Why Is Betting Underdogs More Accepted Than Favorites?

[VegasDave]

Okay, I know I've asked this before, but it needs to be re-opened.

Every time I have a card full of favorites, I always get ripped on for being square and for laying too much chalk.

Meanwhile, another person can post 6 dogs and no favorites and no one EVER says "man you are a moron taking all of these points, you should pick more favorites".

What the hell is with the double standard?

Any given week there are say 50 college games, and every week about 25 dogs cover and 25 favorites cover, give or take 5 - 10 of course for standard deviation.

But in the end, dogs and faves work themselves out to be about 50/50. If dogs consistently won 54% of the time, you could blind bet the card every week and ensure profit. Everyone would do this.

So I happen to be better at finding favorites that will cover instead of dogs that will keep the game within range. Why does this make me subject to attack that dog lovers don't get?

If it werent -110/-110, I'd totally understand. But my 54% winners betting lots of faves and Capper B's 54% betting lots of dogs are equal, aren't they?

Why do I get shit for this? Isn't winning all that matters?

[element1286]

Because people equate + money or + points with value.

[Brock Landers]

one of the dumbest things i've seen too, if i go 7 for 7 and they were all faves, good for me.

[poetwarrior41]

Would you please just go watch the World Series, no one cares about your square plays. When the BM's refer to the "public", you could be our poster boy.

[VegasDave]

Would you please just go watch the World Series, no one cares about your square plays. When the BM's refer to the "public", you could be our poster boy.

If the public is hitting 54.2% this year, more power to all of us.

[poetwarrior41]

24 weekend plays........? NUFF Said.........and lose that lame headset ,your not Billy Packer.

[DeluxeLiner]

From what I understand square's used to bet the front runners, while the sharps would be betting the dogs. But now with the communication age and the prevalence of free flowing information it is less often that dogs are the sharp play (lines are much more accurate now than ever). However, I think the old adage that always taking the points is the smart play stuck with people.

I would have to disagree with you that guys betting almost all dogs don't get any flack. Pags gets flack all the time about being too old school in his picks, and that he is still stuck on dogs, because he rarely gives up points period... and almost never on the road (he is however laying quite a bit of chalk this week on the Mizzou home game)

Iono that is my 2 cents

[Richkas]

24 weekend plays........? NUFF Said.........and lose that lame headset ,your not Billy Packer.

lol

[durito]

what's wrong with 24 plays?

[VegasDave]

24 weekend plays........? NUFF Said.........and lose that lame headset ,your not Billy Packer.

I've been doing an NFL newsletter for the last 4 years picking every game against the spread. Needless to say there are plenty of games I would pass on given the chance, but I do my best and cap every one. My best bets in the NFL (my philosophy picks) are 10 - 1. I wouldn't actually play every single NFL game; I just pick them all and do write-ups for the all for the sake of my newsletter, so that really isn't "nuff said" at all.

[Dark Horse]

For the NFL I would say that betting dogs is old school. The lines are too sharp now. The underlying idea is that the public bets up the favorites, so a bet on the dog would be similar to getting free points or a better price. No longer so, or far less so today. In the NHL dogs do have an edge. Just watch the line movements in the hour before the games.

In any case, a bet on a dog or favorite does not make you cool or not cool. Ignore the people who try to convince you of that. The only thing that matters is your edge.