What is the point betting +3 dogs in NFL??

yisman · 09-28-12, 12:06 AM

It is fairly common for the underdog to lose by 3.

So you're added on the possibility of a push there to the chance of winning and the admittedly small chances of the underdog losing by 1 or 2.

BiggieSmalls · 09-28-12, 12:19 AM

Doggies had a good ATS week last week, let's see how they fair this weekend

big0mar · 09-28-12, 11:37 AM

Why is this polluting HTT?

indio · 09-29-12, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by yisman

It is fairly common for the underdog to lose by 3.

So you're added on the possibility of a push there to the chance of winning and the admittedly small chances of the underdog losing by 1 or 2.

Looking at the margins of victory in over 4200 NFL games from 1944 to 2010, it's no surprise that 3 points is by far the most common margin of victory at 15.9%. Somewhat surprising (at least to me) is that a margin of victory of 1 or 2 points occurred at a 11.8% clip.

I actually share the original posters sentiment, but for slightly different reasons. I think if you like a team at +3 , they are usually a better value at ML +150 or higher.

Using the pool of around 4200 games, if 16% of games land on 3, what % of the time will a 3 point underdog lose by exactly 3? Let's say 10%, and I think that is a little on the high side. How often does a 3 point dog lose by 1 or 2? Let's say 6%, and that's probably a tad on the high side. So if we want to achieve a 5% edge on our bets, and the 3 pt dog loses by exactly 3 10% of the time, and loses by 1 or 2 6% of the time, and since a game ending in a tie is so remote, what % does the dog have to win outright for us to obtain that 5% edge? The answer would be 44%, which if the 3pt dog was -110 would give us around a 5% edge. If that same +3 -110 was also offered ML at +150, and we instead bet the same amount at +150, we achieve close to a 10% edge on that same 44% win rate.

Obviously, books are sharper than to give away a 5% edge easily, and I've oversimplified since 3 point dogs who are -110 are not always offered at +150 or higher. But it's a fairly close generalization, and while every bet is unique onto itself, I've always believed betting a 3 point dog straight up for +150 or more is a better bet than taking the 3 and laying -110.

Now, using a 3 point dog in teasers is a totally different animal, but that is a different topic for a different day.

TroyGreen · 10-03-12, 03:46 PM

I think there is research regarding dogs winning straight up in the <+3 range. Say it may make more sense betting the ML than taking +3. Scrub the net, I know there is an article or two out there with research and probabilities. If you find something could you please update this thread?

TroyGreen · 10-03-12, 03:50 PM

Next time ill scroll down. Indio already has some data for us to work with. Thanks!

yisman · 10-03-12, 03:53 PM

thanks indio, that's useful

lunchbawks · 10-03-12, 10:04 PM

Vikings, Bears won SU

take the ML on these things

tomseaver286 · 10-03-12, 10:51 PM

I don;t believe long haul that there is any value taking less than 7 points. Just my opinion.

diondublin · 11-01-12, 02:14 PM

[QUOTE=indio;16196314]Looking at the margins of victory in over 4200 NFL games from 1944 to 2010,

It's a different game now; best use data from the past 20 years or so...

mr.ed · 11-01-12, 10:50 PM

[QUOTE=diondublin;16603446]

Originally posted by indio

Looking at the margins of victory in over 4200 NFL games from 1944 to 2010,

It's a different game now; best use data from the past 20 years or so...

Agreed. I don't think you can go all the way back to 1944 and draw any meaningful conclusions. Did they even have the forward pass back then? Lots of rule changes in last 70 years.....such as the adoption of 2 point conversions in 1994 which have made 1 point games less common.

Bigbill365 · 11-01-12, 11:35 PM

thats why you always play the alternate spread of 3.5 you increase your chances of winning by alot and only sacrifice little money if you win

indio · 11-02-12, 02:02 AM

[QUOTE=mr.ed;16609778]

Originally posted by diondublin

Agreed. I don't think you can go all the way back to 1944 and draw any meaningful conclusions. Did they even have the forward pass back then? Lots of rule changes in last 70 years.....such as the adoption of 2 point conversions in 1994 which have made 1 point games less common.

Obviously that's a typo that should read 1994 to 2010, which you should have been able to ascertain by the fact it said 4200 games to 2010. I mean, come on, 32 teams for the last 10 years playing 16 games a year, 30 and 31 teams before that from 1995 to 2002, and you're actually thinking only 4200 games could have been played between 1944 and 2010?.

I highly doubt that any regular season point spread information is even available from 1944 through 1970. But I see we had two geniuses chiming in to let us all know that there's been a lot of rule changes in the last 70 years.

tripled83 · 11-02-12, 03:48 AM

I think +3 is good value, it's -1 I don't like

Big Bear · 11-02-12, 07:51 AM

yeah betting +3 is not dumb at all.

it's these idiots that bet +1 instead of ML who don't know what they are doing...

WHATaTEASE · 11-02-12, 07:59 AM

Rarely do you see a +3 dog cover without the win, if you like the small dog take the ML !

mr.ed · 11-02-12, 09:18 AM

[QUOTE=indio;16611590]

Originally posted by mr.ed

Obviously that's a typo that should read 1994 to 2010, which you should have been able to ascertain by the fact it said 4200 games to 2010. I mean, come on, 32 teams for the last 10 years playing 16 games a year, 30 and 31 teams before that from 1995 to 2002, and you're actually thinking only 4200 games could have been played between 1944 and 2010?.

I highly doubt that any regular season point spread information is even available from 1944 through 1970. But I see we had two geniuses chiming in to let us all know that there's been a lot of rule changes in the last 70 years.

You can find that old data if you look hard enough. For example, Knute Rockne teams were 15-2 ATS as a road dog after a home win.

JR007 · 11-02-12, 10:23 AM

gotta luck at push charts to see if you have a edge,......10% of games fall on three

slacker00 · 11-02-12, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by WHATaTEASE

Rarely do you see a +3 dog cover without the win, if you like the small dog take the ML !

I have to agree. 3 is such a push number, I want to avoid a push outcome. Buying off the 3 is too expensive to be +EV.

Another option is to tease the +3, but I tend to only do that if I have empty legs of some other teasers that I like.