[dynamite140]

Hey guys. I noticed that for hockey unlike MLB, the puckline for the team laying 1.5 goals is very good as oppose to MLB. OF course the reason is because in hockey, goals are scored 1 at a time whereas in baseball, one can score 3-4 runs at once.

I was very curious about this. Say team A the favorite is -177 on the ML and team b the underdog is +166 on the ML. If you want to take the favorite -1.5 Puckline, you would get around +160 on it and thus have to win by at least 2 goals. Of course once you go to overtime, you cannot win the bet.

I know the odds of winning on the puckline is small. Covers shows its about 32.6 percent for the favorite to win by the puckline. Can someone translate the odds of this to me? I know +200 is 33.3 percent.

But if you like a favorite to cover the puckline, wouldn't taking them on the ML parlayed with the OVER be a better bet? The 1st thing i noticed is the payout for the -177 team on the ML and -112 juice on the over 5.5 comes out to +190 and that is 30 cents higher than PL.

I'm thinking this. If your team wins by at least 2, it has a great chance of going over 5.5 right? In order for you PL bet to win, you can win 2-0, 3-0, 4-0, 5-0, 6-0, 3-1, 4-2, 5-3 etc. But the thing is the odds of the other team scoring 0 goals for the entire games is going to be pretty low. If they score 1 goal which is rare as well, you need at least 3 goals. And if the other team scores 2 goals, you need minimum 4 goals. But if the other team scores 2 goals, the over 5.5 is going to hit no matter what if your favorite team wins by the PL.

By parlaying the favorite and the Over, isn't it a better bet than the PL? I have to assume the average score of hockey games is usually 3-2 or 4-2 correct? But by doing this parlay as oppose to the Puckline, you are risking the chance of the favorite winning 2-0, 3-0, 3-1, 4-0, 4-1, 5-0 where you would win by the puckline but lose to parlaying the favorite/over.

But isn't this risk WORTH IT? Of course if your team loses straight up, it won't matter whether you played the PL for +160 or parlayed the ML/Over for +190 since both loses. I see tons of games where a favorite would win 3-2 or go to overtime and win 4-3 and thus the parlay favorite/over wins as oppose to the Puckline.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Also, wouldn't you guys say parlaying a favorite and the under is a bad idea? My assumption is when you need to win this game, you are hoping for your team to win but then hoping the other team score very little. Because at most the other team can score is 2 goals. Thus the range is pretty low. If your team scores 3, the most other team can score is 2 and i know 0 and 1 goals is rare. I feel llike if you ever parlay a hockey game, its better to take the OVER because there is a ton of room for error because some games can have 8 goals, 9 goals etc. With unders, i feel like the window is pretty small.

[FourLengthsClear]

Apologies, misread part of your post.
nvm.

[LUSabres]

32.6=3.067-1

[LUSabres]

32.6%=3.067

[LUSabres]

I'm not a big fan of any kind of combination parlay in the same game, unless of course this team has showed a very large consistency to one side. I'm sure there ain't much of an edge betting win/over or any other combination. Model what you think in excel for a week or two and see how it goes, or find some old data. Lots of good databases of hockey stats, use sbr's past results/odds and model that.

[Insoluble]

You ask a lot of interesting questions, if I were you I'd seek out some historical data and figure out the true percentages of what you're considering. Just because you feel that its a good bet doesn't mean that it is, but intuition can be the first step to a profitable strategy if you follow it up with good research.

You have to think that the books have crunched the numbers for a long time, so you really have to work hard to find any edge you might discover.

For your example you think that the over happens more often when a favorite wins. If you assume that the sportsbooks o/u at 5.5 hits at about 50% on each side over the long term then if you were to blindly bet fave-over, you are already losing half your bets. Make sure you crunch the numbers to find a true advantage.

I don't think there is an advantage here, but if I were you I would do this exercise and search the data available to get practice in doing this. Data mining doesn't often lead to profitable results but it can give you some skills to help understand and cap games better.

[dynamite140]

I didn't mean i think the over happens more often when a favorite wins. I mean if a favorite wins on the Puckline -1.5 goals, the majority of the time not sure how much percent... the total is going to be OVER 5.5 goals. Would you agree on this? I think if i were to take a favorite on the PL, i rather take them ML and the over because the odds is bettor by a bit and i seen just so many favorites win 4-3 but the PL loses.

[RickySteve]

It's not transitive.

[Flight]

Medium correlation: Puckline to total
Small correlation: Moneyline to total

If you are unable to analyze this with math, you are no more likely to win at one parlay than the other.

Study the value of a puck, and use the force.

[trixtrix]

let me guess you would never play +1.5 pl amirite?

[dynamite140]

+1.5 would mean laying at least -200. Majority of the time you have to lay -250.

[LUSabres]

Why do you think you need to bet more when there is less value? I don't understand that. Bet a specified on each game or come up with a formula based on confidence.

[Flight]

let me guess you would never play +1.5 pl amirite?

sharp post

[specialronnie29]

dynamite youre asking good questions

that is how a sports bettor thinks

now you need the skills to answer your questions. you need a database.

[SprayBoy]

Interesting thoughts, but one fundamentally wrong assumption. Favorite teams or else, elite teams generally play excellent systems and thus excellent defense. The correlation probably only works early on in the season when good teams play looser and thus utilize their talent to score more goals. But come last 20ish games/ playoffs you'll notice these good teams do find ways to win, but almost always in well executed tight low scoring games. Take the stanley cup finals between det/pitt 2 years in a row, almost all games were 3-1, 2-1ish. When everythings on the line, with a good team in the mix, the over is going to be less likely to hit imo.

[Peregrine Stoop]

Interesting thoughts, but one fundamentally wrong assumption. Favorite teams or else, elite teams generally play excellent systems and thus excellent defense. The correlation probably only works early on in the season when good teams play looser and thus utilize their talent to score more goals. But come last 20ish games/ playoffs you'll notice these good teams do find ways to win, but almost always in well executed tight low scoring games. Take the stanley cup finals between det/pitt 2 years in a row, almost all games were 3-1, 2-1ish. When everythings on the line, with a good team in the mix, the over is going to be less likely to hit imo.

how does this apply to regular season?

[SprayBoy]

Because, last 20-25 games, ie almost a third of the season, teams play to their full potential while jockeying for playoff position/trying to make it. Pretty obvious if you just take a look at the west. Calgary for instance has a playoff caliber team, they didn't play like it first half, but since, in these must win situations they've battered down, and are winning games like the classic, 4-0. you don't see them winning/ losing in games over 5.5 very often on their streak, yet still they cover -1.5 quite frequently. That's how it applies.

[SprayBoy]

Minnesota is an excellent example. Last 21 games, only 6 overs. yet they covered -1.5 9 times...