Last NHL season I wasn't very successful despite having an over .500 record so I changed up my strategy for this year. My hypothesis - and I am sure there are plenty of people who have delved much deeper than myself into this that could add their comments here - is that the betting public far overestimates the likelihood that the likely thing will happen - ie the favourite will win in OT or by one goal in regulation. This will be reflected in the lines given and that there is significant value by always betting the -1.5 spread.
Generally, there is a premium of about 75% on the spread over moneyline for heavy home favourites while that premium increases to about 85% for road favourites or weak home favourites. For instance Buffalo pays out 1.50 tommorrow but Buffalo -1.5 pays out at 2.60 for a 73% premium. San Jose pays out 1.83 but San Jose -1.5 pays out at 3.40 for an 86% premium.
I'll use an 80% premium as the average. Using European standard (I just find it much easier than American style odds), I'll assume that the odds on the average favourite is 1.67 and the average odds on the spread is 3.00.
So far my record on the year is 10-9 using the spread. Looking back at my 9 losses, two of those were 1 goal wins by the favourite while the rest outright losses so I would have been 12-7 had I bet the money line. Using the average returns above this is how I would have fared:
Spread: 10*3-10=20 units for the wins less 9 for the losses = 11 units up
Moneyline: 12*1.67-12= 8 units for the wins less 7 for the losses = 1 unit up
Clearly the spread has been the superior play for me. Since this is only over 19 games its hardly high enough to be statistically significant but others who have more experience in this may be able to comment. At this point I won't recommend blindly betting all spreads on games because the one goal wins that counted as losses under the spread could just be unusually low at 2 of the 19 games, but if people have been betting moneyline on the favourites all year, they should go back and see how they would have fared using the spread by stripping out all 1 goal wins and counting them as losses and using the unit return formula I use above. If the return would have been superior, it may be time to adjust your strategy.
As opposed to having statistically significant advantage what this strategy may be doing is getting me away from lousy probable bets. This means I'm not "kind of" sure that a favourite will probably win a game or get the extra point in the OT or SO, I'm very sure that favourite will win that game because they have to win by at least 2. Because I'm earning more each bet I win, I feel the need to make less bets to earn X amount of money and I am more selective in the bets I make.
Its a little hard to go back and say you wouldn't have bet such and such game if you had to win by two, but say for instance you are 40-25 betting the favourite and are barely treading water. If you went 5-5 in games you would have avoided altogether betting using the spread for a 35-20 record, and 10 of those 35 wins were by one goal and would be losses under the spread for a record of 25-30, you are still way ahead of the game in cash despite the much worse record.
Generally, there is a premium of about 75% on the spread over moneyline for heavy home favourites while that premium increases to about 85% for road favourites or weak home favourites. For instance Buffalo pays out 1.50 tommorrow but Buffalo -1.5 pays out at 2.60 for a 73% premium. San Jose pays out 1.83 but San Jose -1.5 pays out at 3.40 for an 86% premium.
I'll use an 80% premium as the average. Using European standard (I just find it much easier than American style odds), I'll assume that the odds on the average favourite is 1.67 and the average odds on the spread is 3.00.
So far my record on the year is 10-9 using the spread. Looking back at my 9 losses, two of those were 1 goal wins by the favourite while the rest outright losses so I would have been 12-7 had I bet the money line. Using the average returns above this is how I would have fared:
Spread: 10*3-10=20 units for the wins less 9 for the losses = 11 units up
Moneyline: 12*1.67-12= 8 units for the wins less 7 for the losses = 1 unit up
Clearly the spread has been the superior play for me. Since this is only over 19 games its hardly high enough to be statistically significant but others who have more experience in this may be able to comment. At this point I won't recommend blindly betting all spreads on games because the one goal wins that counted as losses under the spread could just be unusually low at 2 of the 19 games, but if people have been betting moneyline on the favourites all year, they should go back and see how they would have fared using the spread by stripping out all 1 goal wins and counting them as losses and using the unit return formula I use above. If the return would have been superior, it may be time to adjust your strategy.
As opposed to having statistically significant advantage what this strategy may be doing is getting me away from lousy probable bets. This means I'm not "kind of" sure that a favourite will probably win a game or get the extra point in the OT or SO, I'm very sure that favourite will win that game because they have to win by at least 2. Because I'm earning more each bet I win, I feel the need to make less bets to earn X amount of money and I am more selective in the bets I make.
Its a little hard to go back and say you wouldn't have bet such and such game if you had to win by two, but say for instance you are 40-25 betting the favourite and are barely treading water. If you went 5-5 in games you would have avoided altogether betting using the spread for a 35-20 record, and 10 of those 35 wins were by one goal and would be losses under the spread for a record of 25-30, you are still way ahead of the game in cash despite the much worse record.
