line is a bitch.
One way I sometimes look at it is that most large favorites are right on the moneyline, but you can't be that right. They can't be more than 100% to win. The few times you're wrong, you can be very very wrong.
There is a very simple answer to this question, NO
Think about it, heavy ML favorites in football and basketball, say -1000 is a "heavy favorite"...
These lines almost never have any value, betting these in the long term will guarantee loss, its what the squares bet
Heavily favored games should be scoped out the same as lesser favored games, you don't just bet them to bet them, or throw them in a parlay because you think it's a safe route, big favorites can win AND lose all the time...Originally Posted by HedgeHog
It's about going with where you find value, and not worrying so much and stressing over not being able to back a bet at certain odds. Almost like saying you can't chow down on a meal five calories over your limit, you're missing out.
I would think if you can get the opposite of what the books are offering for the dog, you should come out ahead in the long run. For example, the book offers -2200 for the fav and +1800 for the dog, and you can somehow get -1800 for the fav, then you should be OK. Similarly, if you can get +2200 for the dog in this case, it should have value.
You should always prefer the more probable outcome given the same edge.
Heavy faves are better investment than dogs, given the same edge in the play. You can find +EV in both faves and dogs.
Blindly betting anything is not smart in any circumstance. It may very well be there's more +EV dogs in many leagues, but skipping huge faves when you think there's value, just for the sake of them being huge favorites is foolish.
Last edited by juuso; 07-10-08 at 08:50 AM.
There's a name for bettors who employ the method of betting only heavy favorites:
"Bridge Jumpers"
Any blind system will lose in the long term. The only profitable bet is one where the price is not reflective of the team winning.
Long term? Forget about it. You will get burned. I will do it short term if I'm in action mode and need to balance my seasonal bankroll for a given sport. However this is foolish and I have been burned. Sometimes it helps to keep me afloat. Once or twice only. As stated before my approach to sports wagering is recreational. If you are into a long term method to make profits this is a poor choice imho.
It's a myth that squares bet large ML favorites and that they never have value.
Look around the forums at all the guys who refuse to lay more than -130 because they think it's "too much juice", which of course it isn't.
Generally large favorites are undervalued and sportsbooks shade the lines the other direction.
I think you are concern about issues that are nicely addressed in this message:
Statistical Arbitrage Challenge, Prize Offered (Hard)
While some favorite lines get posted with value, I have found the opposite to be more common.
most people on this board have never bet a game less then -250 in their life
what a joke
Umm, daily in tennis.
At -500, every fifth game will lose long term. If it was even minutely different than that the bookies would go bust very fast.
FYP
Oops yes. Still not really comfortable with American odds :-)
Could using variance work with ML favorites or would you still be doomed long term?
Depends on the sport....BUT....youll end up buried in the long run...
On a game by game basis, you can make money, but if you are just going to blindly wager over the course of a year, you will probably lose. The bottom line is this. Is the risk worth the reward?
it's very hard to judge.
and even if you have good medium to long term record, you have two problems:
1) massive negative skewness. everything is great for a long time and then a bad stretch kills you. so "shorting volatility". people made a fortune, then -100% return in one day (i think),
2) long-term, if it's worked great, is it the case that it'll work well in future? you might say that about point spreads, but you have an idea that it works every month. see #1 re:skewness.
also, sport dependent for sure.
go to killersports.com and backtest -170 or higher bets on MLB ...... worked like a charm. some HUGE MISSES too. but net, it's been good... got that idea from this forum..... personally if i was doing this strategy with real and large $$$$, i probably wouldn't do more than -250...
https://killersports.com/mlb/query?s...+S+D+Q+L+%21++
line < -170.. MLB... 5%+ ROI each year since (including 2013)........ even with some massive misses this year. i think the 2 biggest moneyline games in history (not sure how long they have historical lines) were both losers.
-140 to - 170 was really good this year.... but data-mining as no way to know that before season.
line <-400 was a small loser. 12-3 SU... Verlander with 2 of the losses.
Last edited by gojetsgomoxies; 11-12-19 at 05:05 PM.
the effect of resting in the MLB should not be underestimated.
this will be losing strategy most frequently
Reply With Quote
