[unit1884]

Since empty net goals seem to happen all the time (screwing me on unders and +1.5's regularly) I have devised a plan to use these pointless goals to my advantage...

Bet -1.5 for both teams, and also bet that the game goes into OT...

Each wager will pay +odds

This could work because a 1 goal game late is likely to be tied, or to have an empty netter scored.

Anyone have some numbers to support this betting strategy?

[unit1884]

For example:

Chicago @ Vancouver

Chicago -1.5 pays +255
Vancouver -1.5 pays +240
Game goes into OT pays +295

All lines are from 5dimes.

If you bet $100 on each outcome, the results come to

If Chicago wins by 2 or more you profit $55
If Vancouver wins by 2 or more you profit $40
If it goes to OT you profit $95
If it ends up being a 1 goal game in regulation you lose $300

If someone has the odds of this happening (1 goal game in regulation) we can tell if this is profitable or not.

[unit1884]

Ok I searched the forum and got 30.9% of games are decided by 1 goal and DO NOT go into OT (thank you Ganch)

33.5% of games the favorite wins by 2 or more
22.78% of games go into OT

that leaves (100-30.9-33.5-22.78) = 12.82% of games the dog wins by 2 or more

[losturmarbles]

unit, you could focus this strategy on teams that would favor your bets more often

or also include winning in regulation (3 way lines)

[unit1884]

I just want to know if someone can do the math on this to see if its profitable, I dont know how to do it.

[byronbb]

1 out of 3 times you lose $300 and 2 out of 3 times you win at most $200?

[Ganchrow]

For example:

Chicago @ Vancouver

Chicago -1.5 pays +255
Vancouver -1.5 pays +240
Game goes into OT pays +295

All lines are from 5dimes.

If you bet $100 on each outcome, the results come to

If Chicago wins by 2 or more you profit $55
If Vancouver wins by 2 or more you profit $40
If it goes to OT you profit $95
If it ends up being a 1 goal game in regulation you lose $300

If someone has the odds of this happening (1 goal game in regulation) we can tell if this is profitable or not.

To equalize results under all winning outcomes one would bet:

$100 on Chicago -1.5 @ +255
$104.41 on Vancouver -1.5 @ +240
$89.87 on Game goes to OT @ +295

This would yield a loss of about $294.29 were either team to win in reg time by exactly 1 goal and a win of $60.71 otherwise.

This corresponds to payout odds of about -100* 294.29 60.71 ≈ .

So for this to be profitable, the probability of an exactly 1-goal victory in reg time by either team would need to be less than about 100 (485+100) ≈ 17.10%.

Historically, we have that of the 3,865 NHL games from the 2005/6 season through Nov. 4 of the 2008/9 season, 838 games (24.05%) were decided by exactly 1 goal (by either team) in Reg Time.

If we were to take this number as an accurate predictor of the 1-goal non-OT probability for this game (although given that it's just an across-the-board average we should certainly NOT expect this to be true in general across all ranges of relative team quality), then the expectation on this bet would be about (1-24.05%) * -1 ≈ -8.38%.

The point that bettors need to remember is that one can't simply take some group of -EV singles and expect a linear combination of them to be +EV. By betting the combination above and expecting it to be +EV what you'd be saying would be that you believed at least one of the bets taken in isolation to already be +EV (and Ito be clear, I'm not discouting that as a possibility).

As such, before considering a given bet combination one needs to consider which of the included bets one believes to be +EV, and then come up with a compelling argument as to why he believes that so, and then quantified. If such a bet can be identified and its edge quantified then one can use a staking strategy such as Kelly to optimize risk/return by potentially placing additional bets on the -EV outcomes as appropriate.

But just to be clear, unless one (or more) of the above bets is already +EV, there's no way that the combination could be anything but a long-term expected loser.

[unit1884]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me ganch.