Would you play at a book that eliminated OT?

[diogee]

True DJ...quite a few of those as well. I guess that it would depend on how much the line is adjusted for OT to determine whether or not under would still be a play.

[durito]

Plenty of books offer regulation time only bets on NHL (and soccer obviously)

The possibility of OT is built into the line.

People only remember the "bad beats" where they lose an OT game that they had the dog or the under -- they don't remember when they win in the opposite situation.

[mofome]

Plenty of books offer regulation time only bets on NHL (and soccer obviously)

The possibility of OT is built into the line.

People only remember the "bad beats" where they lose an OT game that they had the dog or the under -- they don't remember when they win in the opposite situation.

Lucky wins were mentioned in my post. I'd like to remove the luck factor. there have been plenty of games where im praying for OT, however.

[Bet Shooter]

My point exactly Durito. Players my even have a winning record with these types of plays, but only remember the ones that cost them money.

[durito]

Lucky wins were mentioned in my post. I'd like to remove the luck factor. there have been plenty of games where im praying for OT, however.

I'd like books to start paying me on my expected value instead of having to bet at all.

[topcat]

My point exactly Durito. Players my even have a winning record with these types of plays, but only remember the ones that cost them money.

truer words were never spoken.you never remenber the ones you hit,just the ones you lost.

[BuddyBear]

Doesn't really matter....OT is one of several factors that goes into the construction of a line.

[mofome]

I'd like books to start paying me on my expected value instead of having to bet at all.

One is plausible, the other is not.

[durito]

One is plausible, the other is not.

Eliminating OT? Sure, if a book wanted to they could easily set lines like this.

But, that's hardly going to eliminate bad luck, which is a part of gambling and which certainly evens out over time.

[mofome]

Eliminating OT? Sure, if a book wanted to they could easily set lines like this.

But, that's hardly going to eliminate bad luck, which is a part of gambling and which certainly evens out over time.

I wouldn't say it evens out over time for everyone, it depends on how many bets you place. Luck is always going to play a role, but eliminating any possible aspects of it would be my preference.

[flyingillini]

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?

I agree. Same with me.

[HedgeHog]

Eliminating regulation time would decrease losses as well.

[frostno98]

Sportsbook.com has a bonus I think that refunds your straight wager if you bet the under and it goes over.

[LVHerbie]

maybe they could give you an option to opt OT out of your bet, similar to designating if you want action if there is a pitching change... They would also obviously have to make changes to the line especially if you're betting unders/overs... then again, as someone pointed out above, OTs are figured into lines so there shouldn't be, theorically, any change long term except pyschologically...

[Bet Shooter]

I would also tend to think the totals would be more effected by the OT in the openers than the spread. Lets say a football game opener fell on a 3 or 7 point spread. I would then think they would skew the total to the over thinking that with those key numbers could be hit forcing OT. On the other side of the coin: If the spread was 5.5 then the likleyhood of OT would be less? Any thoughts on this?

[beetman]

If a book eliminated OT, dog lines would be a bit lower in addition to the totals being lower, and in football certain numbers would be worth different amounts, i.e. in the NFL, the 3 would be worth less (and of course there would be +.5 and -.5 lines in addition to pk in both football and basketball.)

[donjuan]

I would also tend to think the totals would be more effected by the OT in the openers than the spread. Lets say a football game opener fell on a 3 or 7 point spread. I would then think they would skew the total to the over thinking that with those key numbers could be hit forcing OT. On the other side of the coin: If the spread was 5.5 then the likleyhood of OT would be less? Any thoughts on this?

This is beyond retarded for so many reasons.

[clonecat]

This would have helped me out alot this college basketball season. Lost a lot of overtime games with underdogs.

[beetman]

The lower the spread, the more likely OT. The higher the spread, the less likely OT.

[bettilimbroke999]

A book that didn't offer OT would get all under bets, no one would take the over when they could take it elsewhere and have the advantage of a saving OT

[bettilimbroke999]

Sportsbook.com has a bonus I think that refunds your straight wager if you bet the under and it goes over.

Just wish they'd offer a bonus where if you've been a member there for 5 years they will process your payout within 2 months . Then maybe I'd play there again.