San Jose Sharks +1.5 -255
* 94% chance to cover PL
San Jose Sharks ML -110
* 94% chance to cover PL
San Jose Sharks ML -110
-
-
GL PhilComment -
made it look easyComment -
think I follow what you're saying, but...
I'd still like to see the same entire amount risked on the dog moneyline in those situationsComment -
I need to take the time and back check my PL winners and see how many of the dog money lines cashed... I think half of them (6 of 12)where on the Rangers and they lost on the ML but the PL cashed/covered for the most part....Rangers have be PL +1.5 covering animals this year.... but fall short of winning the match in many games.Comment -
Your further comments got me thinking.
Since you've identified something to say the dog covering the +1.5 is near certainty in these situations, while at the same time the moneyline dog is still probable BUT less certain, then it seems to be prudent to ONLY play the +1.5 puckline in these games.
Also I know what you mean about sometimes a specific team gets in a stretch when they come close to winning often, but lose by one. Same in baseball.
So, depending on the level of detail in your record keeping, I'm thinking maybe it should be the games where you have a bit lower amount of certainty about the dog... those could be bigger +plus moneyline dogs, which then should be the games where only the moneyline is played, while omitting the +1.5 play. Because what I said about playing the risked amount on the moneyline seems to be more justifiable if the odds payout is much higher. Say only when +150 or higher...? Thus 1 win can mostly cover for 2 losses on the moneyline. Of course we hope it goes 2-1 or 3-0 W/LComment -
NHL Friday
little late posting my play … but still no score
Chicago ML/+1.5Comment