Would you play at a book that eliminated OT?

[mofome]

imo, results including OT are unjust. you cap a team to stay within a number or under a total over the period of regulation. If a team is + and tied at the end of regulation, that should end the wager. If a game has 194 points at the end of regulation, that should end the wager. certainly people luck into some wins and people get screwed on some, i would prefer that as many 'lucky' factors be eliminated as possible. OT should be fine on ml wagers but not wagers ATS or totals.

How much different would lines be at books that eliminated OT? Basketball/football?

[Kellen]

Interesting idea. I do believe that if you bet a + team and there is a tie at end of regulation, the win should go to you.

[topgame85]

It would be pointless i think and cause more confusion and problems really because a lot of people fail to read the rules and then get pissed when they think they won but actually lost, maybe if the book did something like soccer and gave a very high odds option for OT it would be acceptable and understood

[pokernut9999]

About 8 or 9 years ago the books did not count OT in college football on the totals.

[diogee]

I would play there since I play way more unders than overs and lost quite a few because of overtime.

[Mattn3236]

NO

[Kellen]

NO

Quality post!

[topcat]

imo, results including OT are unjust. you cap a team to stay within a number or under a total over the period of regulation. If a team is + and tied at the end of regulation, that should end the wager. If a game has 194 points at the end of regulation, that should end the wager. certainly people luck into some wins and people get screwed on some, i would prefer that as many 'lucky' factors be eliminated as possible. OT should be fine on ml wagers but not wagers ATS or totals.

How much different would lines be at books that eliminated OT? Basketball/football?

i bet overs 95 percent of the time on the over.the books know what iam going to bet before i bet it ,so they go up a piont on every total i play.the answer would be no .

[MBENZ]

Yes.

[Mattn3236]

Overtime has resulted in more wins for me because of overs and that's why I prefer ot. Is that a good answer for you Kellen?

[Kellen]

Thats better, just wanted some reasoning behind your answer.

[diogee]

Kellen=one word...Clemson.

[Kellen]

Kellen=one word...Clemson.

Thats the exact game that popped in my head when I read this thread. I'll never forget that game.

[diogee]

One of the absolute bad beats anyone will ever have....just 1 more reason why I would play at a non-OT book.

[luciano]

Yes, I would bet all my UNDER totals there obviously.

[LT Profits]

Should have the option, just like hockey and soccer

[topcat]

Overtime has resulted in more wins for me because of overs and that's why I prefer ot. Is that a good answer for you Kellen?

same here,thats 95 percent of what i play[overs].

[topcat]

Kellen=one word...Clemson.

do you mean the auburn,and clemson game.[peach bowl]that was a shitty lose.

[donjuan]

You guys realize that overtime is built into the line, right?

[Kellen]

do you mean the auburn,and clemson game.[peach bowl]that was a shitty lose.

No it was Clemson and UNC b-ball game. but that peach bowl was bad as well.

[diogee]

do you mean the auburn,and clemson game.[peach bowl]that was a shitty lose.

No in the NCAA...Clemson +9 at UNC. UNC covered in double overtime and destroyed a ton of us on this forum.

[topgame85]

Oh man I remember that game haha I cashed that ticket I didn't even realize it till the next morning because I thought it was done I was on the way home from the track and checked the score on my phone and saw OT and said oh well forget it

[Kellen]

No in the NCAA...Clemson +9 at UNC. UNC covered in double overtime and destroyed a ton of us on this forum.

There were a ton of us destroyed here. I think there were probably even a couple of suicides that evening.

[diogee]

I wouldn't doubt it...absolutely fucking brutal and was the day after I lost a +8 dog in OT as well.

[topcat]

No in the NCAA...Clemson +9 at UNC. UNC covered in double overtime and destroyed a ton of us on this forum.

iam a die hard unc fan,but clemson should have won that game in regulation.that game played on fsn on sunday night.game also went over the total to.i know how you guys fell ive had some shitty beats to.

[topcat]

feel goddamint.i hate spelling

[diogee]

Yeah....bad beats are all part of the game. No way to avoid them but it seems that 80% of my bad beats are in OT on dogs and unders. I never get lucky if I have an over...seems 1 of the teams always decides to shoot 30%.

[mofome]

You guys realize that overtime is built into the line, right?

yeah, thats why i asked what kind of overall effect it would have on the lines in hoops/foots.

[AgainstAllOdds]

At my book, they dont include OT in soccer...I dont know if this is the same or not everywhere else.

[topcat]

Yeah....bad beats are all part of the game. No way to avoid them but it seems that 80% of my bad beats are in OT on dogs and unders. I never get lucky if I have an over...seems 1 of the teams always decides to shoot 30%.

i bet overs,and i have been able to hold my own over the years,but this year i have had alot of games in colleage football,and nba basketball to sail way over the first half line,just to watch teams not score a damn thing in the second half.i dont bet first,because i feel if they dont get it in the first,your bet is still alive.this is my demon.

[Reload]

I would be absolutely in favor of it.

[Bet Shooter]

I would only bet all the dog plays there. If you find that the majority of your plays are favorites (like a lot of the general population) then it would hurt you long term. As for the totals, It wouldn't matter. They would adjust the line accordingly. I don't see a correlation between overtime and unders. You only see it that way after the bad beat and the results are in. Do you remember all the winners that you had by the same overtime rules? These tend to be forgotten. They didn't hurt as much.

[diogee]

Of course the lines would be adjusted...but by how much. A decent amount of the totals I have lost due to OT have had a decent cushion before going to OT.

[donjuan]

A decent amount of the totals I have lost due to OT have had a decent cushion before going to OT.

And the unders you have won by 1-2 points?

[HedgeHog]

I play more Unders than Overs, so yes. But as DonJuan stated, the line takes into account OT. A few points are added to every total for this reason--and the fact that more people bet Overs than Unders. So if a Book offered this type of bet, expect the Total to be somewhat lower. Now the Under Player will sometimes get get burned by this line differential in regulation. Then you'll wish you bet the game elsewhere at the higher Total.