question for totals experts

[Crayzee]

do unders come in alot more than overs?
is the oddsmaker geared towards expecting more money (losers) towards overs?

i havent analyzed any stats but over the years it just seems you can win more consistently with unders than overs

[AC1318]

at least when you play under you are winning from the begining.
When you bet over you are already a loser to start

[Checkerboard]

I handicap the game and play it appropriately. I don't think there's any long term tendency to unders covering.

[AC1318]

I think you can decipher better home and away games of two teams some have a tendency to go over or under vice versa pending who's court. I don't see over or under as a whole going either way.

[Ganchrow]

Of the 17,591 games from 02 November 1990 through 18 November for which I happen to have totals and scores readily available, 8,665 games (49.3%) went under, 8,772 (49.6%) went over, and 204 (1.2%) pushed.

This means that over the relevant time period, of games that did not push the total about 49.8% went under and 50.2% went over.

Over the 17,387 non-push outcomes in the sample, this is within a single standard deviation of what would be expected given a 50/50 proposition.

So the short answer is that there's insignificant statistical evidence to reject the hypothesis that NBA overs and unders occur with equal likelihood.

[Illusion]

Great info as always Ganch.