Been playing around with 2h over\unders as of late, and I'm so far 3-0 on these plays.
What I do is sit out the total on all full games, and let the first half play out. If the 2h line would put the *opening game total* off by 12% or more, I make the play that puts my trust in the books ability to cap game totals.
Example: Tonight the Warriors\LAC total opened at 209.5
1H Total: 131 pts scored (way over projected)
2H Total: 107.5 pts scored
For the 2H under to lose, a total of 239 pts would have to be scored in the game.
That would be 30 points *over* the original projection of 209.5 for GAME total set by Vegas.
30\209.5 = 14.3% more points scored than Vegas first anticipated. The game finished at 234 points scored, 5 points under a loss - not exactly a slam dunk, hell, had the game been closer we likely would have lost but I think there's at least something to look at here.
I won't be able to get on the computer and do the math for all plays, but if anyone wants to jump in here and indicate that we have a play, I will be checking in this thread and playing every situation small. I should be able to get in here and do the math on a bunch of them, but a little help would appreciate if anyone wants to play along.
Again, all I'm doing here is saying that Vegas isn't that far off on setting their game totals - I believe the books are good at what they do. Teams shoot lights out in the 1H all the time, and then slow it down\shoot poorly in the 2H. On the contrary, teams play like garbage in the 1H, and then really pour it on in the second half scoring lots of points.
May be personal bias, but I personally like making the play for SECOND HALF UNDER (i.e a very high scoring first half) than I do the other way around....but I'll be playing it either way as long as the 2H total puts the original game total up or down by 11% or more.
I've done this in the past, and I've had some good success doing it, though I didn't track the results. Anyone have data on it? Of course, when playing 2H UNDERS you run the risk of OT completely ******* you, but... as they say, that's why they call it gamblin!
What I do is sit out the total on all full games, and let the first half play out. If the 2h line would put the *opening game total* off by 12% or more, I make the play that puts my trust in the books ability to cap game totals.
Example: Tonight the Warriors\LAC total opened at 209.5
1H Total: 131 pts scored (way over projected)
2H Total: 107.5 pts scored
For the 2H under to lose, a total of 239 pts would have to be scored in the game.
That would be 30 points *over* the original projection of 209.5 for GAME total set by Vegas.
30\209.5 = 14.3% more points scored than Vegas first anticipated. The game finished at 234 points scored, 5 points under a loss - not exactly a slam dunk, hell, had the game been closer we likely would have lost but I think there's at least something to look at here.
I won't be able to get on the computer and do the math for all plays, but if anyone wants to jump in here and indicate that we have a play, I will be checking in this thread and playing every situation small. I should be able to get in here and do the math on a bunch of them, but a little help would appreciate if anyone wants to play along.
Again, all I'm doing here is saying that Vegas isn't that far off on setting their game totals - I believe the books are good at what they do. Teams shoot lights out in the 1H all the time, and then slow it down\shoot poorly in the 2H. On the contrary, teams play like garbage in the 1H, and then really pour it on in the second half scoring lots of points.
May be personal bias, but I personally like making the play for SECOND HALF UNDER (i.e a very high scoring first half) than I do the other way around....but I'll be playing it either way as long as the 2H total puts the original game total up or down by 11% or more.
I've done this in the past, and I've had some good success doing it, though I didn't track the results. Anyone have data on it? Of course, when playing 2H UNDERS you run the risk of OT completely ******* you, but... as they say, that's why they call it gamblin!
Keep up the work.