CFB Bettors: Do you play Totals? Why or why not

[gridironguy]

They were good to me in 2005 (21-9 ATS), but very bad to me in 2006 (9-11 ATS).

Sides have always seemed easier to me, more straightforward and easier to predict -- am I the only one who feels this way?

Totals use different 'capping muscles in the mind than Sides do and I find it more difficult to find value, although I have spent a great deal of time on Totals the past 2 seasons.

Still, I feel compelled to look at CFB Totals because it offers about 50 more numbers to 'cap each week, with potential value.

I can avoid season-wins wagers, player props, etc, but I cannot quite get myself to give up on Totals just yet, even though I want to..

Can anyone relate?


NOTE: I should have gone more like 18-12 ATS in 2005 instead of 21-9. I luckily won the Iowa St-Nebraska OVER 37 which covered in the final min, and the Orange Bowl that year between FSU and Penn St should have easily gone UNDER the total, but thanks to Triple OT, I won the OVER. There was another lucky game in there, too.

My point is that 2005 was not indicative of the average TOTALS year for me, and probably not for others. It was an unusual, albeit, magical year.

[moses millsap]

I did not like the new clock rules they implemented last year. 2005 was also a better year for totals for me. For the upcoming season, they've gone back to the old clock rules, but the kickoffs will be from the 30 yard line and not the 35 yard line.

[EaglesPhan36]

Old clock rules will make overs a bit easier to take. I say that because you won't have knuckleheads F-ing around knowing the clock stops. They will go all out at the ends of halves - I think. I definitely look at totals, but probably only play them 30% of the time in CFB.

[jjgold]

Overs only

clock just keeps fukkin stopping all the time, no D in college also.

[gridironguy]

Overs only

clock just keeps fukkin stopping all the time, no D in college also.

JJ, I have some buddies who only play Overs as well, but I've told them that this is akin to only playing Favorites, and no Underdogs.

You've gotta mix it up, don't you?

Theoretically, over the course of a season, 50% of Overs will cover and 50% of Unders.

There is value in Unders, too! Sometimes the total is simply set too high!

[pags11]

interesting thread topic...

I've played totals in the past, but as of three years ago I stopped playing them for a variety of reasons...

the main reason is that I handicap for fun and I have a tough time rooting for teams to score points, or not score points...also, in some aspects many handicappers think that picking a total is easier than picking a side...I would argue that it's just as difficult, if not moreso do to the greater chance involved (pick sixes, missed FG's, etc.)...

that being said, I would advise someone never to bet a college under...yep, never...in college with the clock stopping so much, if I were to play totals (which I don't), I'd only consider overs...

[isetcap]

that being said, I would advise someone never to bet a college under...yep, never...in college with the clock stopping so much, if I were to play totals (which I don't), I'd only consider overs...

Good advice. Very sound. I only wonder if those crazy books will figure this out also and adjust the numbers accordingly. Probably not.

[pags11]

isetcap,

you can really tell that you don't wager all that much... ...try not to show it so much in the future...


I've had unders before where the game is 10-7 with 10 mins. left in the fourth...it goes to OT and the final is 51-49 (anyone remember that Arkansas game about 4 years ago that went into like 6 OTs?, actually they had another one vs. Kentucky the same year that went to 5 OTs)...

for someone that actually watches college football (unlike idiots like isetcap), you can understand what I'm saying about not playing college unders...

[pags11]

the clock stops after first downs, after anyone goes out of bounds with the ball (remember Isetcap, our football isn't round), XP trys and 2 Pt. conversions are untimed downs...unders in college football are a lot harder to hit than in any other sport (plus watching the games will make u sick to see them blow up sometimes)...

it's never a good thread at SBR unless you get some idiot like isetcap to chime in...

anyone else with comments actually related to the topic have an opinion (and please no ghost bettors)...

[gridironguy]

that being said, I would advise someone never to bet a college under...yep, never...in college with the clock stopping so much, if I were to play totals (which I don't), I'd only consider overs...

Pags, you and JJ are two awesome posters who are two of my favorites (I mean that), but I very respectfully disagree with you both.

Chance of OT is probably 7% or less in CFB. We would have to look at some empirical data for that.

Anyhow, to tell people NEVER to bet an UNDER is akin to telling people NEVER to bet on a FAV or NEVER to bet on a DOG.

Favs and Dogs are about 50/50 ATS over the course of a season, same with Overs and Unders. Over the course of an entire season, it's about 50/50.

There is value on both Overs AND Unders, just like there is value on both Favs AND Dogs.

I'm just not sure of the best methods to find said value on Totals, but I know it exists.

[pags11]

gridiron guy,

thanks for your input...while I understand what you are saying about the chance of OT, I hope you understand that is just one of the reasons that I don't bet college unders...you can give me all the stats you want about overs and unders, but I'm telling you bro if you watch these games it's unbearable to have an under in these four hour marathons...another example of a game last year was that Penn. St. Ohio St. game...it was like 10-6 Penn St. in the 4th and then there were like 21 or 24 points scored in the final minutes of the game and it came close to or went over the total (don't know for sure cause as I said I don't play totals anymore)...I stand by my stance that I will never tell someone to play a college under...just my deal and I've provided much of my reasoning...other players have their own beliefs, this is just one of mine...and it's helped keep me profitable over the years...

[gridironguy]

One need be very selective with Unders, I think. But when I went 21-9 back in 2005, The first 6 totals I played that year were Unders and I went 5-1.

I think it's a matter of being very selective with Unders. I hate taking favorites of more than 21 pts, but several times a season, there is a 3 TD fav that you just know is gonna step on the throttle and keep it going until they're up by 50..

Good discussion.

[isetcap]

isetcap,

you can really tell that you don't wager all that much... ...try not to show it so much in the future...


I've had unders before where the game is 10-7 with 10 mins. left in the fourth...it goes to OT and the final is 51-49 (anyone remember that Arkansas game about 4 years ago that went into like 6 OTs?, actually they had another one vs. Kentucky the same year that went to 5 OTs)...

for someone that actually watches college football (unlike idiots like isetcap), you can understand what I'm saying about not playing college unders...

Yes, we should all heed your advice based on some idiotic bet you made which you classify as a bad beat. Next time you suffer some "terrible" loss after you pick a dog, make sure you let us all know so we can make sure we never select any worthless dogs in the future. It's always fun to read your sob stories. They show some of us just how much wisdom your advice holds. If I were part of your "group", I'd send you $5 to cover your loss. Then you could start betting unders again and perhaps resemble a sharp bettor.

[pags11]

hahaha...$5 yeah right isetcrap...and from a guy that doesn't wager himself...

in regards to your comments regarding my "bad beat stories"...I vent maybe 2 three times a year and make hundreds if not thousands of bets...c'mon dude, you need to get over yourself...

you would never be a part of a real handicapping group cause you don't bring shit to the table...all you will be a part of is your little homo forum troll group...you're like the nerd watching the wiffle ball game 'cause no one picked him...or do you even know what wiffle ball is?...

I stand by my opinion regarding college unders and no forum troll or anyone else will make me feel differently...

perhaps resemble a sharp bettor?...that's ****in' funny...hahahaha...really, that is...I'm ****in' legit and everyone not just here knows it, not just here, but on any other legit forum on the net...

[isetcap]

Your Neteller proclamations showed everybody how legit you are.

[Hoja Verdes]

i can't wait to fade so many people here as they have multiple character meltdowns all over the forum while they spend their time arguing instead of watching football (not talking about anyone in here of course, just making a random statement).

[LargeMouthBass]

Last season, Ohio St and under covered virtually every week. Also, over on Hawaii games covered often regardless of the spread. Hopefully there will be couple teams where over or under will be consistent this year...

[Dark Horse]

Classic pic Hoja.

[pags11]

ok isetcap, once again proving you are uber gay...

I've made several proclimations on this forum about many books and ewallets that ultimately went belly up...I was right about every single one of them, with the exception of neteller...

that's like holding a winning handicapper to his 40% losses and not looking at his 60% wins...

guys like SBR John said the exact same thing as me, yet you don't talk shit to him, because you are a pussy...all indications were that neteller was going down the tubes...I was wrong, oh ****in' well...I didn't ever see you on here thanking me for warning you from playing with cascade or betroyal (again because you only bet on how many times a night you are going to wack off to your mom)...get the **** over it...

[The Nit]

It will be interesting to see how the totals adjust to the new clock and kickoff rules. The clock rule change should add another 10 plays or so to the game (which I'd put at about 2 or 3 more points).

The kickoff rule has the potential to be HUGE, maybe as much as a touchdown per game. I follow PSU closely and one of the big reasons their defense has been so successful over the last few years is because they CONSISTENTLY put the ball in the end zone on kickoffs. Moving back 5 yards, this is going to change. It gives so many more opportunities for a kr to bust a big one but also, drives are not going to consistently start at the 20 yard line.

Overall, I think you'll see a lot more overs in games with lower totals and also with teams with breakaway kick returners (or poor kickoff coverage).

[WileOut]

I cant ever read largemouthbass posts because of his avatar. I read a word and glance over, read a word and glance over, stare, read, glance, read, stare