Originally Posted by
Mocknroll
Have just done some research and I'm quite surprised by the results.
All results below show you whether the total covered by 6.5 or more. So if an over is set at 50, and the end score is 57 or more, this counts as covering. Under set at 50, and the score lands on 43 or less, this counts as covering etc.*
As you are seeing from week to week the totals and lines for that matter get consistently sharper and sharper... Therefore I would like this theory early in the year, but hate it as the year progresses... Sure you might get a statisical blip one week and win, but for the most part the lines are only going to get sharper.. Espcially in the NFL, now if your talking NCAAF then thats completely different story, way to many games for the lines to all be sharp, so there, you can def pick and choose huge advantage games.
OVERS
WEEK 1: 7-1
WEEK 2: 6-2
WEEK 3: 5-2
WEEK 4: 5-4
UNDERS
WEEK 1: 7-1
WEEK 2: 7-1
WEEK 3: 7-3
WEEK 4: 3-3
Basically, totals lines that books are dishing out are not even close. If an over hits, it goes well over and the same with unders. We’re not seeing a lot of 44.5's that finishes at 47 etc. Considering the difference in payout here is almost + an extra unit, it seems insane to play standard overs or unders and not the alternate total that pays out between +175 to +225 depending on the size of the initial total.
Of course, you have to get your pick right in the first place, but the rule here seems to be if you like a total, sell some points and make more money. For every one you hit you can have 2 losses and still be even.